ࡱ                >  	               C         E         6  7  8  9  :  ;  <  =  >  ?  @  A  B   @	                 bjbjFF                  	 < ,  ,   /:  3               p                                                               f      f      f  $                               P   B  T    l                $  @   d      d      d      -      -      -                                    $    R  Q    2                    f                              @   -                  2                         d              d    G R                       $    l   d      f      d                                                                                                    -  m    :  ,   f                                                              (     d           @!              !      H          H 	   H         <!              (                                                                              f      (     -  R            '  T  {                                    -      -      -      2     2               n            {  "               n                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         CREATING A PROCESS FIT FOR CHILDRENChildren and young peoples participation in the preparations for the UN Special Session on ChildrenAn Evaluation of Save the Children's Support to Children's and Young People's Participation In the National and International Preparations for the UN General Assembly Special Session on Children (February 2000 to September 2001)Evaluator: Michael EthertonContentsExecutive Summary							page 4IntroductionList of abbreviations							page 6Introduction to the Evaluation						page 7Parameters for the Evaluation						page 7The Methodology for the Evaluation					page 8	Acknowledgements							page 10Chapter 1: The Process of Children's and Young People's Participation.								Page 11Participation in the Special Session as a Process				page 12Chapter 2: The International Save the Children Alliance Task Group on Participation 								page 14Pre-TGP								page 14Review of the work of the TGP						page 15Major Milestones							page 30Documents Received from the TGP					page 31Chapter 3: Children and Young People's Participation in Countries and in RegionsAfrica 									page 33East Asia and the Pacific							page 44South Asia								page 60The Americas 								page 77Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East					page 84Chapter 4: Lessons Learned 						page 96For children and young people who participated at any level or who want to learn from this experience 								page 97For facilitators of children and young people's participation 		page 101For The International Save the Children Alliance & individual Save the Children Head Offices							page 103For in-country Save the Childrens, NGOs, Children's Organisations, civil society groups 							page 106 For UNICEF and participating International Organisations 		page 109AppendicesSupplementary information from Central America				page 111Supplementary information from South America					page 119TGP Reports, Global Reports and New York PrepCom Documents			page 153List of regional reports, by region							page 155Participation in the Special Session preparatory events				page 158Table from Dr. Joachim Theiss paper						page 159Executive Summary"Creating a Process Fit for Children" is an evaluation of Save the Childrens support to children and young peoples participation in the national, regional and international preparations for the UN General Assembly Special Session on Children. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the effectiveness of Save the Children's efforts to ensure meaningful childrens participation in the build-up to the Special Session (from January 2000 to August 2001).  Chapter 1 of the evaluation looks at the overall process of childrens participation over this period which aimed at ensuring a wide-ranging engagement by children and young people at every level.  It emphasizes that the International Save the Children Alliance was committed to developing this overall process of childrens participation rather than simply working towards a single high profile event.  This chapter examines how this task was addressed.Chapter 2 of the evaluation provides an overview of the work done by Save the Children's Task Group on Participation (TGP).  This group co-ordinated Save the Children's work at the global level.  It looks at events before the establishment of the TGP and the major milestones that followed its creation.  It assesses the success of the group in providing a clear organizational focus for this work.  Chapter 3 of the evaluation examines the work done at both country and regional levels in supporting childrens participation.   The information for this chapter was drawn from country and regional level evaluations, as well as from interviews and questionnaires filled out by a both children and adults.  There was also feedback from people who were not involved in the Special Session on Children but who are committed to furthering childrens participation.The report concludes with an analysis of the lessons learned during this process.  It begins by highlighting a number of key lessons for children and young people who want to learn from this experience how to enhance their own participation.  This includes lessons about representation and being selected by peers; the importance of adequate preparation; the need for good follow-up both in-country and internationally and, finally, ways in which experiences such as the Special Session can be built upon in adult life.The next section is addressed to facilitators of children and young people's participation. It considers what can be learned from facilitating the participation of large groups of children and young people in such events.  This includes the request from children and young people that many more of their peers should be involved in similar processes.  It also identifies the vital role of facilitators as the main point of reference for children following an event.  They are the ones that the young people are most likely to contact for follow-up and the facilitators can play a role in helping to establish in-country enabling adult environments.For the International Save the Children Alliance and individual Save the Children members, the next section highlights the selection process of children and young people as the key starting point for any new process of participation as well as the need for the best practice lessons to be institutionalized within the organization.  Child protection, which was so important to the process, needs to continue to be a high priority. The following section is addressed to Save the Children country programs, NGOs and civil society groups.  It looks at what the national coalitions that came together to support children's participation can learn from the process (e.g. about the selection of young participants and child protection policies).  This includes the message that childrens participation in civil society strengthens all civil society.  There are also broader lessons to be learned about creating an enabling environment for childrens participation in civil society and the importance of the training of staff and field workers in skills to facilitate this.  The final section is directed at UNICEF and other UN and INGO partners and considers how they could develop their role in the future.This evaluation has helped Save the Children to learn more about childrens expectations of our organization and how we can improve our work with them.  Save the Children hopes that it will also provide insights to other organizations on how they might go about developing their own work in supporting childrens participation. Abbreviations and Acronyms Throughout this evaluation a number of short forms for words are used.  This list will explain what they mean.  Civil Society Organisations				CSOGlobal Movement for Children			GMfCThe International Save the Children		the AllianceAllianceNational Plan of Action				NPANon Government Organisations			NGOOrganisation of African Unity 			OAUPreparatory Committee Meeting			PrepComSave the Children					SCTask Group on Participation	 		TGPUnited Nations Special Session on Children	UNSSOC and SSOC Introduction to the Evaluation The International Save the Children Alliance Task Group on Participation [hereafter referred to as the TGP] has consistently promoted the importance of evaluating children's and young peoples participation.  For this reason it agreed in 2001 that Save the Children should commission an overall evaluation of the Special Session process. This was originally planned to include the UN General Assembly's Special Session on Children itself, initially planned for September 19th, 2001.  The purpose of the proposed evaluation was to assess the effectiveness of childrens participation in all aspects of the process leading up to the Special Session, and in the Special Session itself. Following the events of September 11th and the postponement of the Special Session on Children [the SSoC], the TGP decided not to wait for the Special Session itself to take place. It decided to commission an evaluation of the process of children and young people's participation that had occurred over the previous 15 months or more before memories began to fade and key personnel had moved on. A specific focus of the evaluation would be to see how well the TGP, regional Save the Children teams and country teams had managed the process of supporting children and young people's participation. Michael Etherton, a freelance consultant on children's participation, who had previously worked for both Oxfam and Save the Children UK, was commissioned to carry out this evaluation. A further, external supplementary evaluation has been undertaken after the postponed Special Session had taken place in order to complete the evaluation process.Parameters for the EvaluationThe parameters for assessing the work done by adults and children in preparing for the SSoC are contained in a number of key policy documents of the International Save the Children Alliance. The following is a summary of the main parameters that have informed this process.Whatever is done, by adults or by children themselves, should be done in the best interests of the child.Children's participation in policy and decision-making processes should be linked to their rights as set out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, children's right to participate is not constrained by a lack of knowledge of the Convention [CRC]. Many children and young people from every walk of life regard their right to information and to participation in decision-making as their inalienable right, whatever their knowledge of the articles of the CRC.Childrens participation should be meaningful, ethical and a high quality process. Children's and young people's participation in formal meetings should be measured against such "Best Practice".other agencies, especially in countries of the developing world, have also developed skills and "Best Practice" guidelines in children's participation in civil society that include their participation in high profile national and international meetings. Children's participation in the SSoC should also be measured against these wider criteria. Criteria for this evaluation of children and young people's participation in the preparations for the SSoC should not include corporate branding or marketing objectives for UNICEF or for the various members of the International Save the Children Alliance.The Methodology for the Evaluation The Evaluator was himself involved at a regional level with what was then called the UNSSOC until he left both South Asia and Save the Children UK at the beginning of April 2001. He was subsequently involved in advising on children's participation in a number of countries in West and Southern Africa. Since being commissioned by the Save the Children to do this evaluation, he has used his visits to countries to meet people and discuss with them children's participation for the Special Session.The Evaluator developed a structured questionnaire in order to get a wide representation of views about what had happened up to September 11th 2001. Together with the TGP, 3 questionnaires were developed: a long adult questionnaire, and two U18 questionnaires, a long version and a short version. The latter was primarily for those young people who had participated in preparatory events within their various countries. However, with hindsight, seeking information and opinions by way of a long and complicated questionnaire was a mistake. Many fewer responses were received than had been hoped for, although those that were received proved to be full of insights that have guided the Evaluators understanding. A table of the source of completed questionnaires that were returned is included in the Appendix.A number of documents, reports and papers relating to events connected with the Special Session preparations were also collected, in particular those relating to children and young people's participation in the process. These have been extremely useful. Many of them are important documents on participation. Their distribution is often very limited and ad hoc through no fault of the authors and compilers of those reports. The limited aspect of the distribution is geographical i.e. they are not available outside of the countries in which they were produced. The ad hoc nature of the distribution is such that they go to a relatively random group of people, some of whom put them on shelves and do not read them. Many of these documents deserve a much wider circulation: to other countries and to activists and young people who would act upon the information in them. The reports have also included evaluations done independently by country coalitions on children's participation within those countries. Many of these reports would,  be of great interest to other countries where the coalitions around children's participation have encountered similar problems and sometimes come up with quite different strategies. This evaluation report has therefore been written with a view to enabling readers to work out for themselves if a particular report or document would be useful to coalitions in their own countries. The evaluation report has also been written for all the young people who completed questionnaires and sent them back, or with whom the Evaluator had conversations. Some of them have had important things to say: original and insightful comments on issues adults perhaps think about, but have never found such an effective way of saying. These have generally been quoted in full in order to avoid taking phrases and sentences out of their context.The Evaluators personal commitment in undertaking this evaluation, apart from fulfilling the commission of the TGP, was to extend the children and young people's participatory process into the conduct of the evaluation itself. This would include asking children and young people who had been involved about their ideas and opinions concerning children and young-peoples participation, it would also investigate what hopes they had for the outcome of that commitment. However, the evaluation would also seek to find ways in which children and young people would be able to determine what it was they themselves wanted from an evaluation of their participation in the Special Session. They would help to frame the evaluation's purpose.  They would also need to determine what support they needed from adults in carrying it out at the various levels.  It is hoped to report on this aspect of the evaluation separatelyIt should be noted that all views expressed in this evaluation are those of the Evaluator.  Publication of this evaluation should not be read as implying agreement with, or consent to, these views by Save the Children or any of its member organisations.Experience has shown, in Asia, in Africa, and in Europe, that children recognise that rights for children are not contained in "wish-lists" but in a fairer sharing of the resources that are around. Both adolescents and pre-adolescents can and will pursue an ever more sophisticated analysis, given the tools to do so. They are keen to confront moral and ethical dilemmas. They are also able - it seems effortlessly - to extend this concept of fairer sharing from the community level, where it firsts finds expression, to national and regional levels. Finally, they extend their understanding of equity into their views on globalisation. Michael EthertonAcknowledgementsI was greatly assisted by Michelle Morris, Sarah Stevenson and Bill Bell of the Task Group on Participation in collecting material and providing advice, particularly in the early stages of the evaluation. However, all that I have written by way of reportage and analysis is entirely my own.I would also like to thank all those children, young people and adults who filled in the questionnaire or gave other feedback to me.  I have also had a number of conversations, informal discussions and telephone interviews with adults and young people.  I hope I have accurately reflected all your comments and ideas.Michael Etherton Devon, July, 2002Chapter 1The Process of Children's and Young People's Participation Children know about their problems and their dreams better than anyone.  So, if only children themselves can participate fully in childrens affairs, those commitments made on paper shall becomea reality in practical life.Response to U18 questionnaire, boy 17 years oldThese statements sum up the main achievements of the Special Session on Children. They show the incredible distance travelled, globally and within countries, in the past two years in the participation of children and young people in policy and decision-making that affects their lives. In January 2000 the concept of children's participation in civil society was an isolated phenomenon in different parts of the world. There were various initiatives, at a local level, to draw children into an independent and active engagement with adult decision-making processes. These initiatives were being promoted by local NGOs, by Children's Organisations [COs], and by individuals or small groups in the country programmes of Save the Children and other INGOs. Even though a number of these initiatives had been successful beyond anyone's imagining there was no coherent understanding at a corporate or international level of the full implications of children's participation in deciding about their lives and their futures. However, in January 2000 the International Save the Children Alliance decided, at a corporate level, to support UNICEF in enabling children themselves to participate in the proposed UN General Assembly meeting on children being planned for September 2001.  This deliberate attempt to make sure that children and young people were an active part of the meeting had not happened 11 years earlier at the World Summit for children. Even in January 2000, however, there was no clear vision of what their participation would look like at the Special Session.In January 2002, with the postponed Special Session still to take place, there could be no doubt that children and young people would have a significant impact on the UN event. This was because in all the preparatory events in which they had participated, children had surpassed themselves and earned their place at the top table.Participation in the Special Session as a Process The cumulative process of children and young people's participation in the Special Session process is significant. It is important because of the groundbreaking nature of the work that was undertaken over the 15 months up to September 2001. Insights from some early initiatives led to changes in what came next. It was a process of experiential learning. By 2000 some Save the Children organisations had already moved beyond a tokenistic form of children's participation in adult events. They were keen to help children and young people develop a more comprehensive and holistic approach to their participation in civil society. What was therefore aimed at was not a few favoured young people being selected to go to New York but a wide-ranging engagement by children around the world in various activities that would feed into the Special Session and influence its outcome. It was also hoped that it would also raise awareness among adults and children about the importance of the latter being involved in making decisions that affected their lives.The international dimension to this process, in the International Save the Children Alliance, was driven forward by senior policy-makers in the Save the Children member organisations; and by a combination of policy staff and experienced practitioners from those organisations who came together in the Task Group on Participation. In addition to Save the Children there were, however, a number of other international stakeholders: UNICEF, who had been instructed by the Secretary General to manage the overall Special Session process and the preparations; Save the Children's many in-country NGO Partner Organisations; In-country Children's Organisations e.g. ENDA; The NGO Committee on UNICEF which was organising the NGO logistics for the Special SessionOther international non-government organisations [INGOs] who are increasingly working for children's and young peoples participation:Plan InternationalWorld Vision InternationalInternational Planned Parenthood FederationWorld Association of Girl Guides and ScoutsIn this situation, the TGP perceived its role to be one of direct co-ordination with these international stakeholders and, through Save the Children in-country offices, with local and national partner organisations, including children's organisations. In other words, as well as co-ordinating international collaboration in supporting children's participation in the process, there was an equally significant role for the TGP in motivating and mobilising all the national and regional stakeholders.Significantly, whatever was done could only have been done with the committed help of the various Save the Children programmes within countries: with national and international staff and with their project partners. Some of these programmes were very actively engaged in supporting children's participation in civil society and furthering child rights together with children. Other programmes were not; and some were even critical of focusing on child rights and children's participation, instead of providing for children's basic needs. Some of the Save the Children organisations, within regions, had regional offices. These too had to be drawn into the process of enabling children to participate in regional events that, hopefully, would make the Special Session more than yet another example of high profile and expensive rhetoric.Finally, the children and young people had to be seen more as stakeholders in the process and not simply as pawns to be moved about on the chequer board, by adults in an adult process.Chapter 2The Task Group on Participation and Planning for Children's Involvement in the Special SessionThis chapter considers the role of the Task Group on Participation [the TGP] in supporting childrens participation in the preparatory process for the Special Session. It begins by looking at what happened before the establishment of the TGP in October 2000.Pre-TGP: January - October 2000By the summer of 2000 the Head Offices, as well as the regional and country programmes, of some of the Save the Children member organisations were preparing to engage with how they were going to support children and young people in preparing for the Special Session on Children.  This was in response to an International Save the Children Alliance commitment made by Mike Aaronson [CEO of Save the Children UK] at a consultation with Civil Society organised by UNICEF in January 2000.  At that meeting, called to discuss civil society involvement in the Special Session process, he had claimed this 'lead role' for Save the Children even though other agencies had also been interested. This section of the report deals with some of the critical issues that challenged, first, the Alliance [and SC UK in particular, which had been designated as the lead agency within the Alliance on the Special Session] and then, from November 2000, the Alliance Task Group on Participation [TGP] in delivering on this commitment. A question that has been raised during this evaluation has been why there was a gap between January 2000, when Save the Children was formally committed itself to children's participation in the proposed Special Session on Children, and September that year, when the Kathmandu Alliance global meeting took place. Save the Children UK was designated as the lead agency for this event and was expected to define the task for the Alliance. However, even by the First Prepcom, in May 2000, it was still difficult to decide what was appropriate with regards to children's participation in both the preparations and the actual New York event, without more information about the character and scale of the forthcoming process.  Corporately, it is clear that Save the Children did not know precisely what its commitment entailed. Who were the "children" supposed to be? How would they be "selected"? What would they "do"? For example, it seems that in some minds there was an assumption that only those young people already well into their teens would be capable of coming to New York and doing something during the period of the Special Session. Even as late as October 2000, when UNICEF New York organised a conference in London of agencies participating in the preparations for the Special Session, the focus was on adolescent participation. There was also some ambiguity about Save the Children's status vis--vis this commitment. PLAN International also had wanted to be UNICEF's partner organisation responsible for children's participation in the Special Session. UNICEF was, naturally and rightly, keen for as many INGOs to participate in the preparations as possible. Was Save the Childrens role to lead, facilitate or inspire others to support childrens participation?? These issues were discussed at the Alliance  Kathmandu Meeting in September 2000 (see below). At this meeting concerns were raised by some of the participants that the New York event might actually undermine the on-going work to support children to participate independently and significantly in civil society that was already underway in a number of regions in the world. There was considerable anxiety about which children might be selected to attend meetings and that what they would do at such meetings would be tokenistic. It was also argued that it might also undermine the broader work on child rights over the past five years, particularly in the ways in which this work was being integrated into core programme areas of Save the Children.The contradictory pressures that existed within and outside of Save the Children [both in Save the Children UK and the Alliance] during these months in 2000 was greatly eased with the appointment of an Alliance Co-ordinator for Children's Participation in the Special Session - Clare Feinstein - and the creation of an Alliance Task Group on Participation, the TGP. These happened in October and November 2000 respectively.  Review of the work of the TGPThe most significant aspect of the TGP's performance over the 14 months of preparations [November 2000 - December 2001] has been the Group's ability continually to overcome the problems and become an increasingly efficient, focused and principled executive unit of the Alliance. Not all problems were solved over this period. Some remained throughout the process; and are perhaps inherent in the specific social and political context of children's role within society at this time.While adopting a broadly chronological approach to the work of the TGP various issues are discussed here which were important issues at that time, these include:The relationship of international processes and events to the ways in which children and young people already participate in their own civil societies.[Kathmandu Meeting, September 2000]	The relationships with UNICEF at the international, regional and country levels.[Second PrepCom, New York, January 2001]	The imbalances in Alliance collaboration, among member Save the Children organisations and within their respective hierarchies.[Third PrepCom, New York, June 2001]	The insistence of logistics and resource constraints vs. principled practice in children's participation.[Planning the Postponed Special Session]	The difficulties in trying to widen the young constituency of children and young people through media involvement and through electronic interaction.[Child Friendly Documents; the Internet; list serv; child journalists]The paradox at the heart of the Special SessionThe relationship of international processes and events to the ways in which children and young people already participate in their own civil societies.As planning began to get underway, an immediate concern was the relationship of the forthcoming UN international event to the way children and young people, in mid-2000, already participated in civil society within their communities and countries. Views on this varied greatly, in part depending upon an organisations previous experience in this area.A number of the programmes of some of the Save the Children's organisations include NGO partners who are in the forefront of children's participation in civil society. However, other programmes of other the Children organisations - and indeed some programmes of apparently more experienced organisations - had little idea about how to go about children's involvement in decision making. Many of the staff and field workers felt that it was exploitative of children and were actually opposed to it. Reading Joachim Theis' exhaustive typology of children's participation in Asia [to be found in the Appendices], people working in some of the other regions may be amazed at the range and extent of children's participation in active decision-making in some countries in Asia. Others may feel that perhaps children in their country have gone much further in ordering their difficult and disadvantaged lives. However, Theis might not have written his theoretical paper on children's rights and children's participation, had it not been for the impetus that Save the Children's role in the Special Session process has given to children's participation. Save the Children staff in other parts of the world would probably now be less aware of the global extent of children's participation.The role the Save the Children Alliance has played since the middle of 2000 in enabling children to participate in the preparations for the Special Session has generated a great deal of thought and reassessment about the future role of children and young people in claiming their own rights. This re-thinking has not only gone on in the Save the Children organisations themselves but also in other NGOs, in the UN and in bilateral funding agencies. But in September 2000, when a small group of Alliance staff from around the world gathered in Kathmandu, there was a sharp divide over the merits and demerits of Save the Children becoming involved in the UN Special Session on children. Bill Bell (representing the lead agency, Save the Children UK) told the participants at this meeting that its purpose was to:Share information on children's participation and to review good practice, particularly in what can be achieved at international meetings.Share ideas about what is going on at national, regional and global levels for the Special Session with respect to child participation.Stimulate creative thinking from Alliance members on encouraging children's participation in the Special Session processes.Agree ways in which the Alliance might approach this task.The concerns of the 20 participants showed a level of scepticism about the SSOC - as it was then referred to - as well as the usefulness of children's participation in the process. This was because a number of the participants were already involved with their partner agencies in enabling children to engage with adult decision making. They regarded their work as progressive, as already having an impact, and they felt the children with whom they worked had gone beyond tokenistic participation in high profile media events. The long list of key questions actually centres around this difficult question of linking the country level process into the global process without undermining the country level process. In fact, the first of the questions asks just that.The meeting spent the next couple of days seriously addressing this difficult question of how the work of the International Save the Children Alliance could root children's participation in the Special Session in (1) country initiatives and (2) principled practice. The aim, objective and strategies that the participants suggested very much prefigured what eventually the Alliance TGP - not yet formed - saw as their task.  The final point from the conclusion to the report of the meeting anticipates the achievement of the TGP one year later, at the beginning of September 2001, with all plans in place for the Special Session:Save the Children will be working to ensure that children's participation at the Special Session itself is meaningful, well-supported and associated with good preparation and well-planned follow-up.Much of the discussion in Kathmandu was focused on the actual event being planned - the Special Session itself. A year later, at the beginning of September 2001, the efficiency, clarity and focus that the TGP had achieved was primarily focused on the New York event. This was an event that much larger events were abruptly about to cancel. It seems evident that at the apex of the Alliance - at the level of its member organisations - the commitment was to the New York event. In a number of countries, however, and in different regions, the commitment was to children's participation more broadly. More precisely, the commitment was to children's participation in civil society processes. Articles 12, 13 & 15 of the CRC were interpreted to mean this. In agreeing to participation in the SSOC, not all of Save the Children organisations were perhaps committed to this wider purpose. Although I imagine that this tension between the executives of some of the Save the Childrens and their staff in the field have not gone away, nevertheless, the TGP managed to succeed and operate successfully within the very eye of the contradiction.  At a more practical level, resourcing to support the Alliance's work gradually increased over the autumn of 2000.  Shortly before the Kathmandu meeting, Michelle Morris had been appointed as the overall Special Session Co-ordinator for the Alliance and took a particular concern in supporting the work on childrens participation, however, she was not specifically dedicated to this task. Sometime after the meeting, as noted above, the Alliance Co-ordinator for Children's Participation, Clare Feinstein, was appointed and based in the offices of Save the Children Netherlands. The Alliance then set up the Task Group on Participation in November 2000 and set to work. Nevertheless, this was 10 months after the decision had been taken in New York that the Alliance would commit itself to ensuring children and young people's participation at the Special Session. The relationships with UNICEF at the international, regional and country levels [Second PrepCom, New York, January 2001]The relationship with UNICEF regarding childrens participation in the Special Session process appears to have been complex. Save the Children organisations in South Asia were  part of a successful collaboration with the Regional Office of UNICEF for South Asia, in the Change Makers initiative. However, in other parts of the world and at different levels in the organisation, there appears to have been much less satisfaction. For example, there is some overt criticism of UNICEF in print, most notably around the Cairo Pan African Forum: Clearly, the arrival of almost double the number of expected children suggests a communication gap within the UNICEF system. UNICEF-ESARO communicated with other UNICEF regions in Africa through regional focal points (protocols hindered direct country access)In Cairo itself, there were many UNICEF people responsible for different aspects of the arrangements for both the children's meeting and the PAF. It was rarely clear who was responsible for what, and the scope for confusion was enormous.There is also criticism around logistics.  However, this criticism is countered by praise: Many of the potential problems at the preparatory workshop were avoided by the excellent input from one UNICEF individual - Ms Heba Abdellatif - who acted as a focal point for most of the grief and was more often than not able to mobilise solutions.Other than this report, there is no sustained criticism of UNICEF in the Save the Children documentation - for example, in the PrepCom Reports and the minutes of the TGP meetings. There are comments about the need to extend ethical and principled practice concerning children and young people's participation to UNICEF Offices around the world. However, these comments tend to be couched obliquely or in quite moderate language. Be proactive, in liaison or at least consultation with UNICEF, on the following guidelines - Guide for Chaperones / Accompanying Adults (to include child protection issues), Guide for Adults at the 3rd PrepCom, Briefing for Caucus Facilitators at 3rd PrepCom (to include proposal of children and young people as co-facilitators of caucuses).ACTION: CF to liase with UNICEF on production of these guidelines and to ensure TGP input into themSimilarly, criticism of Save the Children is not evident in the limited documentation available from UNICEF although it is known, for example, that UNICEF was unhappy with some aspects of childrens participation at the second Prepcom in January 2001. However, praise - or at least acknowledgement of the work done - also appears to be missing. In the UNICEF Cairo Report, Save the Children and its extensive contribution to enabling children to participate in that important continental meeting is simply ignored - completely. Conversely, however, UNICEF in East Asia and the Pacific might suggest that its role in children's participation in the region is also being ignored. Apart from the brief note on Victor Karunan's input into the Lao PDR Regional Children & Young People's Forum 2, there is no mention in any of the children and young people's deliberations of any role for UNICEF. Children comment on what governments can and should do; on what NGOs can and should do; and on what children can and should do. There is no mention of what UNICEF [and the UN generally] can and should do.  My sense is that during the Special Session process, each hierarchy tried to manage the other hierarchy. This is both management up and management down. When individuals in one of the organisations find they are blocked or contradicted or opposed by their roughly equal counterpart in the other organisation, the solution may be to try to get one's own manager to put pressure at a higher level in the other hierarchy. Blocked in Save the Children, for example, by one's colleagues or managers, but in agreement with UNICEF, one suggests that pressure might be brought to bear by UNICEF on one's own organisation. This will obviously not find its way into print even in internal documents. But it might explain somewhat the discrepancy between the criticism of UNICEF have encountered in verbal communication, and the lack of anything remotely similar in the documents.The question of ethical practice, which does occur in some of the documentation, is predicated upon both UNICEF's and some of the Save the Children member organisations' strong commitment to child rights and the CRC. The relationship of child rights and the CRC to the Special Session is, a battle that UNICEF had to fight with the incoming US Administration in 2001. It also remains an issue between some of the Save the Childrens. Using Articles 12, 13 & 15 of the CRC to support a strong case for children's participation appears to have been seen at a corporate level in different ways. On the one hand it was seen by some as advancing child rights. On the other hand, others saw it as a distraction or something that might set back the emphasis on Child Rights generally within individual organisations. It is necessary to set this tension within the Alliance globally against the overwhelming commitment of children and young people themselves to active and meaningful participation. This evaluation has found in all the evidence, both written and oral, that children and young people want to participate on their own terms in every kind of forum that takes decisions that affect their lives.Feedback from the 50 children participating in the preparatory meeting arranged by the TGP immediately before the second PrepCom in January 2001, brought a number of issues sharply into focus for both UNICEF and the Alliance TGP:The issue of who were "children" and who were "youth", i.e. the Under 18, and the Over 18. The Youth Caucus, established at the 1st PrepCom in June 2000 and continued at the 2nd PrepCom, had people as old as 25 years participating in it. Accounts of what took place when the U18s at the TGP's preparatory meeting met up with the other participants in the Youth Caucus suggest a complex ideological debate that reflected strong differences of opinion about both specific issues and the framework of childrens participation.The issue of "roles and responsibilities" among UNICEF, the Alliance and other agencies involved in children's participation in the process needed clarification. The first point of "Lesson Learn from the 2nd PrepCom" in the minutes of the TGP Meeting in Toronto after the second PrepCom reflect this urgency:Need to clearly define Roles and Responsibilities (R & R) of the Alliance regarding children and young people's participation and the SSOC, what we expect from others, what we do not take responsibility for.The need for a wider consultation with children around the world on the Outcome Document which then became a significant priority by the TGP and resulted in a report presented at the 3rd PrepCom.Adequate and balanced representation from the regions around the world needed to be addressed. Ravi Karkara in his short report following the PrepCom suggests the need to have "more regional representations; maybe in the form of quotas." The inadequate representation of children from the Asia regions sharply focused minds regionally, particularly in Save the Children's regional offices.However, significantly, the issue raised that all participation at meetings in New York would inevitably be tokenistic was challenged by the collective independence of the young people at the preparatory meeting:The myth that children's participation in large meetings is nothing but tokenism was broken at the 2nd PrepCom. By mid March 2001 more regional meetings for children were being organised by Save the Children offices in the different regions. All of these would be linked in one way or another into the SSoC process. All would link to UNICEF's sponsorship of high level Ministerial Meetings in preparation for the SSOC. And, thanks to the efforts of all concerned, by the time of the 3rd PrepCom in New York in June all these would have happened.The imbalances in Alliance collaboration, among member Save the Children and within their respective hierarchies.[Third PrepCom, New York, June 2001]The 3rd PrepCom followed in June in New York. This time more than 150 children and young people gathered for the Preparatory Workshop for the 3rd PrepCom, prior to their involvement in, and engagement with, the PrepCom itself. Save the Children worked closely with U18  Participation Task Force of the NGO Committee on UNICEF  to plan this event. The responses of the young people to this workshop are more focused and more detailed than after the second PrepCom. A number of responses are quoted in the TGP's evaluation of the whole event. One response to the workshop - as opposed to the PrepCom that followed - referred positively to the inputs by guest speakers:The talk with Carol Bellamy [Executive Director of UNICEF], it sorted out a lot of misunderstood stuff - a great idea to have her; Carol Bellamy and Dan Seymour [from Save the Childrens New York office] were highlights; it was useful and I enjoyed the use of guest speakers - representing other organisations - who have an experience of a particular issue; some of the explanations the Canadian delegate made I found interesting.The responses of the young people who were selected by their peers to undertake certain tasks during the PrepCom itself are also quoted in the evaluation. What comes through from these responses, and from the responses on the U18 questionnaires for this evaluation, is a frustration with the adult processes, especially around the 'nit-picking' over the wording of the draft Outcome Document. The evaluation looked forward to the preparations, in the regions, for the Special Session itself and to the Children's Forum that came immediately before. One young respondent very perceptively commented:We should have regional evaluation of what happens with the children, what they are doing and how they can contribute in relation to monitoring the Outcome Document. It is too late to wait until September [2001].In fact, the wait would be until May 2002. There is, from all the responses, a very clear sense of the opportunities that the Children's Forum is seen to present to young people. There are also disappointments that are likely to come in its wake. There is an anxious concern to learn from the PrepComs and the Special Session and to sort things out before leaving New York and returning to their individual countries:We should build up relationship with government delegations at the UNSS to follow up when going back; it is important for child delegates to meet before leaving the UNSS to sum up. To know what the next steps are, find ways to take things forward, and to ensure information sharing by e-mail after the UNSS.One of the young participants suggested:We should keep communication after the PrepCom not to repeat mistakes; and prepare brief reports to share with other children in our country.These echo two points, already noted above, in the work within countries:There needs to be an enabling environment within the communities and the countries that encourages children to participate. [See Andhra Pradesh in India in connection with the GMfC and the NPAs.] Children and young people need an opportunity immediately after an event to come together, debrief with each other and plan follow up. [See the comment made by Carie T. Francisco in her Report on the SSOC process in the Philippines.]A significant issue concerns the inconsistencies in the various Alliance member organisations in creating an enabling environment for childrens participation within different countries. These inconsistencies may be related to differences between Save the Children organisations in their approach to children's participation in their own programmes; or there may be tensions around children's participation within one member organisation, between, for example, its corporate policy and its programme base. Or between regions there may be quite different emphases. Alliance collaboration in the TGP by contrast was an exemplar: practical, inclusive, but nonetheless resolutely committed to principle and 'best practice' in children's participation. This resulted in a strong and effective enabling environment in New York at the PrepComs. Ironically, this international conferencing environment became a microcosm, with significant human, emotional and material resources made available for a short time and in a small space. The macrocosm is the myriad of local communities - where these resources for achieving an enabling environment were absent or very scarce. Furthermore, the adult agencies who are enabling players in children's eyes in New York - or Budapest, or Kathmandu or Vientiane - may not be the same enabling organisations back in the child or young person's own countries. One of the lesson learned from the SSOC process is that without these resources continuing to be available within Save the Childrens programmes, harassed and over-worked field staff, struggling to catch up with their agency's corporate demands on them from Head Office, will be apologising to young people. And failing to support their continuing participation in civil society.The TGP was very conscious of this broader picture. In the Norway meeting in July 2001 the members highlighted their concern to introduce, at the Children's Forum, the "next generation of questions about participation"; and there is a great deal of time devoted to thinking about the follow up to the Special Session, to the Global Movement for Children and to children and young people's involvement in the development of National Plans of Action for Children. This is also contained in a separate paper produced: Conceptual Framework for Children's Participation beyond the Special Session.The quality of the work done at that meeting reflected in the comprehensive record of it that the team produced. This summed up the intense combination of analysis and forward planning, done over 3 days in the cottage in the Norwegian mountains. This meeting probably lies at the centre of the SSOC process in which the TGP was engaged. The record of it encapsulates the focus and drive the team had developed in the run-up to the original date of the Special Session.. After reviewing the 3rd PrepCom, the meeting considered the whole concept of the Children's Forum and mapped out the detail planning needed. This was followed by a consideration of the Special Session itself and U18s' roles in that and in the NGO-sponsored programme of activities for U18 delegates. The team also covered issues of handling the media and supporting child journalists. Finally they focused on what would happen after the Special Session.By July 2001, the Children's Forum had become a key focus and mechanism by which it was hoped the children and young people would engage with the issues being discussed in the UN about the future for children. The premise on which the agenda was based was promoting the best interest of the children. There had been a -Qualitative difference in process from the 2nd and 3rd PrepComs. In September we will be dealing with a much larger group of children but our aim is to make the Forum a meaningful and participatory event. The Outcomes for Children that the TGP hoped that the Children's Forum would achieve are worth quoting in full: Personal (learning new skills, positive experiences, experiences which help support follow up processes) Recreation as a rightTheir proposals have an impact (in caucuses, documents, future work attitudinal changes in adults)Building networks of relationshipsInterchange among themselves in different ways (issues, experiences, etc)Their voices and contributions are listened to, they feel respected and involved - linked to decisions taken by decision-makersFor an evaluation these would be excellent criteria to judge the success of not just the Children's Forum but the whole process of their childrens participation in the Special Session. Certainly, those questionnaires that were completed and returned by young people who were at the 3rd PrepCom have reflected these objectives, from their individual points of view, for their pending involvement in the Special Session.The outcomes for children are reflected in a - much longer - set of outcomes for Save the Children. This section deals sensitively with Save the Childrens corporate objectives that have been hovering above the involvement in the Special Session since the Programme Forum first agreed to link with UNICEF. But there is also a strong drive for inclusion: of people with disabilities; of conflicting views among young people. There is also a frank acknowledgement of the efforts and competencies that exist in other organisations involved in the process. The agenda for the Children's Forum is flexibly drafted to allow for children to decide the content but detailed and comprehensive when it comes to organising groups and processes, nonetheless. The NGO-sponsored programme for U18s is dealt with in a similarly scrupulous manner. For the follow up, there is discussion about the evaluation of the process; the documentation of the process; applying the lesson learned / maintaining the momentum; and linking the work to Objective 4 of the Alliance's 5 year Plan.The Alliance's Objective 4 - and the future of the Task Group on Participation - depend on the corporate commitment of individual member organisations to participation. This, in turn, will require a commitment on the part of country programmes to enable both their senior management staff as well as the field workers to become skilled in facilitating children's participation. This will then contribute to establishing the enabling environment which the Alliance TGP strove to create in New York. The insistence of logistics and resource management vs. principled practice in children's participation.[Planning the Postponed Special Session]As Clare Feinstein was about to board a plane for New York on September 11th she knew that there had been a high level of preparation and planning for childrens involvement in the Childrens Forum and Special Session. She suggests that the TGP worked well because of the followingIt brought together some of Save the Children's participation competencies in a small group. The smallness of the group, together with the expertise it represented, contributed significantly to a collective sense of purpose.The group worked from people's strengths; but, at the same time, there was definitely a place for people to learn as well. For example, Clare Feinstein considers Andrew Johnson's experience in advocacy and communications was a significant contribution to the group.There was a prior commitment on everyone's part to clear principles of children and young people's participation, against which each stage of the process during the preparations would have to be assessed.There was a mutual respect for each other. This developed into a camaraderie and friendship. "People pulled together and supported each other." On the way to the Norway TGP meeting, Alana Kapell had the seed of an idea about how a Children's Forum at the Special Session could work. The meeting then gave her space to develop it together with the rest of the group.The group had a collective ability to think outside the box.The TGP respected the importance of country and regional work, by establishing regional contact points and attempting all the while to share information out to the countries and individuals working on the various aspects of the preparations.Save the Children was the only INGO that had (1) full-time co-ordinators solely assigned to children and young people's participation; (2) a supervising committee; and (3) an extensive regionally-based network of "focal points". As a result, the TGP was a "doing" group rather than merely a co-ordinating group. For example, the TGP suggested the importance of using Young Facilitators in the Childrens Forum and had the networks, contacts and money to actually ensure it happened.Complementary to the generative networks in the regions was the presence in New York of the TGP's Andrew Johnson [SC New York Office] In addition, after July, Sarah Stevenson from Save the Children Canada was funded to go to New York once a week and was able to participate in weekly planning meetings with UNICEF and the U18PTF.Clare Feinstein herself was organised, strategic and had a vision about what was needed at any given moment. What she - and the TGP together with the regional networks  contributed to the process with was a framework for children's participation that went beyond Save the Children. It was principled, demonstrably effective and resonated within participating countries. On September 11th that framework was set to deliver a powerful demonstration of young people's abilities and their commitment to engage responsibly in policy-making around their rights.  The cancellation of the Special Session after the events of September 11th was, for the young people and adults alike, an extraordinary let-down. The attack on the World Trade Centre happened a day before children were due to depart for New York. Some young participants were actually pulled out of departure lounges in their country's airport. There was, in the aftermath and questions hanging over the whole enterprise: For Sarah Stevenson this included - What would now happen vis--vis funding and the people involved - not only in Save the Children, but also in UNICEF and the Canadian Government with whom SC Canada was working so closely?. On September 20 & 21, Bill Bell, Clare Feinstein and Michelle Morris met in Amsterdam, to consider what lead the TGP and the Alliance could give to Save the Children country programmes. Although the report from that meeting talks about responding to the postponement, the emphasis had clearly shifted to country-based activities that could now occur in advance, instead of after, the Special Session. There was still an emphasis on involvement with the draft Outcome Document, but again with greater in-country lobbying of governments about Save the Children's position on the still disputed sections. Regional commitments, from the regional Ministerial conferences, as well as the development of NPAs also took on an added significance. Save the Children should commission a short guide to the Plan of Action for NGOs and civil society, "in order to explain the process for its implementation".  The three TGP members then did a comprehensive review of various Special session-related publications, the status of child-friendly versions of them, the development of guidelines on best practice, some media follow-up with the child journalists, and policy level papers on participation. There was a discussion on need for the translation of all or many of these. Two evaluations would now be considered: an interim internal evaluation [this one] and then an overall Alliance-SSOC evaluation after the Special Session.  It was recognised that arrangements and logistics in New York for the reconvened Special Session, if and when it was reconvened, would need to include tightened security. The meeting ended with a forward look not only to the Special Session but also to other conferences already scheduled [the Yokohama Sexual Exploitation Conference in December 2001; and UNICEF's proposed Bangkok's Global Conference on Participation in 2003] or needing to be planned.The subsequent - and scheduled - meeting of the full TGP in the Netherlands in October 2001 went into all of these issues in much more detail that had been possible or useful a month earlier, immediately after the shock of events. There was now much more emphasis on the publications, the child-friendly documents and the generic guidelines. There was an important issue about the child friendly Outcome Document prepared by Save the Children: it was noted that UNICEF might need to sign off on it if it was to become an official document of the SSoC proceedings. "This means that textual changes will be made to the Save the Children model (perhaps also design changes?)." The TGP asked itself how far it was prepared to go to accept changes. The TGP's agreed position is significant:TGP prefers an official document which is widely recognised, widely disseminated, translated into many languages and read and understood by many children to a document bearing only the SC logo which does not have official recognition.The discussion on the Children's Forum  assuming it would if it happen- was taken up in large part with questions of security for the children. A number of sensible decisions were reached, based on various "What if?" scenarios.A very good paper on the Children's Forum in the reconvened Special Session was produced by the TGP toward the end of the year. It is to be included in another paper which UNICEF produced as a draft: "Road to the Special Session on Children": An Overview and Lessons Learned on the Planning Process of the Children's Forum and Child Participation in the special Session on Children as was scheduled for September 2001. The Children's Forum Programme draft contains a reworking of the of some of the earlier material, but now expressed in a much simpler and clearer way: The design of the process and the agenda was based on:Promoting the best interests of childrenEnsuring a meaningful and participatory eventProviding children with a genuine opportunity to participate in their own way and on their own termsA process of discovery (personal and collective) which enables the assimilation of information (hear, see, do, discovery)In some ways this seems to be the statement that encapsulates the achievement of the TGP in managing the whole SSoC process, and not just the Children's Forum. It is a process that proved itself to be child-focused, child friendly and enabling. The TGP has managed to strike a balance in high profile international events between logistical demands and the empowerment of children.The difficulties in trying to widen the young constituency of children and young people through media involvement and through electronic interaction.[Child Friendly Documents; the Internet; list serv; child journalists]Michael Hoechsmann, of the Young People's Press, wrote a short and insightful evaluation of the Youth Journalism Project at the Third Prepcom for the TGP. Although he felt supported by Ramon Meneses {Save the Children Norway] and Alero Harrison [Save the Children UK], he did not feel that he was able to get young journalists' material from the preliminary Workshop and the Third Prepcom itself published in the mainstream adult press. Nor did his training and mentoring of young journalists work out as planned:The workshop that was planned was scheduled at a time and in a place that was difficult for the youth to access. Rather than deliver one in-depth workshop I ended up giving three mini ones (plus subsequent mentoring with several youth throughout the week). Out of the eleven youth present, only three followed through.He praises On the Record [the NGO Committee on UNICEFs newsletter], but felt that to some extent "it undermined my project". He makes a number of suggestions for the Special Session itself and the Children's Forum; and ends with a nice compliment:Final comment: I have met some remarkable people this week, both youth and adults. The work you folks are doing is very impressive. My hat goes off to you all.Claire O'Kane comments in her completed questionnaire how successful the young journalists were in the Change Makers project in Kathmandu, South Asia; and many of the young people made positive references to young journalists. Similarly, young people from Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan sent a video tape they had made and edited of the Budapest Young People's Meeting prior to the Berlin Ministerial Conference for Europe and Central Asia. There are a number of other examples of the use of film, videotape and print, and broadcasting through the adult media by young people at the country level. The other very significant area of communications is the Internet and email, either to send information, receive information or communicate interactively with one another. From the responses to the questionnaires by the children and young people these appeared to be developing an enormous gulf developing between those young people who had some facility in an international language and who also had access to computers and the Internet. and those who did not.Children and young people's independent participation in young journalism, broadcasting and documentary video-making is a new and important area of youth-led lobbying and advocacy. Children and young people's involvement in using the internet within countries and across national borders - not only to send and receive information but also to maintain contacts - is another emerging and equally important issue. The preparations for the SSoC gave some impetus to the development in both areas; but children and young people's involvement in new kinds of communication before, during and after high profile events needs a separate and different kind of evaluation. In the first instance, it needs young journalists to be involved in the evaluation, not only as respondents but also in designing the evaluation. Secondly, it needs to "think out of the box" and set up ways to access for a wide readership all the exciting, but unnoticed developments in children's and young people's creativity in communication technologies in various  perhaps surprising -  e.g. Kyrgyzstan. The evaluation also needs to assess children and young people's communication needs after the main event: how they can communicate the experience to their constituencies back home as well as can be in touch with each other to keep the friendship alive. This also means addressing the extremely important question of how the most disadvantaged children, with very few opportunities to keep in touch with each other, can be helped to do so - in innovative and sustainable ways.The paradox at the heart of the Special SessionThere was a paradox within the actual process of preparations for the Special Session on Children. It gave a huge impetus to children's participation in countries around the globe but, at the same time, the actual event eventually seemed to become to some extent irrelevant to that process.  After the postponement of the SSoC there was deep distress among those involved who were thwarted in their expectation of forging new child-focussed policies in governments around the world. But even if the SSoC had not reconvened in New York [as it did] the energy and commitment that the preparations had generated continued to spread out among the children and adults who had been involved. Children's participation in civil society is now seen to be much bigger than their participation in the Special Session in New York. But that event was needed as a focus in order to bring this about. This is probably the case among those who would have gone to New York. It is definitely the case among the many children who attended local or national processes relating to the draft Outcome Document, the GMfC, or the development of NPAs. The Special Session on Children, through all the preparatory enthusiasm and expectation for the future, has already furthered children's participation at the grassroots. The focus for more resources now has to be the countries and the regions around the world.What will really affect their enthusiasm and lead to frustration and disappointment is if Save the Children says "Okay, we've done participation. Now let's get back to ". The evidence that keeps appearing in this evaluation is that children feel that it is their right to participate in decision-making, but that it will not happen without an enabling environment. Concerned and committed adults are convinced that the enabling environment for children's participation will not happen without adequate and timely resources. Major milestones in the process of enabling children to participate in the preparations for the Special Session:Month/YearEvent2000JanuaryAt a UNICEF-organised Civil Society consultation meeting in New York, SC-UK's CEO agrees that Save the Children will take responsibility for leading support for children and young people's participation in the UN SSOCMay/JuneSSOC Preparatory Committee [PrepCom] 1 in New York: minimal inputs by children and young people & none by SC-sponsored children and young people.AugustWinnipeg Conference on War-Affected Children includes a significant contribution by childrenSeptemberAlliance Kathmandu Meeting: small meeting with limited representation; but significant criteria established for SC-initiated children and young people's participation in national, regional and international events.OctoberHendon Hall Meeting in London, UK involving UNICEF, Save the Children, Peace Child, Plan, WAGGS, and others.5th Ministerial Meeting on Children and Social Policy in the Americas, Jamaica with 120 Under 18s participating Clare Feinstein appointed as the Alliance Children And Young People's Participation Co-ordinatorNovemberAlliance Task Group on Participation for SSoC set up [TGP]NGO Committee on UNICEF Youth Participation Task Force (YPTF) established with Save the Children and World Vision as co-chairsCanadian Government convened meeting in New York on childrens participation in the Special Session processDecemberChild Right's Caucus Consultation Meeting with UNICEF on the draft Outcome Document-      Planning for Alliance/UNICEF support to Regional Inter-ministerial Meetings begins in several regions-      SC UK internal Regional Planning Meetings [RPMs] discussed  SC's lead role on children and young people's participation + country and regional initiatives.2001January1st TGP meeting in London26-27 Jan: 'Second PrepCom Preparatory Workshop for Children and Young People in New York organised by SC, with the assistance of the YPTF of the NGO Committee on UNICEF.-      28 Jan - 2 Feb: PrepCom 2 in New YorkFebruary-      YPTF becomes Under 18 Participation Task Force [U18PTF]March16-18 March: TGP Meeting in Toronto to review childrens participation in PrepCom 2 and plan for PrepCom 3    TGP organises global consultation with children on the draft Outcome DocumentApril-        Partners Meeting in London agreed that the Alliance & UNICEF would organise the U18 Preparatory Meeting for PrepCom 3-      Children and Young People's Regional Meetings in Africa, East Asia and Europe in preparation for official Inter-ministerial meetings [in Kenya; Thailand & Hungary respectively]-         TGP prepares first version of the 'child-friendly' draft 'Outcome Document'May-      Children and Young People's Regional Meeting in South Asia with the U18 Change Makers, Corporates and Government Ministers, in Nepal-       EAP MINCON in Beijing with childrens participationEurope and Central Asia Ministerial Meeting, Berlin with childrens participationJune-         9-10: U18 Preparatory Workshop for PrepCom 3 in New York-         11-15 PrepCom 3 in New YorkJuly-         19-21: Alliance TGP Meeting in Norway-          East Asia & Pacific: Children & Young People's Forum II in Lao PDRAugust-          Detailed preparations for Children's Forum underway-          Preparations for SSoC Participation, NGO Side Events, etc underwaySeptember-         11th: Terrorist Attack on USA; SSoC postponed-         20-21: TGP 'Responding to Postponement' Meeting, Amsterdam October-         26-28: Alliance TGP Meeting, Amsterdam agrees revised strategy to maintain momentum following postponement of the SsoCDocuments Received from the Alliance TGPChildren and Young People's Participation in the 2001 Special Session on Children: Report of the Meeting on the Role of The International Save the Children Alliance, Kathmandu, 11 - 13 September 2000, Save the ChildrenTerms of Reference: Alliance Task Group on Participation, Alliance, 2001.[First Meeting of the TGP - still to come]     Report on Pre-2nd PrepCom Workshop for Children and Young People, [Organised by the International Save the Children Alliance and held in the offices of the US Fund for UNICEF] New York, 26-27 January 2001, TGP Summaries of Lessons Learned: children and young people's participation at the 2nd PrepCom, [Internal Brief - Not For External Circulation]Lessons learnt from the 2nd PrepCom, Ravi Karkara, Facilitation and Gender Consultant Meeting of the Alliance Task Group on Participation (TGP): Summary of Main Decisions and Action Plan, 16-17 March 2001, Alliance Task Group on Participation Special Session on Children: After the 2nd PrepCom - The Next Steps: Suggestions, 12th March, 2001, TGP EVALUATION: Children and young people's participation at the preparatory workshop for the 3rd PrepCom 9-10th of June and 3rd PrepCom 11-15th of June 2001, New York; Proposals For The UN Special Session, [no date] TGP Meetings with Save the Children - children: Comments, suggestions, proposals, etc., regarding the 3rd PrepCom and the Preparations for the UNSS, 14-15 June, New York, TGPMeeting in Norway: Summary of Main Discussions and Decisions, 19-21 July 2001, Alliance Task Group on Participation (TGP) Meeting of Young Government Delegates: 3rd PrepCom, June 14 2.00-3.00 p.m. New York Evaluation of Youth Journalism Project at the Third Prepcom, Michael Hoechsmann [Young People's Press], June 20, 2001 UN General Assembly Special Session on Children 'Responding to the Postponement' Meeting, Amsterdam, 20-21 September 2001, TGP [Clare Feinstein, Bill Bell, Michelle Morris]Meeting in Netherlands: Summary of Main Discussions and Decisions, 26-28 October 2001, Alliance Task Group on Participation (TGP) [DRAFT 1] "Road to the Special Session on Children": An Overview and Lessons Learned on the Planning Process of the Children's Forum and Child Participation in the special Session on Children as was scheduled for September 2001, 5th October, UNICEF [DRAFT] Children's Forum: Programme, [TGP - to be included in "Road to the Special Session"] , Alliance Task Group on ParticipationChapter 3                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Children and Young People's Participation in the Special SessionProcess in Countries and RegionsAfrica Basis for this evaluation of children's & young people's participation in the Special Session preparations in AfricaThe Africa section of the evaluation is based onReports of the OAU-UNICEF Pan-African Forum on the Future of Africa's Children, including Lee Kirkham's Report on Children's Participation in the Nairobi Regional Meeting and the Cairo Pan-African Forum; An informal evaluation of children and young people's participation in Lesotho and the Republic of South Africa: Lesotho has, in fact, been extremely active in securing children and young people's participation in a wide range of national, regional, continental and international events including preparation for the Special Session;A series of visits by the evaluator to countries in Africa over the past 11 months to train Save the Children UK staff in facilitating children and young people's participation in civil society, A few, but very informative, completed U18 & Adult Questionnaires; and some telephone conversations with adults involved in the SSOC preparations;My wide experience over many years of various countries in Africa.This assessment of the regional process in Africa is structured under the following headings:Lack of children and young people's active and independent participation in civil society Participation has focused on international conferencing: OAU-UNICEF Pan-African Forum in CairoSave the Children's role in Selection and Preparation for active participation in high profile events UNICEF's emphasis on the importance of the African Common Position: 'Africa Fit for Children'Lack of adequate follow-up and continuing connectivity for conference participantsSignificance of children and young people's participation for various African countriesNational Plans of Action: the need for new partnerships for children and young peopleIs African ready for children's participation in social change?Lack of children and young people's active and independent participation in civil society In comparison with the growing number of children's organisations in South Asia and Latin America, under 18 year-olds [U18s] in Africa have so far made very little impact on civil society, particularly at the sub-national level. Part of the reason for this is because children's active and independent participation in civil society is a novel concept in most African countries. The concept of children's participation is still thought of as poor children standing up in front of "Big People" and making a speech about their suffering and their needs. These speeches are usually warmly received by the politicians and then photographs are taken by the press and television of the politicians congratulating the children. Usually nothing happens after that. On the other hand, children of the international business and political classes do not normally suffer material deprivation. Their material needs are usually met. It would not naturally occur to them that very poor children need to lobby those adults in power - their parents' class - in order to claim their basic rights and needs.  Between the tokenism of poor children 'participating' at high profile events and a perceived irrelevance of young people's participation in civil society by privileged children, children's participation in civil society has made little headway so far.However, there are exceptions. A 15 year old Ethiopian boy attended an SSOC National Meeting in Addis Ababa as a representative of street/working children He writes:When I was participating in that event I thought that the participants were street/working children like me. But in the meeting I found out that most of them were from Addis Ababa, the capital city, well dressed, high family status and most of them came in the meetings with deluxe automobiles. [This] has offended me. Because of this their needs were [not] our needs and different. However, it was found out in the discussion that the issues that I mentioned was among the top priority issues. Therefore this made me happy at the end of the day. His colleague who commented on that same national Special Session event and who was also selected from a street/working children's sports club, stressed the importance of giving children the opportunity to discuss their key issues:Children have forwarded their priority needs. Adults should give attention to it. This type of meeting should be conducted at all level of the government structures (i.e. up to village level) There are also exceptional African countries, in which children's participation in civil society is perhaps even becoming the norm. Lesotho, landlocked and surrounded by South Africa, has developed a comprehensive programme of drawing children in to adult civil society as active players, through the work of Save the Children [UK & Sweden] and a Basotho NGO Coalition around Child Rights and children's participation. There is some evidence emerging from around the world that shows that children's active and independent participation in civil society acts as an incentive to adults to encourage even more active engagement. This would certainly seem to be the case with Lesotho where the engagement by children around the Special Session preparations has lead to young people's highly representative participation in the national reform of Child Law. Mapule Maema comments on participation as an on-going process:Children were unaware about the process of  UNSSOC. But when it was introduced to them, children and young people were motivated to know about an event that has direct impact on their lives. A lot of interest was even generated to those children who did not know anything about their rights. People in high profile positions are slowly appreciating child participation. Currently there is a child legislation review process, and there is a committee comprised of children only that has been set up. Recently the committee suggested a "Bash" entertainment with music and dancing, while doing that messages on UNSSOC and the Child Legislation Reform Process ..Apart from the above, there is genuine acknowledgement that children have to be part of the decision-making process. The different processes such as Poverty Reduction Strategy, Vision 2020, ensure that children have an input. There's a greater awareness now.The two young people who completed, in some detail, the full-length U18 questionnaire corroborate this. The cumulative impression the reader gets from their comments is of an engagement in a process that significantly develops, over the months, into good representation and imaginative feedback to their growing young constituency. They record an increasingly significant engagement with adult policy-makers in their country, at various decision-making levels; and they are increasingly hard-headed about what their participation in international conferencing will achieve. For example, the 17 year old Basotho boy maintains that there was a low level of children and young people's participation in the Third Prepcom itself. Some of this was good:World leaders were in the position to get information from the horse's mouthBut some was not so good:Children were used as sources of informationIt made them feel underminedand [they] were not involved in the decision-making.However, he maintains that children and young people's participation made an impact:Most of the adults wanted to be in the meetings where children were involved because of  the children's activeness.The evaluator had the privilege of meeting with some of the young Basotho who had participated in the various events over the past year and a half. These events were a Children's Event in the Parliament; the CRC Reporting process in Geneva; the Nairobi Regional Meeting; the Cairo Pan African Forum; the Third PrepCom and the Law Reform Round Table. Their understanding of the wider purpose of children's participation and their inclusion of many other children in the participation processes that were underway was striking.Participation has focused on international conferencing: OAU-UNICEF Pan African Forum on the Future of Children It is significant that in Africa, where children and young people's participation in civil society and in decision-making that affects their lives is a much more recent concept, the emphasis on their participation in international conferencing has been high. In particular, children and young people became participants at what would previously have been adults-only meetings on childrens issues. To prepare them for these meetings there were various children and young people-only meetings or workshops at which the young participants have got to know each other and then worked out what they were going to say in the adult meetings. It seems clear that the Pan Africa Forum in Africa in Cairo in May 2001 drove African children's participation in the whole SSoC process. The internal UNICEF report on the Pan African Forum has a short section on children's participation. The writer comments:Children and young people from across Africa were present at the PAF. Such participation is a relatively new phenomenon in Africa. There have been few opportunities for children and young people to participate and present their views, and their active involvement in the PAF reflected their eagerness.The writer obviously has some doubts about the validity of children's participation in high profile conferencing: The participation of young people is clearly valuable. But raises a number of questions.Although children's participation is now at an early stage, in future are we in danger of developing a cadre of 'professional children' (and youth) who attend such conferences? Might we be removing them from meaningful interaction with their constituencies and creating tensions and jealousies?Coaching children is necessaryHow do we deal with the political demands of older children?Are we encouraging the appropriation of youth and children's energies by governments, perhaps through the organisation of 'children's parliaments', or of a parallel political hierarchy of young people mirroring the state hierarchy?These concerns demonstrate a view of participation that is primarily concerned with children and young people 'conferencing'. They are not the sorts of questions that now get asked about children's participation in Indian civil society or Brazilian civil society. The Selection and Preparation of Children and Young PeopleIn the Save the Children report on the Pan African Forum, which involved young people in its compilation, there is clearly concern for the high profile, conference-driven nature of young people's participation. Before leaving for Cairo, there were expectations of some 35 child participants with almost no representation from North Africa [only Egypt had indicated interest in sending children]. In the event, more than 60 children arrived in Cairo for the meetingsAlthough none was expected from elsewhere in North Africa other than Egypt itself, children and minders came from Algeria, Tunisia and Sudan. They all stated they had only heard of the meetings on Monday 21 May, mere days before the meetings were due to begin. The Algerian child and minder only knew of the children's meeting and on arrival in Cairo knew nothing of the PAF itself.While many of the children had indeed emerged as delegates through some national process, the group of children at the Cairo meeting were often unrepresentative of children from their respective countries. The bias towards urban children and the elite was noticeable. One minder brought her own three children, in addition to the national children's delegates, and these were funded by UNICEF. The Egyptian delegates were drawn from good Cairo schools.  There was relatively little concern for the kind of issue that dominated discussions on the SSOC at the time of the Alliance Kathmandu Meeting on children's participation. As noted earlier the discussion there tended to focus on how participation in the New York meeting would contradict and perhaps even undermine the burgeoning activism of children [10-18 year olds] in for example Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Adults at this meeting who were involved with Children's Organisations [COs] felt that the most important kind of participation by children in the Special Session would be on a large scale in their own countries prior to, and at the time of, those meetings. This would have much more impact on decision-makers than two or three children going to New York. By contrast, for many adults the sole reason for childrens participation in any preparatory event appeared to be was to move up the UN conferencing ladder.Without other distractions, many of the adults passed the time lobbying the children and putting pressure on them to vote within their language groups for the positions of children's representatives at the PAFChildren were made to feel that they had to be elected to be one of the special delegates to present at the PAF, or be deemed to be a failure. However, some children did participate in events in their own country that did not include selection to a high level meeting abroad. For example, in Uganda, Save the Children and UNICEF launched "A World Fit for Children" by Ugandan school children, aged 9 years to 14 years, who came together in various venues for a day of  "drama, songs and speeches" that helped launched the booklet. Some of the young children were concerned that there was no attempt to reach out-of-school children:More children could have been invited especially from rural areas to create more awareness about children's rights.One boy was inspired by the occasion:Yes, the training helped me to be the master of the ceremony for the occasion the whole day.I saw other children participating fully without any fear.For me it was my first time to see children organising themselves with the help of some adults on a big meeting like that one of launching the World Fit for Children's booklet.  None of the children who participated and filled in the short questionnaire went on to any other SSoC meeting; and none of them expected to. But most of them expressed a hope that they would be able to continue participating in child rights activities.But most of the SSoC activities at a local or national level involved selection to a higher level of meeting, usually outside of the country and usually before very senior politicians.Lee Kirkham feels that children who attended the Nairobi NGO/CSO Eastern and Southern Africa regional meeting made a more coherent and representative contribution at the Preparatory Meeting in Cairo and in the Pan African Forum itself. The young participants from Lesotho, who went both to Nairobi and Cairo, corroborate this: participation by children and young people at the national or regional level definitely improved their participation at the Cairo event.The young people who participated in various evaluations of the Cairo children and young people's Preparatory Meeting and the Pan African Forum comment on the role of the First Ladies, particularly at the Preparatory Meeting. Security requirements relating to the First Ladies' official visit to the children's meeting cost the children and young people a precious half-day of work. Official Reports on the Pan African Forum also comment on the ambiguous implications of the phenomenon of "First Lady" engagement with children's issues.  Lee Kirkham concluded, that despite serious inadequacies in the process, children made an impact at the Pan African Forum My personal view was that the children's ultimate contribution was impressive but I was appalled by the process underlying it all..Personally, I would not involve children directly in international fora - it is tokenistic and unrepresentative. We need alternative ways to [enable them to] participate.[Save the Children needs to] Reflect long and hard on what we mean by children's participation and establish some clear standards to ensure that we have a meaningful concept to take forward. These standards needs to be shared and accepted by leading children's organisations before being promoted more widelyUNICEF's emphasis on the importance of the African Common Position: 'Africa Fit for Children'The UNICEF Report states that the major achievement of the Pan African Forum was the adoption of the African Common Position, 'Africa Fit for Children' This is a good and strong document. It was prepared jointly by the OAU and UNICEF, with inputs from a range of stakeholders. This participation is important and sets good precedent. The fact that the ACP has been endorsed by both governments and CSOs is very significant: it represents a collaborative approach that holds out much promise for the future.There are high expectations, within UNICEF in Africa, for the African Common Position:The ACP is also a commitment for Africa itself. The OAU will bring it to the Lusaka OAU Summit. Now, OAU has an instrument that will remain of value for a decade if not more. The ACP will acquire a life of its own. It can be used by stakeholders to call governments to account. In addition, the OAU is now committed to play a leading role in promoting the children's agenda in Africa, with a particular role in monitoring the performance of governments. The OAU will raise the issue of child rights periodically and will also become a forum for discussion itself. There is no endorsement, elsewhere in the Report, that children and young people should be active players in this monitoring process, or even in civil society, as they are in many other parts of the world. African CSOs, as referred to here, are adult CSOs. The collaborative approach appears to be among adults. However, children and young people see things differently, even in Africa. From all the responses to the questionnaires from around the world, not one young person thinks that children's participation should not happen. No one respondent feels that there should be no young participants at meetings where decisions are taken concerning them. This is also true for Africa. Every child who attended the Cairo Pan African Forum thought that they had a right to be there. A number of them even felt this right as children's representatives, rather than as individuals.Perhaps international conferencing is needed as a catalyst for the realisation of children's participation rights as expressed in Articles 12, 13 & 15 of the CRC. Even when best practice is not followed, and adults unwittingly make a mess of the arrangements or even try to undermine the process of children's engagement with the event, the young people usually manage to achieve an impact. The experience of participation in the PAF itself was characterised by constant changes to the programme, last minute demands for children's contributions to sessions not planned earlier, the grouping of children away from the main body of delegates, the lack of access to translation and microphone equipment, and the dominance of the First Ladies in the forum. National delegations continued to put pressure on the children to perform and chided those who had not succeeded in being elected to speak as representatives of the children. Despite all this, the children succeeded in delivering their input to the discussions in a co-ordinated and impressive way. Lack of adequate follow-up and continuing connectivity for conference participantsThe completed questionnaires received from children and young people show a positive attitude to follow up. The participants from Lesotho who attended either the Pan African Forum in Cairo or the Third Prepcom in New York indicated that they actively reported back to their informal networks in Lesotho, either in face-to-face meetings or in various broadcast media. They did not, however, keep in touch with their colleagues from other countries with whom they had participated in the international events. The reason, according to one girl was that she did not have access to email ".which was the easiest and fastest." Lehlohonolo contacted other children and adults "by telephone". One girl feels that children themselves should be responsible for follow-up: I think children must be given an opportunity to have skills on leadership. This I say in regard of having facilitators of tomorrow who in cases will encourage more children. In response to this, children have to be accountable and determined to turn everything they say into reality.However, from discussions with various adults and children in different countries an  ex-child combatant's accompanying adult  it seems that there has been no follow-up and nothing further was received. Although I do not have any substantial evidence, I would suspect that those children or young people who do not have access to a computer and the Internet have lost contact with their fellow participants, both adults and children. This would be in line with the disappointment felt in most other parts of the world - except by those who have access to electronic communication. I refer to this issue, with a recommendation, in Lessons to be Learned.  Of course, most poor children around the world do not have such access unless they are closely linked up with a Children's Organisation or an adult NGO or CSO.Asked at the end of the Pan African Forum what they were going to do with the information they had gained when they got back to their countries, most young people expressed great enthusiasm for spreading the news across Africa. They were going to tell their friends, compatriots and all the children in their countries all that was discussed and what was happening to children across the continent. The following are a few of the 24 comments that children and young people made in the evaluation immediately after the Pan African Forum:"I will try and implement it at school and at home and tell my friends about it and ask them to pass the information to their friends""Have a press conference and meet with children and young people to develop a programme of activities for a world fit for children""Share it with my institution (children's parliament) and identify activities to sensitise others""Immediately, I shall take it back to the children who I represent and to adults" But whether they managed to do this remains in doubt. Given the unsatisfactory process of their selection and preparation of many of the participants, it is clear that there is no enabling social or institutional context in which they could do all or any of the feedback they intended to do. Some may have tried; but they would have found the adult world that arranged their participation in Cairo preoccupied now. The adult context may now be overwhelming and disempowering. This is not the case, obviously, with some of the countries, where there is a strong enabling environment. Lesotho, of course; and some of the Francophone countries in West Africa. Follow up and continuity have emerged as a key issue that needs to be tackled in the future. This includes both technical issues around electronic communication and the social and institutional context in which children and young people can easily make links with other young people.The views of NGOs & CSOs within NigeriaSo far, the experiences of those adults and children who were actually involved in participating in the preparations for the SSoC have been the focus of concern. But what about those who should have known about SSoC but did not? In late March 2002 the issue of children's participation in the preparatory processes for the Special Session was raised by the Evaluator with a number CSO leaders and leading Nigerian NGOs whose focus is on children's rights and needs. There was some vague knowledge of the "SSOC" - almost entirely centred on attending a meeting and filling in a form as a part of UNICEF's "Say 'Yes' to Children" campaign. UNICEF maintains that there was considerable involvement of CSOs in the preparations for the Pan African Forum. However, in Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa, a number of key national CSOs and NGOs involved with children appear not to have been actively drawn into the process, even as adults. They had no idea what the Special Session was meant to achieve, especially for their young Nigerian beneficiaries in their projects. They did not know which children or young people, if any, would be part of the New York event in six weeks time. Even these Nigerian organisations find the concept of children being involved in civil society strange, especially children below 14 years old. However, they all thought that the idea was exciting: a logical next step in their work.Save the Children had only recently established an Office in Nigeria [Save the Children UK, in Kaduna, in the North] and was not in any position to work with UNICEF and other agencies to help achieve meaningful participation by children and young people at a national level. What was interesting was that there was a certain amount of puzzlement and regret that Nigerian civil society had largely remained ignorant of the significance of the SSOC process for Child Rights and children's participation, and that they had not played their rightful part, nationally, in the process.Part of the problem may be that there is no umbrella Nigerian NGO/CSO Child Rights coalition. The formation of such a coalition or apex organisation, without any outside prompting or intervention, is probably the next step in the development of adult civil society activism. It is ironical that the emergence of children's groups, club, organisations could indeed trigger this. This is certainly the evidence from Leostho.National Plans of Action: the need for new partnerships for children and young peopleFrom the September 2000 Kathmandu Meeting, Save the Children's commitment to participation in the Special Session was also a commitment to a continuing engagement of children and young people in their societies after the New York meeting. Initially, at the beginning of 2001, the focus for continuity in the process was the Global Movement for Children [GMfC]. Adults became increasingly aware, around the world, of more and more children participating in various ways in civil society. Since the Third Prepcom in July 2001, the National Plans of Action [NPAs] have been another focus of continuing participation by children after the Special Session.  Assuming that the Special Session has been a success for children and young people in terms of their participation in it, the question we need to ask is: What impact will it have subsequently around the world? The best indicator for determining the answer will be the way in which children and young people become involved in the accomplishment of the National Plan of Action in their country, or state, or province. Their involvement in turn depends on the development of an enabling environment in their countries for continuing participation. This enabling environment will be created by adults and children working together in NGOs, in civil society organisations and in community-based organisations. If it is left to the politicians and adults in the formal institutions of the state, poor and disadvantaged children will not be given an active and negotiating role with them.This indicates the importance of an active civil society within the country. Disadvantaged groups within communities need to be active right down to the grassroots. For children living in poverty or socially excluded their critical level of participation in the first instance is often the lowest level of the state's authority: for example, district councils or village development committees. However, participation at this level, at least within democracies, is necessary but insufficient to achieve lasting change. Children and young people need to make vertical as well as horizontal links within civil society.  Is African ready for children's participation in social change?Very few younger children have participated in the preparations for the Special Session in Africa. Those who have become most involved have been adolescents and older teenagers. UNICEF reported "most were in their teens"; but also raised the issue of the political aspirations of "youth", who were generally over 18 years old, and "children" who were under 18 years.Almost all the responses by the teenagers in this evaluation praised the teenagers collectively for their participation, for being able to speak out in front of adults and to be heard by the adult decision-makers. Most called for continuing and ever-widening participation of children in governmental processes in their countries. However, from the experience of training workshops done with young people in different countries, it seems that adolescents envisage extending participation to other teenagers, rather than to younger children, such as the 9 - 12 year olds, let alone to children younger than 9. The teenagers are as amazed as the adults when these 9-12 year olds become as vigorously outspoken and analytical as their older siblings. The latter may take a bit longer to develop confidence; and they need to work together in a different way that is more creative and imagistic than purely verbal. However, given the right kind of facilitation, their communication skills soon become as linguistically sophisticated as their older peers.Save the Children has found it necessary to be pro-active in encouraging adults to develop skills of facilitating the participation of younger children. Many adults in Africa who are active in civil society and prepared to embark on young people's participation in civil society, often think this only applies to teenagers - and to older teenagers especially. However, once they have acquired skills of facilitating the active and independent participation of much younger children, these same adults become excited by the possibilities for positive changes in the lives of all kinds of children, rich and poor alike. For instance, younger children all around the world speak out fearlessly against physical violence. This is just one of many ways in which the active participation of younger children gives support to Women's Movements in their respective countries. These younger children then receive support from their mothers acting collectively, following their children's increasingly articulate lead.From direct experience of children's increasing participation in civil society, alongside sympathetic adults, it seems possible that most countries in Africa are more than ready for children and young people to become more engaged in developing their present and future roles in those countries. From the responses of both adults and children to the latter's participation in the various preparatory events leading up to the Special Session, African young people have the right and deserve to be heard by adults who are taking decisions affecting their lives and have been making an important and useful contribution.In  2001 Africa was clearly behind the curve in terms of poor and disadvantaged children's active and independent participation in their societies. Countries in Latin America, in Europe, in North America, in South Asia and in East Asia already had children setting up their own organisations, starting to organise themselves collectively, and developing skills of representation. There were some isolated examples of this in Africa - most notably Lesotho - but on the whole, the active participation of children in the preparations for the UN General Assembly's Special Session was seen by most adults as an irritating and unnecessary "add-on". Children could go to these meetings, but adults would be there to tell them what to do.The process has been a shock to many adults, undoubtedly. However, many other adults have found the whole process very exciting and they have eagerly engaged with it. Many countries in Africa will find that children and young people's participation will reinvigorate adult civil society in a number of unexpected ways. Come the review in 2015 of progress made, it may well be that National Plans of Action have moved further and faster in a number of African countries than in many other parts of the world. East Asia and the PacificThis section of the evaluation is based upon some excellent documentation, as well as conversations [telephone, email and face-to-face] through which information and insights into children's participation in the SSoC process over the past 15 months was gathered. In fact, the process in the region itself is particularly well documented. Excellent independent evaluations have been conducted, for example in the Philippines and for the regional events; and this is perhaps the reason why so few responses were received from countries in this region to the U18 and Adult questionnaires. Everyone had said all they wanted to say, elsewhere.The following are the papers that have informed this report:Regional Papers:Action Paper: Children's / Youth Voices in the UN General Assembly Special Session Processes, as of 12 March 2001 [Regional Youth For a Coordinating Committee, 25/03/02]Children and Young People Forum 1, East Asia Pacific Region, For the MINCOM in Beijing, May 2001, Jomtien, April 22 - 26, 2001  [Save the Children, et al.]The Jomtien NGO Regional Forum: Developing the Future with Children: Presentation papers for the 5th East Asia and Pacific Ministerial Consultation, Beijing, China 14-16 May 2001East Asia Pacific Children and Young People's Regional Forum II: Developing the Future with Children, 23-26 July 2001, Vientiane, Lao PDR [Save the Children, et al.]Email from Jay Wisecarver, Re: Alliance SSOC Evaluation, 12 March 2002Promoting Children's Participation and Children's Civil Rights in Asia and the Pacific, [DRAFT] Joachim Theis, [Save the Children, Dec. 2001]Set of analytical slides from Joachim Theis on Child Rights and Children's Participation [Save the Children Sweden, April 2002]Vietnam:   --  no title --   [Internal documentation on plans for children & young people's participation in the SSOC (no title and no date)]The Philippines:Lessons on Child Participation in the Pre-UNSSOC Processes: The Philippine Experience;  Documentation Report: Validation and Enrichment Workshop on Survey Results and Creative Brainstorming on Packaging Final Output [c. Lakan/2001-2002]UNSSOC Documentation Workshop Report, December 15-16, 2001, [SC UK Carie T. Francisco, 31 Jan, 2002]In addition, I have made use of the following conversations:Discussion with John Parry-Williams on Kathmandu Meeting Sept.2000; and on a comparison between children and young people's participation in South Asia and East Asia Pacific. [7 April, 2002]  I propose to report under the following headings:Promoting Child rights: The International Save the Children Alliance Co-ordination Committee & co-operation with UNICEF and other agenciesChildren's Participation and Child Rights: theory and practiceGovernments and Civil Society in the RegionSelection, Preparation, Accompaniment and Follow-upThe Philippine Experience of the SSOCNPAs and children and young people's Participation post-the SSOCPromoting Child Rights: The International Save the Children Alliance Co-ordination Committee & co-operation with UNICEF and other agenciesIn East Asia and the Pacific, co-ordination of the process of enabling children and young people to participate in the Special Session by Save the Children proved to be very effective. This was done through a Regional Youth Fora Co-ordinating Committee, composed of -a youth who was participant in the children's panel at the 4th EAP Ministerial consultation, and representatives from the National Council for Child and Youth Development in Thailand, PLAN International, Save the Children, UNICEF and World Vision International.  Relatively early on there was a proposal for three Regional Youth Forums: in April 2001; in July 2001; after the Special Session, to review the whole process. The first preparatory Regional Youth Forum focused on young people's inputs into the 5th Ministerial Consultation on Shaping the Future Agenda for Children. The second preparatory Regional Youth Forum focused more directly on the inputs by children and young people into the Special Session itself. Comprehensive participation was proposed; however, it was envisaged that more countries would participate in the second Regional Youth Forum in Vientiane: The drive is to link existing work and networks and expand their discussions to include this once in 10 years opportunity to influence policy work at the national, regional and global levels.There was a very clear conference structure already in place, and these would shape the activities of the Regional Youth Forums:For regional children / youth voices to be heard here and globally, there are at least 2 important events in the Special Session Process: the 5th EAP Ministerial Consultation in Beijing and the Global Youth Participation in UNSSOC. As with most processes it is recognised that the earlier the input, the more likely it is to have a chance of affecting the process and outcomes.In a sense, this process of youth affecting governments' policies was already underway:In 1998 at the East Asia and Pacific (hence, EAP) 4th Ministerial Consultation, youth were provided [with] an opportunity to be heard for the first time - a panel of youth made a presentation which was prepared in a 3 day Youth Forum just prior to the event. The youth panel received a very positive response from the government delegations and had an impact on the final Declaration.There are comprehensive and useful Reports from the two meetings. The report from the second Forum identifies broad goals and a structure that reflects the process of children and young people's participation that was already underway:Children & Young People's Forum II: Broad Goals:Follow up on the ministerial consultation resultsPrepare messages for the Children and Young People of the region to the UNSSOC in SeptemberSelect delegates for the Special SessionPrepare suggestions on how to plan and organise the follow up after the Special Session.Children's ideas about why there needed to be a Second Forum were affirmed -and supplemented by a discussion of the forum's goals and expected outputs. Ultimately, this forum is part of a series and, tentatively, culminating on a Forum III after the UNSSOC.There were reports from other meetings; from the UNICEF SEAPRO's Children's Voices: Regional Child Survey (by Victor Karunan); from the 5th MINCON in Beijing. This was followed by the development of the children and young people's response to (1) the Beijing Declaration; and (2) the "unsettled issues" in the draft of the SSOC Outcome Document: A World Fit For Children.A box in the report, for example, comments on abortion:The issue of abortion was one of the more difficult issues for the participants to agree about. The children and young people's opinions varied, influenced by culture, tradition, values, as well as religion. The group decided that the issues related to abortion are indeed challenging. These issues need more time and more efforts to clarify them and they would need to be done in the future.This gives an insight into what might be described as the responsible atmosphere of the meeting. This is reinforced later in the meeting when the participants selected their representatives to go to the Special Session in New York. Neither the Korean representative nor one Thailand participants participated in the selection process since they were already included in their Government's delegations; and the Malaysian and Cambodian delegates also excluded themselves because they already reached their 18th birthday. After selecting those to go to New York, the participants looked forward to the Third Regional Young People's Forum. At the end of the meeting, the young participants gave a positive and enthusiastic evaluation."I felt very honoured to be with the delegates from other countries.""I loved making friends and learning about issues facing children in other countries.""I'm happy to hear from the experience of other participants in forums such as the MinCon.""I'm glad to learn some new languages and I'm so pleased that the adults here are very nice to us compared to the adults in our country.""It was exciting to learn new games.""I'm happy to learn new things from other countries that I could bring to my country.""I feel that my understanding of the CRC has deepened.""We're happy to see everyone act like a real family.""We thank our adult friends who have been very caring and helpful.""Life is very long so I'm sure we will meet again." These comments seem to reflect an appreciation of the immediate experience: personal growth, friendship and inclusion. Was there a deeper recognition, among the participants, of the regionally arranged participation process, closely co-ordinated by INGOs, UNICEF and governments? When considering the inclusion of children in MinCon, governments cooperated; they were not really part of the original plans for the event.  The para-statal, All China Womens Federation, did provide the support to the processes in China, as did the Committee for the Protection and Care of Children in Vietnam.  The East Asian and Pacific process clearly demonstrates best practice by adults in enabling children and young people to participate effectively in international conferencing involving highly placed policy makers.Children's Participation and Child Rights: theory and practiceThere has been a considerable amount of theorising about children's participation in the region. Adults and children have achieved substantial insights in the Philippines, for example, into the criteria for 'Best Practice' in children's participation. This is not just best practice in conferencing, but more generally in active and independent engagement by children and young people in civil society. This is discussed below in more detail.A country like Myanmar, on the other hand, has no tradition of children's and young people's participation at all. A Paper entitled "Responses to Questions for Reflections for Child-focused Agencies" that accompanied the completed questionnaires by children and young people in Myanmar comments that the concept of the child's right to participate, is "very new to the adults and children we work with." But we are just beginning to initiate this process, hoping that our strengths would grow in promoting children participation and if it becomes a real strength there may not be any limits to this growth.The Save the Children adults in Myanmar argue that it is necessary to work with the adult community. This echoes comments made repeatedly by Claire O'Kane in the South Asia context: parents, teachers, employers, officials, NGO leaders all need to become part of the enabling environment for supporting participation by children and young people in their own affairs. The paper describes in significant detail how selection of children from Myanmar was done for the Youth Forum 1 in Jomtien. It apologises for the imperfections in the process of selection, but argues for a useful pragmatism that says 'you have to start somewhere'. The experience of the children's participation in the forum highlighted that children can contribute their own ideas and views about the matters affecting them if given encouragement and opportunities. For children, the experience of participation is empowering and builds up their self-confidence and capacities. Regionally substantial work in analysing the inter-relationship of Child Rights and children's participation has been done by Jay Wisecarver and Joachim Theis - which John Parry-Williams has contributed to, from his experience of children's participation in civil society in South Asia. In the past these people have been together in the Save the Children's Alliance Regional Office in Bangkok. In addition, Victor Karunan, previously a driving force in this office and now in the Regional Office of UNICEF in Bangkok, has been very much involved in developing the theory into practice within the parameters of the SSOC preparations.In the draft of what may become a seminal paper, Joachim Theis first summarises what has happened vis--vis children's participation in East Asia. He then attempts a definition of child participation: This paper is primarily concerned with child participation as a way for children to take an active part in realising their own rights.  The CRC affirms children as rights holders.  The CRC is also the first human rights convention to grant children certain civil rights.  Child participation recognises children as rights holders, develops childrens competencies, defines childrens best interests, and demands accountability for childrens rights. Theis's definition of children's civil rights is important for his analysis:Childrens civil rights Right to access to informationRight to freedom of expressionRight to freedom of associationRight to freedom of thought, conscience and religion Education for personal fulfilment and responsible citizenshipPlay and participation in cultural and artistic lifeLinking children's participation to child rights as embodied in the CRC in such an explicit way is a significant feature of children's participation in this region. Adults in the Philippines who are activists in children's participation go even further:Children's participation in realising their rights should arise from their understanding of their own rights and their role in holding duty-bearers (government-signatories to the UN CRC, parents / caregivers, other adults) accountable for their responsibility. For SC-UK this means:Developing children's awareness of their rights, their capacity to analyse their situation and how their rights are being realised (or not realised), and to identify who are accountable / responsible for its realisation at the local, national and global levelDeveloping children's sense of their responsibility as rights-holders to push for the realisation of their rights as individuals and as a group at local, national and global levelAs one of the duty-bearers of children's rights, SC-UK is responsible to mobilise other duty bearers to realise children's rights at the local, national and global levels. These ideas have been further developed by Joachim Theis in a series of statements that conceptually develop the relationship between children's participation and the CRC and the concept of rights-holders and duty-bearers. It would be at least partly true to say that the child rights analysis has been extended to children's participation as a result of the activities of NGOs [including INGOs] and UNICEF in preparation for the Special Session. Rather than theory leading to practice, this was practice [of children and young people's participation] leading to theory. There is some criticism that there may be too much theorising in East Asia [by both UNICEF and Save the Children] around the importance of the CRC as the basis for children and young people's participation. It is suggested that the insistence on learning about their rights may inhibit children taking initiatives on their own, outside of a legal or theoretical framework, to engage with civil society. By contrast, in South Asia - in Nepal, Bangladesh and India especially - children's autonomy is considered important. There are many instances of children defining their rights - and, indeed, their responsibilities - differently from the commentaries and training packages on the CRC produced by Save the Children and UNICEF.In South Asia, as in Latin America, some NGOs and Children's Organisations even questioned Save the Children's co-ordinating role in securing children's participation in SSoC. Children's participation in civil society, and in international conferencing was already so advanced that it was felt that the local organisations would be able to manage their participation in the Special Session on their own and in their own way.  This is in marked contrast to the co-ordination of children's participation in the SSoC and the detailed structuring of the process by the Alliance in East Asia and the Pacific.Governments and Civil Society in the RegionSouth East Asia, East Asia and the Pacific is a very large and diverse region, in terms of geography, demography, economics and culture. It contains the biggest country in the world, demographically; and the second largest economy in the world, Japan. Children and young people's participation in Japan should perhaps be compared with the USA or the European Union rather than with the rest of the region. In terms of children's rights - and in terms of their participation in civil society to realise those rights - it may be important to note that regimes and their economic importance in the region vary enormously. There is still Communist Party rule in China, Vietnam, Lao PDR and North Korea. There is a non-democratic junta in Myanmar. The Asian "tiger economies" of South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand are still coping with the economic set-back of the 1997 Asian financial crisis. And there is a group of both large and very small countries that are struggling economically and politically, even though they have democratic governments more or less. A number of countries in the region, whether they be market-oriented or communist-ruled, have accepted their responsibilities for ensuring adequate service provision of health and education for all their populations, even though, for the time being, they may lack the funds to pay for them. Some of the countries in South East Asia do not, like countries in South Asia, actively encourage NGOs, civil society and the private sector to colonise the space that their successive governments have built into the system of education and health-care provision and social safety-nets. Thus, when governments at various levels are convinced by new initiatives to improve the services and service delivery in a cost-effective way, they tend to adopt them. Noticeable changes take place.It is interesting to note the issues that children raised at the Regional Children and Young People's Forums, particularly in response to the Beijing Declaration. Thus, under Education their collective response is:Improvement of school facilities specially in rural areasChild oriented teachers training and support to teachers to achieve thisChild rights oriented education systems and curriculum should be pursuedChildren want to learn about their rights and have fun as well.One might compare children and young people's prioritisation of what they see as their key issues in the different regions. What is interesting is why there are differences. On the whole, governments who ignore their poorest and most disadvantaged people, and drive their children further into suffering and poverty, will find young people generally reacting strongly to this sense of discrimination in their society. On the other hand, governments who evidently try to make a fairer redistribution of resources will find their young populations more concerned with other areas of discrimination and exploitation that governments can respond to. Experience has shown, in Asia, in Africa, and in Europe, that children recognise that rights for children are not contained in "wish-lists" but in a fairer sharing of the resources that are around. Both adolescents and pre-adolescents can and will pursue an ever more sophisticated analysis, given the tools to do so. They are keen to confront moral and ethical dilemmas. They are also able - it seems effortlessly - to extend this concept of fairer sharing from the community level, where it firsts finds expression, to national and regional levels. Finally, they extend their understanding of equity into their views on globalisation. There are a number of references to this in the various reports and completed questionnaires. Childrens response to the Beijing Declaration included the following:Inclusions of children and young people in debates on globalisation:Children do not want to be left out in discussions about globalisation. This involves reducing the bad impact of globalisation as well as clarifying the responsibilities of the rich nations and the roles of the poor countries.Selection, Preparation, Accompaniment and Follow-upJay Wisecarver who was closely involved in the co-ordination process provided detailed responses on the process in the region. He noted that selection:.depended upon the country.  In some countries, a national, participatory process was held.  In some countries, attempts were made at same, but it ended up with more of the normal than at-risk children and young people. In a few countries, children were selected by NGOs or NGOs and governments.At the regional level just over half of the young participants involved in the process were girls; exactly half at the international level (i.e. New York). Approximately 5% were under 15 at the regional level, which then rose to 15% at the international level. There was an urban bias at the regional level that rose to 70% at the international level. Very few children with disabilities participated at the regional level and it declined further in New York. On levels of participation by children and young people who might be disadvantaged in one way or another, Jay comments:Girls  some of the cultural overlays had some of the girls speaking out less than the boysDisability related  translation was from sign into local language into English and reverseNon-English/English speakers  English speakers tended to take over as the process sometimes moved qu