Forthcoming policy developments 

The Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, at its session held on 13 February 2025, adopted the Proposal of the Youth Strategy of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 2025–2034, upon submission by the Federal Ministry of Culture and Sports. This document represents the first comprehensive strategic framework at the level of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina addressing youth policy. 

Following its adoption by the Government, the Proposal was forwarded to the Parliament of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina for further consideration and formal adoption. However, as of early 2026, the Strategy has not yet been adopted by the Parliament, and the process has faced delays. In parliamentary records, the Proposal has at certain points been withdrawn from procedure.

Regarding cantonal-level youth policies: The 2019 analysis by the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Youth Council indicated that only three cantons had adopted youth policies/strategies at that time, with four lacking them entirely. While comprehensive updated mapping is limited, progress has been noted in previously underserved areas. Notably, in August 2025, Bosnian Podrinje Canton - Goražde (one of the cantons previously without a policy and the only one explicitly planning development in 2019) initiated the structured process for drafting its first youth strategy, including working group meetings coordinated by the cantonal Ministry for Education, Youth, Science, Culture, and Sport. Other cantons continue to implement or update existing strategies in line with obligations under the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Youth Law, adopted in 2010 and still in force without major amendments.

Ongoing debates 

The Commission for Coordination of Youth Issues of Bosnia and Herzegovina should become operational and resume its work as a working body of the Ministry of Civil Affairs. The work of the Commission is based on:

• Coordination and cooperation between different government institutions,

• A multilateral approach to solving youth issues,

• Involvement of young people and joint management of the work of the Commission.

The debates surrounding the Decision on the Commission for Coordination of Youth in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosnia and Herzegovina) primarily stem from the country's complex constitutional and political structure, which decentralizes authority over youth issues to the entity levels (Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, and Brčko District). This has led to ongoing delays in agreeing on and implementing a revised Decision, as the Commission is intended to operate at the state level but lacks full functionality due to political hurdles. Below is a breakdown of key debates and arguments against the Commission's formation or enhanced role, based on available reports and analyses.

Main Debates

• Coordination vs. Centralization: Much of the discussion revolves around whether a state-level body like the Commission can effectively coordinate youth policies without overstepping entity competencies. Proponents argue it would improve efficiency, foster cross-entity collaboration, and align with EU integration goals by addressing issues like youth unemployment (around 46-47%), emigration, radicalization, and participation in decision-making. However, debates highlight fragmentation: Bosnia and Herzegovina has no national youth policy or strategy, leading to inconsistent approaches across entities. Stakeholders, including entity ministries and youth councils (Republika Srpska Youth Council, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Youth Council, and Brčko District Youth Council), have been negotiating a new Decision text since at least the early 2020s, but progress is slow due to differing priorities on representation, funding, and scope. Entity-level youth laws (e.g., Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Youth Law 2010, Republika Srpska Law on Youth Organization 2004) already exist, raising questions about redundancy versus added value at the state level.

• Representation and Inclusivity: The proposed composition (9 members: 4 from Bosnia and Herzegovina government institutions and 5 from youth structures) aims to balance government and youth voices, but debates focus on how representatives are selected and whether it adequately reflects Bosnia and Herzegovina's ethnic and territorial divisions. Youth umbrella bodies advocate for stronger youth input to ensure decisions are youth-driven, while entity ministries debate power-sharing. Vulnerable groups (e.g., Roma, LGBTIQ, youth with disabilities) often highlight exclusion, arguing the Commission could perpetuate discrimination if not designed inclusively. International representation of Bosnia and Herzegovina youth has become politicized without a functional Commission, sometimes requiring multiple delegates from different entities.

• Resource Allocation and Implementation: Funding is a core debate, with no dedicated state-level budget for youth policies. Overlapping financial support from municipal, cantonal, and entity levels causes inefficiency and duplication. Stakeholders debate whether the Commission would require new funding mechanisms or rely on donors (e.g., EU, UNICEF), which some see as unsustainable. Monitoring and evaluation are also contentious, as there's no unified system to track youth policy outcomes.

• Broader Socio-Political Context: Debates tie into EU accession efforts, where the European Commission has criticized Bosnia and Herzegovina's lack of progress on youth participation and coordination. Post-war challenges like ethnic divisions, high youth unemployment, and low trust in institutions (e.g., only 8% of youth trust law enforcement) amplify calls for reform, but political instability (e.g., election disputes, entity rivalries) stalls agreement. Youth organizations push for the Commission to prioritize issues like mental health, education, and climate change, while governments debate its role in cross-sectoral areas (e.g., education, sports).

Arguments Against the Commission or Its Proposed Form:

• Constitutional and Autonomy Concerns: A primary argument is that youth issues are constitutionally assigned to entities, not the state, per the Dayton Peace Agreement. Critics, often from entity governments (particularly Republika Srpska), argue a stronger state-level Commission could infringe on entity autonomy, centralize power, and conflict with ethnic/territorial balances. This decentralization is seen as protecting local governance, and imposing a national approach might exacerbate divisions rather than resolve them.

• Political Non-Priority and Dysfunction: Opponents point to "political reasons" for the Commission's non-functionality over recent mandates, suggesting it's not a priority amid other crises (e.g., EU reforms, economic issues). Some argue it would become another layer of bureaucracy without real impact, given Bosnia and Herzegovina's history of stalled institutions. Entity ministries may resist if it dilutes their control over youth budgets and programs.

• Lack of Inclusivity and Effectiveness: Critics from civil society and youth groups argue the current/proposed structure doesn't sufficiently involve diverse stakeholders or address vulnerable populations' needs, potentially leading to tokenism. There's skepticism about its ability to enforce policies, as entity laws already handle youth work, and without a national strategy, the Commission might fail to deliver tangible improvements.

• Financial and Practical Barriers: Arguments against emphasize resource scarcity, no specific budget lines for youth at state level, and reliance on donors, which could make the Commission unstable. Overlaps with entity programs might waste resources, and without strong monitoring, it risks becoming ineffective.

Overall, while there's broad agreement on the need for better youth coordination, the lack of consensus on the Decision reflects deeper Bosnia and Herzegovina governance issues. Revival efforts continue, with potential ties to EU-funded initiatives, but as of early 2026, the Commission remains non-operational.