Introduction 

The World Humanitarian Summit (Istanbul, 2016) stressed the need to protect the rights of young people (between 10–24 years old) and involve them in humanitarian response efforts. Upon this summit, The Compact for Young People in Humanitarian Action (CYPHA) was launched to further support efforts led by and for young people – including the Global Refugee Youth Consultations in 2015–2016, the 2015 Doha Youth Declaration on Reshaping the Humanitarian Agenda, and the 2015 United Nations Security Council Resolution 2250 on youth, peace, and security.[i]

Adolescence and post-conflict periods share many characteristics; both are transitional phases marked by conflicts, uncertainties, aspirations, and anxiety. Unlike children, who are covered in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), youth have not been meaningfully involved in the international peace and development efforts as most conflict-related data simply ignore them, making it extremely difficult to analyse youth-related issues and act accordingly. On the contrary, youth have come under public focus being related to hostilities, warfare, irresponsibility and other harmful behaviours. Consequently, many international organizations–including the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children `(WCRWC), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), The World Bank (WB), and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF)– have recently realized the importance of putting youth on the international agenda and consider them a significant target group while working towards peacebuilding[ii].

This Youth Agenda Report in Syria intends to provide organizations that work with or are led by youth with necessary information and analysis required to improve youth response, assess programs, and tailor interventions to achieve more meaningful youth participation. It also provides insights into the role of youth in peacebuilding and community development as well as empowering NGOs programs to foster the role of youth in the Syrian community.

Research Methodology

This research has adopted a bottom-up participatory approach by developing research questions jointly with Youth for Change Network research team. The questionnaire was developed based on the output of FGDs about the 2250 resolutions. These FGDs took place in 14 different geographic locations in the North West of Syria and were attended by representatives of youth teams and teams led by youth themselves. Moreover, the participatory approach was implemented in data collection phase in 18 FGDs on youth conception, motivations, meaningful participation and empowerment, besides more than 55 interviews with youth teams’ leaders and 14 NGOs working with or for youth in the North West of Syria. The study used the Participatory Action Research-PAR approach by building on case studies about organizations and youth teams’ practices and their success stories on related concepts. 

The research focused on the main problem that faces active youth in the process of peacebuilding, namely violence, depreciation, marginalization and despair on one side and the lack of attention given to their efforts that aim at building peace and empowering them on the other side.

This guideline aims at exploring youth conceptions and meaningful participation and also aims at shedding light at youth projects and initiatives. It presents several guiding steps to promote youth empowerment programs in general and promote their roles in community work and peacebuilding process in particular.

Main questions and aspects of the guideline:

A)  What are the motivations that affect youth involvement in community work and peacebuilding (what are the values, knowledge, role models, ….) and what are youth essential rights?

B) What are youth roles in general and their roles maintaining peace in particular? What are the challenges that hinder achieving these goals? What are the sectors that youth have succeeded in? what empowered them to achieve this end? What are the required empowering tools to help shed more light on youth initiatives?

C) What is the role of civil society organizations in empowering youth roles? What are the existent empowering programs, institutions and policies for the future?        

The study consists of 3 chapters; first chapter discusses youth definition, motivations, rights, challenges and concerns by conducting 10 focus- group discussions FGDs with 72 members of Community-Based Organizations CBOs and voluntary teams VTs, and 55 key informant interviews KIIs. The second chapter focuses on meaningful participation by conducting 4 FGDs with CBOs and vocational training teams, the aforementioned 55 KIIs, and 14 KIIs with Local NGOs. The last chapter discusses youth empowerment and concerned institutions, policies, legislations, and programs by conducting 4 FGDs with CBOs and VTs, the same KIIs, and 14 KIIs with Local NGOs.

The study is a practical application of the partnership pillar within UNSCR2250, as leaders of volunteer teams and leaders of organizations working with youth contributed to the success of this guideline by presenting case studies and success stories that expressed the importance of youth participation in community, humanitarian and development work.

The participatory approach was used to develop recommendations by holding two meetings with volunteer teams and organizations in Syria and Turkey to present the results of the research and discuss the recommendations in a participatory manner.

The participatory action research helped the organizations and teams to consider their issues collectively and enabled organizations and youth to generate new ideas and think more practically to develop their policies and practices to involve youth. And also helped them to offer recommendations and practical solutions to promote partnerships in order to design high involvement programs of youth in humanitarian and development work.

Research limitations:

o   The research focused on youth roles in volunteer teams and organizations role, however didn’t cover the government role thoroughly as the government role is very poor and several parties are overtaking this role in Syria.

o   The research focused on humanitarian and development work with or organizations led by youth and seeking to maximize youth participation in their mandate. However, the research didn’t target organizations that focus mainly on humanitarian work in their mandates.

o   Partnership and participation pillar were the core of the research, the pillars of protection, prevention, disarmament and reintegration were left out due to the difficulty of influencing on these pillars within such security situation in Syria. 

Research Problem

Where young people have experienced armed power, political promises in recruitment, and positive self-concepts and identity in armed conflict, the transition into 'peace' becomes very difficult. Moreover, inter-generational conflict is likely to emerge after war and other periods of social and political turmoil.  

Even youth who have been actively involved in non-violent mass movements, rather than in war-fighting or political violence, are marginalized during political transitions, as political power flows to adult leadership, elders, or external power-broking elites. Some of these dynamics were vividly seen during the 'Arab Spring.' But the pattern of youth activists being out-maneuvered by older and more experienced political actors is widespread and it cuts across regions and regime-types.
Youth are subordinate to adult elites who make political decisions, sign peace accords, write history, and design aid programs. And despite being the catalysts and fighters of wars and revolutions, despite having their futures drastically altered by conflict, youth get left out of many aspects of peacebuilding. This is more than an ironic contradiction. It is a set of processes around which further reflection, dialogue and research is needed.

Although every context has important differences, some aspects of the setting are all too familiar: in post-war periods, traditional structures and/or key institutions (such as education, health or leisure) that might protect young people, mitigate youth violence, and productively channel youth energies, are often non-existent or fragile.

Parental, elder and external authority may be disputed. Often, pre-war grievances of youth can be linked to repressive or unfair systems of local governance and resource distribution, which remain unchanged post-war or are actively reproduced through donor aid efforts.

Likewise, re-opening schools, while essential, may not address the needs of older youth, and teachers may be distrusted and/or they may be distrustful of youth. The ambition, criticism and creativity of youth are often not rewarded or fostered in these contexts. 

New conflicts threaten from outside, as regional wars and rumors of war persist. Various forms of state-sponsored and factional violence continue to target youth (both directly and indirectly), gangs, community defense organizations and militias that may develop with marginal youth at their centers. War-related trauma is widespread and the practical difficulties of economic survival compound it, creating new grievances.

Many of the same problems experienced pre and during war still exist but they can take on new meanings. A peace process, democratic transition, or a reconstruction period are all powerful symbols, as well as a lived experience with high expectations. As both a symbol and an experience shape attitudes and values and young people's interpretations of its relative costs from an important test of its legitimacy and sustainability.

Many studies have shown how youth are creative and resilient, and that most young people are not violent, yet peace processes continue to fail to create a political space welcoming to youth. In addition to being an injustice, this is not a helpful message, nor an accurate portrayal of young people's actual activities or inclinations. It suggests, unintentionally, that youth have no proper role in non-violent conflict - in the politics of peace.

Further research aimed at knowing more about the barriers to youth inclusion in the politics of 'post-conflict' peacebuilding, including how leaders perceive youth and the risks involved in their inclusion, would be welcome. The challenge of integrating young people's needs and interests with those of peacebuilding is multifaceted, and full of grey areas. For example, there may be no bright line between those who are combatants, nonviolent protestors, human rights activists, and/or who shift into gangs and criminal organizations, after being active in political struggles, as they seek to find a place for themselves in their new societies. People can have all of these roles at different times - an important thing to remember when considering present 'terrorists' or 'Jihadis'.

Unfortunately, this lack of distinction can also help local leaders justify repressive policies towards youth whose politics threaten their interests. Governments defining non-violent protesters as 'thugs' or 'terrorists' illustrate how those labels are often convenient and politicized. Yet, none of this should be surprising.

This dynamic of youth-to-adult subordination simply mirrors other arenas in which adults are reluctant to share power with youth or to incorporate young's people knowledge into their projects (unless its suits their interests and mirrors their own views).

Within academic, research and policy development circles, we also need to be alert to how we keep this division alive as well. For instance, the language of youth 'crisis' or 'harnessing' youth as 'assets' can be a double-edged sword.

These labels command attention and rightly identify youth capabilities. They get youth on the policy agenda. But they also, in a way, reproduce the logic of the military recruiters, in that they engage in a cost-benefit analysis that employs youth as means to an end.

Should this kind of instrumentalization of youth matter when the laudable end is 'peace'? Is positioning youth as the solution, rather than the problem, not a clever counter strategy?  May it persuade elites to, in their own self-interest, take youth on board? [iii]

[i] IASC. With us & for us: Working with and for Young People in Humanitarian and Protracted Crises, UNICEF and NRC for the Compact for Young People in Humanitarian Action, 2020 https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/events/iasc-guidelines-working-and-young-people-humanitarian-and-protracted-crises

[ii] Kemper, Yvonne. “Youth in War-to-Peace Transitions: Approaches of International Organizations Executive Summary and Introduction.”, Bergof Research center (2007).

[iii]  McEvoy-Levy, Siobhan. ‘Youth and the Challenges of 'Post-Conflict' Peacebuilding’. UNICEF-IRC 30 Sep 2014. Available at: (https://www.unicef-irc.org/article/1067-youth-and-the-challenges-of-post-conflict-peacebuilding.html)