Issue I

Kaarina 2015

ISSUE 1

4 6 8 10 14 16 18

Kaarina 2015

A DISEASE CALLED HUMANS TRAN SCOOPING OUT OUR OCEANS PECH WILL MARINE ENERGY BE THE ITRE NEW TITANIC OF THE EU? CLOSING THE LOOP ENVI HOW TO TACKLE EUTROPHICAAGRI II Kaarina 2015 Kaarina 2015 TION OF THE BALTIC SEA? HAMBURGERS CAUSING AGRI I GLOBAL WARMING HOW FAR CAN THE BALTIC AFET STATES GO?

TABLE OF CONTENT • 2

EDITORIAL

Christopher Nölte, Editor of the Session

Robyn Hanssens, Editorial Assistant

„Man cannot discover new oceans unless he has the courage to lose sight of the shore.“ Dear delegates, By giving you these topic articles, we want to stimulate critical thinking and encourage you to form your own opinion. The Media Team Members have put a lot of effort into producing thought provoking and informative articles, stating a clear opinion on the topics you will be working on during the session.

Since this is almost certainly your first experience at the European Youth Parliament (EYP), we can assure you that this will be an exhausting, but memorable experience. For most of you it will be the first time taking a deeper look into European politics and problems we face in our today’s society. With the Baltic Sea being a unique inland sea, surrounded by nine countries, with over 85

million people living in the catchment area, the topic is of great significance for every European citizen.

But this event is not only about politics and current issues. It offers you the possibility to get to know individuals from all over the continent, believing in the European dream and spreading modern values. There have been lots of people involved in making this event happen, so we sincerely hope that you make most out of the opportunity.

Always desire to learn something useful.

Most gratefully, Your Editorial Team 3 •

TRAN

A Disease called Humans Preserving the ecosystem of the Baltic Sea

Beauty, inspiration and relaxation. What would you want to experience when you are out exploring the diverse nooks of Europe? The states surrounding the Baltic Sea are known for their hospitable residents, calming landscapes and beautiful culture; becoming a rising trend as an exotic getaway for people all around the world. In 2012 the Baltic Sea region accounted for 13% of Europe’s tourism measured by international arrivals. According to UNWTO’s (World Tourism Organization) forecasts the number of arrivals should continue to rise 3.3% annually until 2030, when it is expected to reach the 1.8 billion international tourists mark. With numbers like this you would expect some major economic and environmental changes in the regions.

The threat and opportunity of increasing tourism rates throws us a scale of uncertainty, forcing us to create a balance between profit and conservation; what we can do for the people and the environment.

The conservation of the Baltic Sea has been hovering on people’s lips for a number of years and with tourism presenting us even more challenges, attention must be direc-

• 4

ted to the possible solutions of mitigating the environmental damage, while sustaining a profitable maritime and coastal economy. Global warming leads to a rise of sea levels which disturbs the opportunities of maritime tourism and, thus, the circle is complete. The pattern is difficult to redirect or break without investing time or making sacrifices, with both being something we cannot afford, yet it is absolutely necessary.

Currently not much is being done for the well-being of the Baltic Sea. Communication platforms for the states surrounding it have been created and some minimum regulations have been implemented, which of course are vital. Without conversation, the states would not be able to come together with an integrated plan that all could benefit from, but more concrete actions should be taken in order to gain results. The Baltic Sea is not far from becoming a lost cause, being one of the most polluted seas in the world, and tourism cannot be allowed to tip it over the edge.

Littering, poor waste management from sources such as cruise ships, recreational

By Sara Laurikainen (FI) boating and coastal activity are the main causes of water pollution from tourism. The Baltic Sea is still being used as a rubbish dump by passenger ships as the IMO’s (International Maritime Organization) issued ban of discharging litter in to the sea failed, the reason being a lack of sufficient waste management in the Baltic Sea states’ ports.

Dumping harmful liquids lead to an excess of nutrients in to the sea accelerating eutrophication and increasing harmful algae growth in the sensitive ecosystem. Moreover, the failure of proper waste management in recreational boating contributes to nutrient pollution. A Baltic States wide ban of discharging waste into the sea by cruise ships should be re-introduced with penalties, and waste management points in ports for cruise ships and by the coast for boats should be funded.

A range of four to 1200 items were found per 100m at the coastline of the Baltic Sea highly depending on the location, according to HELCOM (The Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission) 2013. The weight ranged from 0.4 to 66kg. The majority of litter being typical household items such as bottles, food and snack packaging as well as cigarette butts which prove the carelessness of locals and tourists. Littering fines must be dramatically raised and surveillance in the coastal areas increased to reduce the amount of rubbish drifting out

to the sea. Also, popular areas of shoreline activities and water sports could be more confined and bordered to keep the waste inside those areas thus making the cleaning easier and more efficient. But is it sufficient?

It is one thing to try to solve the problem by fixing the effect of it, but what about the root? The local enterprises that work by the coast should be encouraged, perhaps with incentives, to use biodegradable packaging materials for food, snacks and other popular items, as these products will most likely be used at the shore. With a combination of attacking the problem’s effect and its root, the amount of littering could be reduced. If not dramatically at first hand, then step by step by moving in to the right direction.

The Baltic Sea states are missing out on an economically ideal opportunity of becoming an area of today’s modern tourism. To create sustainability in the field of maritime tourism it is absolutely essential to manage and revive the area. If the Baltic Sea goes down in flames, so does everything related to it: tourism, employment, fisheries, and, thus, the economy of the local areas. The scale must be balanced as currently the environment is suffering at the expense of profit. In order to stimulate maritime tourism, the states surrounding the Baltic Sea have to cooperate and reduce the pollution of their waters.

5 •

PECH

Scooping out our Oceans Never has the danger of overfishing been greater

As we observe the play of nature, admiring the beauty of wildlife and ecosystems, we tend to forget about the predestined end of our healthy oceans. Whether we blame climate change, pollution or overfishing does not matter; in fact, it weakens our chances in the battle against time.

Arguing against our liability towards the environment has proven to give fisheries more and more time to stay afloat, but denying our duty to preserve nature, will eventually crumble the amount of species living on our planet.

I know – all the debates about climate change make you groan about discussing the environment, but ignoring it will not make the problem disappear. Human interference into evolution by overfishing poses a major threat towards the balance of many ecosystems. According to scientific reports, the amount of natural predators is alarmingly decreasing as smaller fish prevail and reproducing at an unprecedented rate.

Even though environmental activists have made some efforts to “save the whales� humanity has given little contribution to sustainable fishing management. 1.6% of our oceans are marine protected areas (MPAs) of which 90% are open to fishing. To put that into context, this is an area smaller than the state of Texas in which it is forbidden to

fish. So, why do our solutions happen to be ineffective?

We missed the wake-up call of scientists who told us many species will become extinct. Varying estimations predicted between 200 and 100,000 species being wiped out each year. However, warnings of that kind were not enough to change our mind-sets .The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) asserted that chlorophyll concentrations that help create oxygen have fallen by around 12% in the North Pacific, North Atlantic and Indian Ocean since 1998. Scientific work is necessary for a sustainable future, but active engagement remains prior to scientific reports.

We already experience the heralds of consequences at our front door, noticing the social unrest among coastal communities that depend on high fish stocks. Further, we, as young people, interested in the inner workings of globalization become aware of global, far-reaching and terrifying problems. Through our EYP-binoculars we get the ability to spot the problems far out of our reach.

Decision makers do not seem to be aware of the importance of the issue. They claim aquacultures to be the perfect solution and turn their focus to the question on how to maximize profit margins. Without visual

proof alarm bells remain silent.

Of course, fish is a valuable source of nutrition which we depend on. In order to survive on the long-term it is essential that we provide the necessary environment. This allows the remainder of species to recover and approach a sustainable fishing management.

Every year, the EU loses 3.2 billion Euros and 100,000 jobs due to fishing-subsidies that keep loss-making fisheries afloat. Almost ironic if you consider that the costs of overfishing are five times higher than the total amount of all fishing subsidies. After all, we cannot only blame politicians for our exhausted oceans.

People are the ones who give fisheries the breeding ground for profit. Mankind’s unquenchable hunger for sea food arouses a demand that outranges our capacities, also keeping in mind the constant population growth. A proactive way of dealing with this

problem is compelling, challenging and absolutely vital. Although it does not lie in our hands to influence private consumption; we can take diplomatic actions. We ought to stop worrying about profit maximisation and start coordinating the baffling tangle of overlapping authorities that struggle to provide necessary structures and strict law enforcement.

Our environment is far more than a debate. Sticking our heads in the sand will not give ecosystems the chance to recover. If enough people did it for a sufficient amount of time, they could. Still it does not prevent fisheries from continuing to scoop out our beloved oceans. If we want to preserve them and contribute to a sustainable age of growth we must take action. If we adapt the approach of current politicians who discredit the topic, soon we will take up the space of the Bluefin Tuna on the list of endangered species.

By Stefan Peters (DE)

ITRE

Will Marine Energy be the new Titanic of the EU?

Does sea-based energy possess the potential to satisfy the EU‘s energy demand and boost national economies whilst harmonising with the environment?

With an ever increasing energy demand and threat of global warming the significance of renewable energy sources has drastically risen. Apart from offshore wind parks, the sea offers diverse opportunities for energy production by exploiting temperature and salinity gradient differences, as well as tidal and wave power. Therefore, the European Union embarks on new journeys to encounter the most profitable and sustainable technologies while surpassing global competitors. One of their agendas is the sea-based energy production whose implementation has been restricted in the past due to missing energy grid connections and the lack of economic and ecologic longterm predictions which frightens off private investors.

Firstly, the persistent Ukraine crisis poses a continuous threat of supply disruptions from Russian energy suppliers. Thus, the EU is searching for a diversification of their suppliers as well as technologies for selfsufficiency. Therefore, the marine energy production is idealised as a reliable and inexhaustible source. Despite the perpetual existence of water, are there no limits to its capabilities concerning output and storage?

Secondly, the European Commission believes that sea based energy production promises economic growth by increasing EU technology exports and the creation of 420,000 new jobs. Moreover, it might install the European Union as the captain on the global energy market. At least until every • 8

other global player has developed a cheaper blueprint.

Thirdly, an establishment of various seabased energy devices could aid the EU and its citizens to accomplish the 2030 target to decrease the amount of emissions by 40 % compared to 1990 levels because the producers promise “clean energy”. Are these devices able to balance out the emissions caused during their production with the energy they process in the long run? Is this technology a useful weapon against global warming?

Marine energy could turn out to be a sinking ship concerning sustainability. The limits of this energy production are suitably visualized by the example of the Rance Tidal Power Station in France which has the highest tidal range in Europe. Established in 1961 the production site saturates just 0.12 % of the French energy demand annually.

Additionally, the cost-intensive project has balanced out its installation costs after 20 years.

However, the facility can evidently only convert tidal energy twice a day. Solely the favourable precondition of the high tidal range enables this site to produce such a tremendous amount of energy in contrast to other tidal power stations. This means that every other facility will only cover a minimal fragment of our demand. Moreover, the construction of the Rance Power Sta-

By Christina Petrik (DE)

tion expelled certain species like eels and plaice whilst only a few, such as cuttlefish, returned after ten years.

Apart from these aforementioned disadvantages marine energy will arrive with a ship‘s cargo of problems restricting a sustainable production. Sea-based energy production devices will decrease our biodiversity because they severely transform marine habitats resulting in migrations, or even extinction, of species such as fish and molluscs. This effect is a consequence of the disruptions of sea and river streams by installing artificial barrages which are inevitable for the production. In addition, most devices produce low-frequency noises. Inaudibility for humans due to the sea‘s noise absorbency does not signify that sea creatures will not be molested.

Additionally, marine energy companies can solely ensure that the utilization of toxic oils and chemicals is minimized, but not fully eliminated. These substances will penetrate the food chain and, thus, our bodies.

The production of these devices and the necessary enlargement of the grid and its connections consumes energy whilst causing

emissions which may never be compensated by the facilities‘ outputs.

Furthermore, it is impossible to save this generated energy, meaning that it can neither be stored, nor adjusted to peaks in our demand. Thus, capacity markets have to be opened to saturate our demand with energy from mostly non-renewable sources.

Lastly, due to the necessity of a large amount of finance to build marine energy production plants, energy prices will evidently increase. The result will be widespread energy poverty among the European population or an undesirable necessity of imports causing further dependencies.

To put it into a nutshell, sea-based energy does not possess the power to combat neither global warming, nor does it possess the ability to enhance the EU‘s global competitiveness in the near future. It poses a threat to Europe‘s biodiversity and human health whilst the output cannot outweigh the costs and expenditure of energy of the production. The EU should focus its attention and research on more cost-effective and eco-friendly renewables such as wind driven turbines.

9 •

ENVI

By Milja Miettinen (FI) Even though waste prevention and recycling have improved within the EU - thanks to an increased awareness of citizens and businesses - the EU’s economy still loses a notable amount of potential secondary raw materials every year during waste management. For this reason the EU now aims to move towards a more circular economy instead of the current linear model, where the usual pattern is “take-make-dispose” and thus most of the produced waste is disposed straight in landfills.

How would a circular economy improve Europe’s economic growth?

In the past century increasing population growth, urbanization and material consumption rates have caused severe environmental problems as the amount of waste has grown uncontrollably becoming hazardous for ecosystems and public health. Nowadays waste is one of the major environmental pollutants, for instance the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Yet, as technology develops, waste is now seen as a potential source of raw materials and energy.

• 10

According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, in our current linear economy, 80% of the consumed products and materials end up in incinerators, landfills and wastewater. If you are not a fan of toxic cocktails, I suppose you hope that this does not mix with your ground water. In the circular model instead, waste is recognised as a useful resource, meaning that reusing, repairing and recycling will increase as all materials are utilised more efficiently, which reduces Europe’s environmental footprint at the same time.

At the moment, EU‘s industry is dependent on imports regarding critical raw materials and is there for pretty defenceless to high prices and political situations in supplying countries. If the circular economy proves to be successful, the need for imports would likely decrease over time, strengthening

the European inner market. However, the transition to the circular economy won’t be smooth and without negative consequences, if businesses, especially SMEs, won’t get the needed support and guidance for the transition. A research of POLFREE (Policy Options for a Resource-Efficient Economy) focused on barriers that businesses might experience while increasing their resource efficiency. These barriers are mostly caused by political institutions, market conditions, individuals’ values and too expensive technology. The biggest challenge is, however, to change mind-sets and attitudes, since studies have already shown the many positive effects of the circular model.

The circular economy has several advantages. It can bring major economic benefits, for instance promote competitiveness, employment and growth. According to “the EU 2020 Vision” of the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), the EU could gain 110 billion euros of improved trade balance due to reduced imports. At the same time, the circular economy can also protect humans and the environment from harmful chemicals and substances. This is referred to as potential synergies between economic and environmental goals, as better waste management would bring more critical raw materials and secondary raw materials available for industry at their highest utility and value. The amounts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of landfills would then shrink too as well.

The increased awareness on the need to find better solutions for safe disposal of waste has evoked innovations on how waste can be utilised as a source of energy.

Even if there is an obvious need to reduce the waste production and to increase recycling, the technologies for recovery of energy from waste can play an important role in mitigating the problems, too.

Waste-to-Energy plants generate energy from a waste, which isn’t good enough for recycling. After burning the waste, energy turns into the form of steam, electricity or hot water. In addition, these plants help to improve Europe’s resource efficiency, where ash metals from the bottom can be cleaned, separated and recycled into new products that otherwise would be impossible.

Waste-to-Energy reduces waste‘s volume by 90% and plants also meet the most strict emission limit values set out in the European Waste Incineration Directive.

Later this year in 2015, a new and ambitious circular economic strategy from the European Commission will be published to encourage Europe to transform into a more competitive and resource-efficient economy. At the moment, Europe is also planning to create markets for secondary raw materials. Sustainable economic growth and the increase of the quality of life are the main targets when speaking of resource efficiency, which is now a key priority for many policymakers in Europe. However, these targets are still hard to reach and there will always be opponents who are against the transition. Thus it’s our responsibility to show our support for a greener economy and a waste-free future. Here in this session we have a chance to show that legislation can also be a positive thing, leading and encouraging us towards a more resource efficient Europe.

Waste is extremely hazardous for sea ecosystems as well, as for the neighbour countries and their citizens. Trying to tackle these problems through a circular economy doesn‘t only lead us towards a more environmentally sustainable future but towards an economically and socially sustainable future as well. Whether we implement these solutions or stay on our current course of irresponsibility, the results will be visible in the near future.

11 •

Koe New York, Pariisi, Sydney, Tokio...

Go study - have fun!

Vaihto-oppilasvuosi 2016-17 USA • Kanada • Australia • Uusi-Seelanti • Iso-Britannia • Irlanti Saksa • Ranska • Italia• Espanja• Argentiina• Costa Rica• Japani Explorius Education, Ratakatu 1b A1, 00120 Helsinki, puh. 010 321 1930, info@explorius.fi Tilaa ilmainen esite nettisivuiltamme explorius.fi

Explorius Finland

#explorius finland

HALUATKO YLIOPISTOON? TUTKITUSTI PARAS VALMENNUSKURSSIJÄRJESTÄJÄ Riippumaton tutkimus 2014

Valmennuskurssit yliopistoon - 09 2727 130 - www.eximia.fi Abikurssit Ammattikorkeakoulut Biologia DI-osastot Englanti Farmasia

Kasvatustieteet Kauppatieteet Liikuntatiede Lääketiede Maantiede Maatalous-metsätieteet

Oikeustiede Psykologia Ravisemustiede Teologia Valtiotieteet Yhteiskuntatieteet

AGRI II

How to tackle eutrophication of the Baltic Sea?

By Jasmin Mylläri (FI) A major problem facing the Baltic Sea is eutrophication. Merriam-Webster defines eutrophication as “the process by which a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients that stimulate the growth of aquatic plant life usually resulting in the depletion of dissolved oxygen.” The most significant causes for the phenomena is waste produced from sewage plants, agricultural fertilisers and transportation. Eutrophication of the Baltic Sea has major impact on the marine ecosystem; it deteriorates water quality, creates imbalance amongst species and promotes growth of algae and neurotoxins.

Nutrient rates of the Baltic Sea have risen to alarming amounts during the past hundred years; the amount of nitrogen in this brackish sea has increased 400% whereas its phosphorus rates have increased 800%.

Most of these nutrients flow to the sea as discharge from large rivers such as Neva, Nemunas and Daugava. However, nutrient loading is also affected by quality of urban storm water outfall and atmospheric deposition; both of the aforementioned directly reflect fossil fuel combustion rates and ammonia volatilisation.

At the session, this issue is tackled by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural De• 14

velopment II, which is chaired by Ludvig Dietmann. Ludvig is a 20 year old student from Stockholm, Sweden and he studies industrial engineering at Lund University. He has taken interest in environmental and agricultural topics both within and out of the European Youth Parliament and is now sharing his own opinions on the issue.

Considering that 90 million people live in the Baltic Sea’s catchment area, it is alarming that only 7% of the sea’s area is currently at an acceptable eutrophication level. Due to the load of nutrients towards the sea, its biomass has increased significantly and resulted in a lowering of the water’s transparency. During summers, eutrophication is also visible in algal blooms in the sea. “The excessive bloom of algae during summers is not only poisonous to the Baltic Sea’s ecosystem but also to us, when we swim in the sea,” reminds Ludvig. “We must keep in mind that eutrophication induces a vicious chain reaction in the Baltic Sea’s ecosystem.

Restoring balance to the sea’s ecosystem is the key, also for ensuring prevalence of its’ varied populations.”

While some species benefit from the nutrient-rich water, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) states with concern the decreasing numbers of predatory fish and cod

as a result of the sea’s degraded water quality. “Further actions are crucial to prevent extinction of species living in the sea. It is important to consider the effects of eutrophication on marine populations also when revising EU regulations,” Ludvig adds, “I’m looking forward to seeing what solutions for new measures my committee as well as the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) come up with during the session!”

Despite the fact that it is important to ensure the ecosystem’s prosperity, Ludvig also sees the economic potential of acting on eutrophication: “Restoring the water quality on a municipal level could provide hundreds of thousands of new jobs.” A study commissioned by Zennström Philanthropies and conducted by The Boston Consulting Group in February 2015 claims taking restoring actions to the Baltic Sea would create 900 000 new jobs by 2030. According to the study, a single city could generate €270 million over the next 15 years and create over 3000 thousand permanent jobs if they were to take action today.

Eutrophication of the Baltic Sea is clearly an issue that affects many elements both in its catchment area and on a global scale; the Baltic Sea is one of the busiest maritime areas in the world. Ludvig views eutrophi-

cation as a societal issue that will be solved by involving both the citizens and governing institutions.

To encourage personal action, he has a few proposals for each session participant to consider: “Firstly, it’s important not to use the toilet or sink to flush unnecessary waste or chemicals. Also, avoid excessive usage of washing detergents. Secondly, we should opt to for organic, locally produced foods.

Thirdly, keeping in mind the environmental effects of transportation: , walk and cycle when you can, favour public transport and shift to environmentally friendly fuels.”

“I hope all of you will feel encouraged to be environmentally responsible. Eutrophication is directly affected by unsustainable agriculture and indirectly by global warming.”

It is thought that 80% of excess nutrients come from land-based activities, such as agricultural runoff, industry, sewage plants and waste. “However, I do not want to guilt you into becoming a vegetarian - I’m not even one myself,” Ludvig points out. “Raising personal responsibility cannot replace political decision-making, which I believe will be the main route to find a solution for eutrophication”

15 •

AGRI I

Hamburgers causing Global Warming

How can you tell if someone is a vegan? Don’t worry, they’ll tell you.

By Luka Kodikaite (LT) Vegan jokes are currently rather popular. I assure you that being neither a vegan, nor an environmental activist myself, obviously I will not try to convince you into becoming one. Though having in mind the state our world is in you, I and everyone should consider changing their diets.

The campaigns to raise awareness of food wastage usually show discarded fruits and vegetables, but in fact unconsumed food in households is just the tip of the iceberg when considering the damage our consummative eating culture does to our planet.

The most harm to environment is caused during the manufacturing period. Enormous amounts of pesticides and fertilisers are needed to grow crops that the consumers consider to have a “sellable appearance” and a long shelf-life. This contributes to air pollution, soil and water contamination. Agriculture is definitely one of the most destructive human activities.

Is it the production of crop products s that is responsible for this extensive usage of resources? In point of fact, it is factory farming of meat. Agriculture uses about 70% of fresh water worldwide, but most of meat production goes to the farms, to feed ani• 16

mals. For example, approximately 1,000 litres (L) of water are required to produce 1 kilogramme (kg) of cereal grain and 43 times more water (43,000 L) to produce 1 kg of beef. Livestock (animals breed for meat, dairy and eggs) takes about half of the water used for all agriculture, summing up to one third of drinkable water consumed by humanity. Livestock covers 45% of the Earth’s total land and is the main, largest and unsurpassable cause of many ecological problems known to humans. These include deforestation, air pollution, soil erosion and droughts, water contamination, world hunger, extinction of species, the appearance of dead zones in the oceans. The list does not end there.

Before overloading you with facts and numbers, I have to ask whether you have ever heard about cattle breeding being one of the largest contributors to global warming in school or on the media. For some reason, consequences of extensive overconsumption of animal products are entirely neglected, despite it being a major threat to our planet. But the truth is that livestock accounts for 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions, while all means of transport altogether (cars, ships, planes, trains, etc.) are

responsible only for 13%. Nevertheless, do not forget methane, which is 90 times more greenhouse effect stimulating than carbon dioxide. Solely cows produce 568 billion litres of methane every day.

Is the growing of plants more hazardous than cattle breeding? Almost everything grown is grown to feed animals. Our world today cultivates enough food to potentially feed 10 billion people, but instead, 795 million people world-wide suffer from famines.

A logical question may arise – how is this possible? At least half of the crops produced around the world are fed to farm animals.

Meanwhile, as much as 82% of children suffering from starvation live in countries that grow food that is used for livestock, so that people in Western world could enjoy their burger.

The harmful overproduction of animal products became an issue when people started eating meat on a daily basis, not only once or twice a week. The good news is you can make a huge difference without giving up your favourite dish. With only a careful meal plan, one can make a huge impact on reducing food waste and waste for food.

Make vegan Mondays a part of your life; on

at least two other days, make meat a side dish. Good, low-impact protein foods include grains, legumes and nuts. Choose lowerfat dairy products. To waste less food, buy right-size portions and eat what you buy.

Considering on average, uneaten meat accounts for more than twenty percent of meat’s greenhouse gas emissions.

To contribute on a higher level, strengthening of regulations should be initiated to prevent pollution and unnecessary use of antibiotics and hormones for farm animals.

Taxpayers subsidise animal feed. Funding programs should be cut and also conservation requirements on farms that collect subsidies should be strengthened. Additionally, comprehensive energy and climate policies should be enacted.

Maybe give veganism a try? After all, it seems like right now it is the most suitable diet for our planet. If not, there still are millions of ways on how to reduce food wastage. After all, the key thing to do is to rethink our food consumption patterns and be more aware of the consequences when choosing what and how much of it we eat. “Think, take, make, consume and dispose”.

17 •

AFET

How far can the Baltic States go?

Baltic States have been considered to be the most rapidly growing economies in Europe. However, this tendency seems to be changing as the Ukrainian crisis goes on.

Aforementioned states used to spend considerably less on military affaires compared to other countries in the world. This has been one of the reasons how these three states were able to develop their economies. After Ukrainian war, governments of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were forced to increase their military spending up to 2% of their GDP (growth domestic product) which means that they’ll have to nearly double their military spending. In times where a country’s safety is at stake, a country’s economy starts to falter. Lack of safe environment deters businessmen to make any further investments. No one would invest in a country where there is a high risk of losing all of the money that was invested. Above all this, there is one more important issue.

Russia’s economy has been intertwined with the Baltic economies.

On the 7th of August 2014, Russia announced the introduction of an import ban for certain agricultural products originating from the European Union (EU). This food ban came as a response to the implementation of sanctions towards Russia, due to the violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and the annexation of Crimea, deemed illegal by the European Council. A year later, Russia announced the further extension of the embargo until August 2016, putting even more pressure on the EU to cease the on• 18

going sanctions towards Russia. For Lithuania and Estonia, Russia was the main export destination with 16% of their total exports, whereas for Latvia it is the second largest export market with 11%. The biggest losses will be suffered by Lithuania: in 2013 the value of goods subject to the export embargo to Russia amounted to 910 million EUR, which equates to 2.6% of Lithuania’s GDP and 3.7% of total exports. In the case of Estonia and Latvia the losses amounted to, respectively, 72 and 67 million EUR (0.4 and 0.3% of GDP). No quick reorientation of the directions of exports or change in the production profile is possible, although the authorities have been making such attempts.

As a matter of fact, the Baltic States have experienced huge economic losses lately. Another fact that deteriorates the successful way out of this problem is the Baltic States’ dependency on Russian energy supplies. This issue has been one of the most significant areas of Baltic regional cooperation – shared use of the local infrastructure and the development of electrical energy and gas exchange markets could guarantee the region’s independence and integrate Baltic markets with other EU energy markets. For this to be possible, the Baltic States would have to unify their energy policies and shape their relations with Russia in a convergent manner.

Meanwhile, only Lithuania has managed to launch multilevel measures to reduce its energy dependence on Russia, in spite of resistance from pro-Russian groups

By Zviad Jolokhava (GE)

slowing down this process. The key element of Vilnius’s strategy has been the implementation of the Lithuanian LNG terminal project, according to which liquefied gas would have been supplied to the port of Klaipeda.

This could be a ray of lighting on Lithuania’s energy independence. This could be the way to diversify Baltic energy supplies and finally abolish Gazprom monopoly.

Unlike Lithuania, Latvia has been struggling to gain favorable terms for long term cooperation with Gazprom rather than trying to make further step towards its energy independence. Gazprom has gained its upper hand by giving favorable conditions and by prohibiting third parties to create free trade markets. This seatback is an act which has become a key factor to halt the severance of economic ties between Russia and Baltic states.

Even though Baltic States are in complete turmoil, their economical increase has been announced by Eurostat in GDP growth forecasts. The rate of economic growth in the Baltic states has continued to be one of the highest in the EU; currently, the EU’s leader in this respect is Lithuania with 2.8%, whereas for Latvia the figure is 2.4%, and for Estonia 1.7%.

However; will they be able to maintain sustainable development in a long run? How far can Baltic States go? Some say not far enough, but as a matter of fact we all know that resolving this dilemma will be our major challenge in future.

DROI

Stop complaining, start cooperating 2.07 million Syrian asylum seekers are currently receiving shelter in Turkey, whilst only around 500,000 have applied for asylum in the EU until September 2015 Human rights violations and the life-threatening presence of the Islamic State (IS) in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region resulted in large influxes of migrants applying for asylum in the European Union or in neighbouring countries, being epicentres of unrests.

Firstly, victims of terrorism in the respective countries endure terrorist confrontations posing a threat to their physical and mental health such as violence and sexual harassment.

These deficiencies originate from the fact that non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are disabled to enter epicentres of unrest and massacres. Even if the inhabitants’ successfully escaped an attack, their chances of surviving are limited to a minimum because of other threats such as starvation, dehydration and infections. Furthermore, children and adolescents cannot enter educational institutions which offer possibilities for future development of their personal career, income and purchasing power, thus, their country‘s economic growth.

• 20

By Christina Petrik (DE) Moreover, there is an insufficient supply of humanitarian personnel which is essential for medical treatments and the coordination of supplies. Unfortunately, non-governmental organisations are unable to ensure the personnel‘s security which evidently decreases the amount of volunteers. However, is it even feasible to negotiate with terrorists in order to protect humanitarian personnel? In general, where is the frontier of diplomacy?

Secondly, one cannot contemplate the asylum seekers‘ situation in the refugee camps in Turkey or Lebanon as an actual improvement of their situation due to the lack of resources. Despite the existence of EU funds and donations by global citizens, the aggregated money and goods frequently never reach their destination. Consequently, the applicants for asylum suffer from malnutrition and diseases caused by insufficient food supplies and polluted drinking-water.

Furthermore, the asylum seekers cannot receive access to neither proper sanitation and shelters, nor medical assistance exposing them to extreme climatic pre-conditions and bacteria.

Thirdly, due to the deterioration of the situation human traffickers have been exploiting victims of violence or sexual harassment in return for a risky voyage. This route either includes an exhaustive hike from Turkey, through Greece and the Balkan States to Central Europe, or a crossing of the Mediterranean Sea with a small, mal-equipped boat.

These human rights violations ought to be prevented by our global society. Globalization has established excellent means of communication and transport which could be a lethal weapon against terrorism and human trafficking. Access to information enables asylum seekers to avoid human traffickers by utilising navigation systems or social media to encounter a route on their own.

Fourthly, the European Union possesses the power and the necessary finances to support countries such as Turkey or Lebanon to satisfy the asylum seekers‘ basic needs which is synonymous to saving lives.

In order to increase the programmes‘ economic and social sustainability, the EU has to further embark on cooperation with the United Nations (UN) to take a firm stance in the fight against terrorism. The Council of Europe and the UN have already developed a plan to embark on new joint investigations to detect human traffickers and aid programmes to provide the chance of survival to any asylum seeker. Moreover, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has stressed that Europe’s active participation in defending the rights of civil society, relieving the pressures of the global migration crisis, confronting the virulent spread of violent extremism, and working for a sustainable future for all, was needed now more than ever.

Fifthly, the EU Member States could not

reach a consensus on how to adequately share the amount of refugees. . Nongovernmental organizations attribute this to a lack of political will and solidarity. In addition, Hungary and Croatia have re-established fortresses which can be interpreted as ignorance towards the conflicts in the MENA region. Nevertheless, these respective actions restrict the credibility and effectiveness of the EU‘s involvement.

Lastly, it is of significance that the EU Member States strengthen confidence in the EU while stimulating shared responsibility to prevent the re-introduction of border controls. Additionally, the EU ought to encourage its citizens to approach asylum seekers with understanding, as well as to extinguish xenophobia and segregation. Thus, our world would be enriched with acceptance for diversity and appreciation for cultural differences.

To put it into a nutshell, the European Union should aim to support neighbouring states such as Lebanon and Turkey with financial and non-financial aid. In addition, it ought to instigate cooperation with the UN to display absolute intolerance against terrorist attacks and establishing peace, especially in the MENA region. Europe definitely has the potential to solve this crisis if its resources are well used all European citizens have understood their defining role in solving this issue.

Partners of Kaarina 2015 the Regional Session of EYP Finland

European Youth Parliament Finland - EYP - Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki www.eypfinland.org info@eypfinland.org