Academic Preparation Kit Amsterdam 71th International Session of the EYP by International Office of the European Youth Parliament

The European Youth Parliament

October, 2012

Topic Preparation Kit The 71st International Session Amsterdam, Netherlands

European Youth Parliament, SophienstraĂ&#x;e 28-29, 10178 Berlin, Germany. Tel.: +49 (0)30 97 00 50 95 Fax::+49 (0)30 280 95 150

I. DELEGATES’ PREPARATION KIT

a. Committee Topics For your information you will find a list of all 15 Committee Topics. Always be aware of the work of the other Committees, since everybody will participate in the final discussions of the General Assembly.

b. Committee Topic Preparation Overviews: The overviews are written by the Committee chairpersons to serve as background material. They aim to identify the key issues at stake while synthesizing the topic area. The objective is naturally to keep these overviews as balanced as possible, yet they may not receive unanimous consent. It should be noted that the EYP strongly encourages independent thinking so feel free to disagree!

Keywords: The non-exhaustive list of keywords intends to facilitate searching for information, may it be documents, news items or articles, at different types of search engines, news websites and encyclopedias.

Research Links: As regards the suggestions for research links, the list is by no means exhaustive. Rather than citing individual links, we have preferred indicating links to websites where several relevant documents and articles can be found. Please note that the EYP is not responsible for the contents on various websites; the texts reflect the opinions of their authors only.

We wish you successful preparation and interesting reading!

Gillian O’Halloran

Ville Vasaramäki

President

Executive Director

II. COMMITTE TOPICS

1. AFET - Committee on Foreign Affairs Rioting for democracy: with thousands of Russians constituting an informal opposition, democratic values under threat, how can the EU balance its role as an advocate of democracy whilst further pursuing the negotiations for the renewal of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement and maintaining stable relations with the Russian Federation?

2. SEDE I - Committee on Security and Defence I With tension between Iran and the West continuing to grow over the formerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s nuclear program, what action should the EU take to strike the right balance between upholding diplomatic relations and ensuring stability?

3. SEDE II - Committee on Security and Defence II With hackers outsmarting engineers, corporations and institutions are subject to attack. Concerned over maintaining their reputations, many cyber crimes go unreported. What incentives can the EU foster to ensure cyber-security and the protection of personal data?

4. JURI - Committee on Legal Affairs The future of embryonic stem cell research in a heterogeneous legal landscape: how can the EU and its Member States strike a balance between protecting embryos for moral reasons, enhancing therapeutic prospects for patients suffering from incurable illnesses, and protecting freedom of research?

5. AFCO â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Committee on Constitutional Affairs Is the solution to the Eurocrisis 'more Europe' or less? With the aftermath of the financial crisis dragging on for longer and longer, what institutional reforms are required to deal with the current political stalemate?

6. ENVI - Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety As energy prices reach their most volatile in decades and criticism of the European Union Emission Trading Scheme grows, what actions should the EU take regarding its current support for emissions trading?

7. EMPL I - Committee on Employment and Social Affairs I The European pension sector is going through difficult times: ageing hits the sustainability of pension schemes hard, volatility on the financial markets creates chaos for policy makers and regulation forces pension schemes into holding more risk capital than ever before. What can Member States and regulators do to ensure a decent standard of living beyond retirement for all European citizens?

8. EMPL II - Committee on Employment and Social Affairs II Unpaid internships, extending education, returning to the family home and mass migration: in light of the current economic crisis and especially rising youth unemployment, what action should the EU take to effectively fight the exclusion of young people from the job market?

9. ECON - Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs The future of European banking: In light of the recent banking crisis and the establishment of the European Banking Authority, to what extent should the European banking sector be jointly regulated and governed?

10. DROI - Committee on Human Rights With relentless violence continuing in Syria, is it acceptable for the international community to stand by engaging in cyclical discussion? What action should the EU take to protect the safety and security of those in the affected region in the wake of the Arab Spring?

11. DEVE - Committee on Development Feeding more with less: with one billion people lacking access to adequate food and nutrition, how can the EU in tandem with the private sector and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) increase both agricultural productivity and production to sustainably feed a growing world without jeopardizing our natural resources?

12. CULT - Committee on Culture and Education Equal opportunities for all: what action should the European Union take to ensure youth with migration background have equal access to education throughout Europe and what is the responsibility of the individual?

13. FEMM - Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality With slow progress in achieving gender parity across Europe in both political positions and the private sector, what is the role of women in perpetuating equality in the workplace? To what extent should the EU and Member States take more radical action in order to unlock the full potential of Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s female labour force?

14. CLIM - Committee on Climate Change The EU's role in international climate diplomacy: with the 18th Conference of the Parties (COP 18) in Doha taking place this November, many once again scrutinise the forums and forms of negotiations for effectively tackling climate change. Has the time come to redefine the current approach, find new regimes or admit defeat?

15. ITRE - Committee on Industry, Research and Energy With companies seeking talent in the West and improved education combined with lower costs in the East, how can the EU promote entrepreneurship and protect business at home?

III. Committee Topic Preparation 1. AFET – Committee on Foreign Affairs

Rioting for democracy: with thousands of Russians constituting an informal opposition, democratic values under threat, how can the EU balance its role as an advocate of democracy whilst further pursuing the negotiations for the renewal of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement and maintaining stable relations with the Russian Federation? OVERVIEW “In just two months, we have seen a worrying shift in the legislative environment governing the enjoyment of the freedoms of assembly, association, speech and information in the Russian Federation.” (Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, July 2012)

In May 2012 Vladimir Putin was re-elected as President of Russia, after having served two terms as President and one as Prime Minister from 1999 onwards. The victory of Mr. Putin and his party, United Russia, was highly contested and independent watchdogs raised doubts concerning the fairness of the elections. The claims of election fraud led to a series of demonstrations and riots in Russia.. While anti-democratic tendencies within the government have existed for several years, particularly those aimed at the media, many now claim that the repression of the rising opposition have now reached a new high. Legislation, which negatively affects NGOs receiving foreign funding, tightens rules on freedom of assembly, and strengthens state control over the Internet, has been passed and is being enforced. Hence, the Putin administration is under strong international criticism, e.g. during the 15th round of human rights consultation between Russia and the EU in July 2012. The fact that there was never a strong opposition before can be contributed to Putin´s high popularity. Under his leadership of the country came stability, economic growth and a new national confidence on the world stage. However, the state-centred elite did not have the will and institutions to also include the rising civil society, which now leads to deteriorating trust in the government, both in civil society and internationally. Meanwhile, the EU is increasingly worried about the anti-democratic reaction towards the opposition, yet only few joint actions of the Member States go beyond the mere rhetoric of condemning the Russian government. The strong economic and political ties the EU shares with Russia can somewhat explain this. Politically Russia is an important actor for the EU, since it possesses a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, both are members of many of the same international organisations and Russia has ambivalent historic bonds with European Member States. In 2011 Russia accounted for 11.7% of EU imported goods (only China exports more to the EU) and imported 7% of EU exports. The EU is by far Russia's largest market accounting for some 47% of all its trade. The relations increased greatly after 2000 and only suffered from a short setback after the war in Georgia in 2008. With high gas and oil imports, EU

Member States are still heavily dependent on Russia, as Poland for example imports 90% of its gas supplies from Russia. The EUÂ´s dependence is higher than ever before considering the rejection of nuclear energy production in some Member States after the Fukushima accident in 2011. However the EU seems to avoid discussions about the human rights situation, also because the Russian government is still the sovereign leader of the state and cooperation partner, not the opposition. This approach not to put human rights as the first priority during talks and in major agreements has been prevalent since the end of the Cold War and the first negotiations for political and economic cooperation. cooperation The EU has supported the development of democracy and the protection of human rights in Russia notably through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). Still, neither the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement (PCA), which was in force since 1997, nor the following set up of four Common Spaces with roadmaps including specific objects in 2005, nor the start of negotiations of the Partnership for Modernisation (P4M) in 2010 included measures that go beyond the InitiativeÂ´s actions and mere rhetoric. Instead they focused on economic issues and legal approximation. As the first PCA was planned to expire in 2007 a new one was meant to include the Common Spaces and negotiations started in 2006 with the hope for a deep economic and political agreement. Yet negotiation talks have been unsuccessful and stagnant mainly because EU Member States or Russia blocked them after bilateral trade disputes, e.g. about Polish agricultural products. Also the EU and Russia lack a common vision for their cooperation. But why is it so hard for the two parties to agree on a new PCA? Firstly, extensive commonalities and economic interests do exist, but essential differences in the understanding of modernisation, democracy and state sovereignty prevail. For Russia economic modernisation always comes first, while democratic rights can be set aside against enemies of the state and for the common good. Additionally it is the stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s right to choose its own path. For the EU, modernisation always implies political reforms as a precondition for economic ones. In previous agreements, however, Russia often felt patronised and wants to be treated as an equal partner. Russia is increasingly hostile towards Western interference and its attempts to impose Western values and norms. Many Russians do not perceive the EU as the pure democratic heaven Europeans want it to be and thus reject their criticism of newly passed legislation and other causes that have triggered the recent demonstrations.

Secondly, many negative effects accompany the tight economic relations. Russia is often accused of using its energy resources as a political weapon and playing Member States against each other through bilateral negotiations. At the same time, EU Member States can be blamed for failing to agree on a common policy towards Russia. For example, Italian, British and German companies back different pipeline projects and follow their own economic interests (Nord Stream, Nabucco, South Stream, the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline or the South East European Pipeline).

Thirdly, there is a lack of political trust. The negative effects mentioned above continuously harm the trustworthiness of both sides. In addition, historical circumstances explain different political approaches among Member States. Eastern-European countries are generally more sceptical towards new agreements and negotiations and barely trust Russian concessions. They focus more on the human rights situation and talks about political modernisation, compared to WesternEuropean countries, which stress economic modernisation and interests. Double standards, bilateral economic interest and a lack of trust could be the main terms to describe the current Euro-Russian relationship. What approach should the EU take in the future? Should it focus on trade and economic cooperation without interfering in Russia’s internal affairs? Or should it continue to support opposition movements against its cooperation partner, the Russian government? How big is Russia’s leverage and influence and is it thus only possible to have strong economic relations with Russia when disregarding democratic values and human rights? Once these fundamental decisions have been made, one will need to decide which policy areas should be covered in a new PCA and if political and economic cooperation can reach a new level following Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation, finalising a long road of transformation for Russia?

By Kerstin Eckart (DE)

Keywords Russia, Partnership and Co-Operation Agreement, Four Common Spaces, Strategic Partnership, Anna Politkovskaya, Normative actor vs. Realpolitik, Near abroad, European Neighbourhood Policy, Sovereignty, Human Rights

Research links 1. Introductory material: material: Political crisis in Russia http://www.economist.com/node/21541455 General Information about Russia and recent Articles http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/russia/index.html Ashton sheds light into EU's Russia diplomacy http://www.euractiv.com/europes-east/ashton-sheds-light-eus-russia-di-news-510553 Russia and EU try to rebuild confidence http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7728552.stm

2. Official sources Chronology of bilateral relations http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/russia/eu_russia/chronology/index_en.htm Delegation of the European Union to Russia http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/russia/index_en.htm Partnership and Co-Operation Agreements http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/external_relations/relations_with_third_countries/eas tern_europe_and_central_asia/r17002_en.htm

3. Other EU presses Russia to drop Polish meat ban http://euobserver.com/economic/23817

Putin's win is a hollow victory for a Russian free press http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/11/putin-win-russian-free-press

EU welcomes Russia's WTO accession after 18 years of negotiations http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/906&format=HTML&aged =0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

BP pushes Nabucco below the belt http://www.euractiv.com/energy/bp-punches-nabucco-belt-news-512994

2. SEDE I - Committee on Security and Defence I With tension between Iran and the West continuing to grow over the former’s nuclear program, what action should the EU take to strike the right balance between upholding diplomatic relations and ensuring stability?

OVERVIEW On July 1, 1968, representatives of more than 55 counties descended upon Washington, DC to sign a treaty, which would limit the spread of nuclear weapons. Bound by the hope, expressed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, that ‘man can still shape his destiny in the nuclear age and learn to live as brothers,’ the signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) vowed to assure that the nations in possession of nuclear weapons move toward effective measures of disarmament and the nations without nuclear capabilities would not strive to obtain them in the future. Today, nearly half a century onwards, the NPT has been signed by a total of 190 parties, including all EU Member States, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Iran. A core component of the NPT mandates that all the Non Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) are guaranteed access to civilian nuclear technology and energy development, including Iran. NNWS are subject to safeguards to ensure that materials and technology from civilian activities are not diverted to weapons programs. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the implementing body for the NPT, monitoring compliance with the treaty and assisting NNWS in developing civilian technology. Although the scope and mandate of the NPT and the IAEA are relatively broad, there is a critical gap in coverage: 190 states are party to the treaty, but three of the world's nine nuclear powers— India, Israel, and Pakistan—have never joined, and a fourth—North Korea—withdrew in 2003. Iran has consistently denied it is seeking a nuclear weapon and has insisted its uranium enrichment program is means for peaceful purposes, however a 2011 IAEA report has expressed serious concern that Tehran is pursuing activities connected to the development of a nuclear explosive device. In February 2012, IAEA inspectors were denied access to the Parchin, an Iranian military complex suspected of being used for tests related to nuclear weapons. The continued advancement of Iran’s nuclear program and its recent noncompliance with the IAEA’s demands has elicited the implementation of cross cutting economic sanctions from all UN member states and near universal global condemnation. In an effort to dial up the pressure on Iran, European Union foreign ministers have adopted a complete oil embargo against Tehran, which currently sends about 20 percent of its oil exports to the EU. European ministers also agreed to freeze the assets of Iran's central bank and ban trade in gold and other precious metals with the bank and other public entities. "I want the pressure of these sanctions to result in negotiations" with the West, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton explained. The tougher EU measures come shortly after the Obama administration imposed fresh sanctions on Iran's oil sector, and Europe and the United States are now trying to persuade Asian countries to reduce their purchases of Iranian oil as well. Despite the crippling economic and diplomatic sanctions, Iran is still considered to be on the path of acquiring nuclear capabilities, which has triggered a strong reaction from the United States, the EU Foreign Affairs Council and Israel, in particular.

In his speech at the UN General Assembly on 27 September, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu called for ‘a clear red line’ to be drawn over Iran’s nuclear programme, thus escalating the pressure on the United States and the EU to consider a possible military intervention in Iran. President Ahmadinejad has warned that Iran will not hesitate to retaliate if it comes under military attack and has expressed readiness to close the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic chokepoint through which 35% of the world’s petroleum is traded As tensions between election-tainted Washington and Israel escalate over further actions against Iran, the EU can play a vital role in facilitating a balance that would procure stability and ensure diplomatic relations between the various stakeholders in the conflict, while safeguarding its own geopolitical interests and energy security. The EU has pledged to continue employing all of its diplomatic capabilities vested in the European External Action Service (EEAS) and its High Representative Catherine Ashton to engage with Iran over a peaceful strategy regarding the former’s nuclear programme. The problem of nuclear proliferation is global, and any effective response must also be multilateral. However, as official talks between Iran and the P5+1 - the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China - ended without a breakthrough in June of this year, the question of whether the EU can employ its unique standing in the international stage to break the political stalemate over Iran’s nuclear programme has become ever more relevant. The crux of the problem still lies in the dilemma of whether the EU should extend the already severe sanctions imposed on Iran or offer political concessions that can be used as leverage in peaceful negotiations? The line between success and failure will be fine, but the outcome is sure to define the next generation in world foreign policy. By Petya Koleva (BL)

Keywords NPT, IAEA, nuclear weapons, Israel, the UNSC, the EU, P5+1, sanctions, military intervention

Research links Scope of the Nuclear Proliferation Challenge http://www.cfr.org/proliferation/global-nuclear-nonproliferation-regime/p18984 The nature of Iran’s nuclear threat http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/14/special-presentation-nuclear-iran-the-expert-intel/ The EU and Iran: current developments http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/19/the_eu_meets_with_iran_over_nuclear_prog ram The Role of the International Atomic Agency http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/31/report_card_iaea_iran_nuclear?page=0,1

Analysis of Binyamin Netanyahuâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s remarks at the UN General Assembly http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/27/binyamin-netanyahu-iran-nuclear-programme Op-ed: 8 Ways to Deal with Iran http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/26/eight_ways_to_deal_with_iran A Centre for Strategic and International Studies paper on how Iran might respond to in the next few years to a more explicit military deterrence http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/183565 The West: Time To Rethink Iran? Lord Garden Memorial Lecture at Chatham House http://www.chathamhouse.org/events/view/182925

OVERVIEW Botnets, malware and names like “Stuxnet” and “Byzantine Candor” sound as if they could come straight out of an old seventies sci-fi movie, yet they are very much alive and kicking all around the Internet. According to a recent report by the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA), “Cyber incident reporting in the EU”, the complete scope of cyber-security breaches all over the EU is still unclear. ENISA claims that because of unreported cyber crimes, billions more Euros than the current reported number are going lost. Behind this is what Europol calls “a new criminal landscape”, composed of individuals and groups who operate borderless, taking relatively low risks for big gains. Because cyber criminals operate across borders, international cooperation between the Member States and further countries seems essential, but it is not without challenges. The broad lines of this vital issue are more and more apparent and it turns out vital networks all over the EU are constantly in danger of cyber attacks. The European Commission recognises three major sorts of cyber attacks against networks. The first and seemingly most common kind are exploitation attacks, where hackers target both governmental and corporate networks in order to retrieve internal, personal or classified data, such as the “Byzantine Candor” botnet which the office of Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, was a victim of in June 2012. Another kind of attacks aim to disrupt systems and take them out temporarily, a famous example is the 2007 attack against Estonia, which disrupted almost all of the country’s main websites. Destruction attacks aim to take down essential networks overseeing water, electricity and even nuclear facilities, like Stuxnet did, which was aimed at destroying Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities. Hackers from around the world are not just committing crimes against our institutions but all kinds of corporations are being targeted, often to retrieve personal data of their customers and users. Former European Commissioner Kuneva sees personal data as “the oil of the internet and the new currency of the digital world”. However, it is not the purview of this topic to strengthen single individuals against cyber crimes; the focus should be on the bigger picture, which is strengthening companies and institutions to keep the personal data they have gathered from falling into the wrong hands. Though cyber-security is essentially a competence of the Member States, the EU is still developing a whole range of activities to coordinate the Member States efforts in countering the current threats. The above-mentioned ENISA is presently still the main European body looking into the issue of cyber threats. While it insists that a common European approach is needed, as an advisory EU Agency it is dependent on Member States. Within Member States, different bodies of government are responsible for combating cyber crimes. Some have attributed this

responsibility to their policy force, some have separate departments inside ministries of Interior Affairs, etc. making cooperation and coordination between Member States increasingly complex. The EU is currently setting up a new cyber crime centre at the Europol headquarters in The Hague, aiming to have it operational at the beginning of 2013. Europol was already fighting cyber crimes and despite an increased budget for the new centre, the challenges are still vast. The new centre needs to combine data from different Member States with different sets of legislation and from private companies cautious to lend support to an expensive increase of their own security measures. Another measure against cyber threats is Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs). Since the first ones were established in the nineties, they have been trying to prepare companies, governments and institutions for the dangers of cyber attacks. More than 100 CERTS are spread all over the EU, but some Member States have a very limited CERT capacity. In June 2011, a CERT-EU was set up, to help protect EU institutions from cyber crimes. A first pan-European exercise on Critical Information Infrastructure Protection (CIIP) (Cyber Europe 2010), conducted by ENISA showed a lot of work still has to be done by Member States. Since then, only 12 Member States have organised exercises themselves, but ENISA is currently preparing a second exercise, Cyber Europe 2012. Digital Agenda Commissioner Neelie Kroes has been calling for a common European Strategy for Internet Security, to be the start of a global solution to this global problem. The fact that only ten Member States have been or are developing a national Cyber Security Strategy, highlights the current capacity gap between different Member States. At the same time, Commissioner Kroes is calling for increased public-private partnerships, because so much of the critical information infrastructure is privately owned. Companies will have to take part of the responsibility, while the necessary measures need to be put in place for when an attack is successful. But how far is a company responsible for its own cyber security and when is the time for governments to step in? Furthermore additional challenges come from new technologies: smart phones, tablet computers and cloud technology are even more vulnerable to cyber attacks and are adding new dimensions to the concept of cyber security. Last year only, malware was discovered inside an Android app, infecting thousands of mobile devices. More and more professionals are using these new technologies, leaving often-confidential information vulnerable to attacks. So the question remains how the EU can further strengthen cyber security in an ever more complex digital era? By Stefan Vandenhende (BE)

Keywords European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA), Critical Information Infrastructure Protection (CIIP), cyber-security, cyber crime, botnets, malware, European Strategy for Internet Security, cloud computing, smart phones, tablet computers, Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT), cyber attacks.

Research links European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) http://www.enisa.europa.eu/

CERT-EU http://cert.europa.eu/cert/filteredition/en/CERT-LatestNews.html

Neelie Kroes A European Strategy for Internet Security http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/12/204&format=HTML&a ged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Cyber Europe 2012 https://www.enisa.europa.eu/media/news-items/training-day-getting-ready-for-cyber-europe2012

Cybersecurity: Protecting the digital economy Linksdossier - Euractive http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/cybersecurity-protecting-digital-linksdossier-508217

Smartphone security below par, says EU agency - Euractiv http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/smartphone-security-par-eu-agenc-news-507582

EU prepares to launch first cybercrime centre - Euractiv http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/eu-prepares-launch-cybercrime-ce-news-511823

Cyber security incidents rarely reported: EU agency - Euractiv http://www.euractiv.com/specialreport-data-protection/eu-agency-cyber-security-inciden-news514465

Industry accepts responsibility for security fears over cloud - Euractiv http://www.euractiv.com/specialreport-broadband-driving/industry-accepts-responsibility-news511227

Cyber attacks expected to increase in 'number and severity' - EUobserver http://euobserver.com/digital/31938

Smartphones are 'data goldmines' for hackers - EUobserver http://euobserver.com/cyber/113773

EU struggling to fight cyber crime - EUobserver http://euobserver.com/cyber/113833

Kroes demands internet security strategy - EUobserver http://euobserver.com/creative/116019

EU cyber-security legislation on the horizon - EUobserver http://euobserver.com/justice/116239

Customers still 'in the dark' on cyber crime, warns EU agency - EUobserver http://euobserver.com/justice/117359

OVERVIEW “Since their first successful derivation in 1998, human embryonic stem cells have received almost unprecedented attention. Hailed as the next revolution for medicine, they have been described as the future of molecular biology and the biggest development since recombinant DNA.” –C. R. Towns and D. G. Jones Stem cells are unspecialised (pluripotent) cells that have the ability to renew themselves indefinitely, and under appropriate conditions, develop into a variety of mature cell types in the human body. Stem cells can be derived from a variety of sources, including early embryos and fetal tissue, as well as some adult tissues, such as bone marrow and blood. There are essentially two types of stem cells: embryonic and adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells (ESC) are isolated from the inner cell mass of an embryo, five to seven days after fertilisation. In the process of in vitro fertilisation (IVF), an egg is fertilised by sperm outside the body, and the resulting fertilised egg (embryo) is planted in the uterus. While scientists have recently achieved results in isolating stem cells that are nearly as potent as embryonic stem cells but do not require destructing the embryo – the so-called induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) – surplus cells from IVF treatments remain the primary source of stem cells for research use for the time being. Embryonic stem cells’ capacity to differentiate into all specialised cells of the human body enables researchers to potentially improve on their understanding of how the human body develops from a fertilised egg and how diseases occur and develop. It is widely claimed that stem cell research has great potential in developing treatments to previously incurable diseases, such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, and injuries, such as spinal cord injuries. However, the ethical question at the crux of the issue is whether a fertilised egg – essentially human life at the embryonic state – should be granted the moral status of a human being. It has been argued that ESC research violates the sanctity of life and can even be compared to murder. Stem cell research has sparked an intense ethical, political and legal debate in Europe, and differences in regulation and support for research are many. Belgium and the United Kingdom support stem cell research on surplus IVF embryos, given that their use is deemed absolutely necessary for the research. In the UK, for instance, research must be authorised by a special body called the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority (HFEA). Germany and Italy have prohibited all research on embryonic stem cells, and most Member States either severely restrict the use of such cells or have no specific regulation on the area. The EU does not have particular competence on the area, and it has not established consistent regulation on stem cell research. The European Commission, however, is currently financing

ESC research through its Framework Programme 7 (FP7). This funding will continue within Horizon 2020, the next Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, in 2014 should it be adopted. The support for stem cell research has been a hotly debated issue in the European Parliament and other institutions of the EU. In addition to the national legislatures of different EU Member States, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have made certain decisions that bear significance on the issue. In the case of Greenpeace vs. Brüstle (2011), the CJEU banned embryonic stem cell patents, considering them to be “contrary to ethics and public policy”. As the decisions of the CJEU have power over all national legislation in EU Member States, stem cell research methods involving embryonic stem cells cannot be patented in any Member State. It should be noted that ESC research as such has not been prohibited, but the ban on patents may make it less attractive for researchers and companies to pursue such research. While a Greenpeace spokesperson argued that “commercial interests have to take a backseat” on this ethical issue, Dr. Oliver Brüstle considered the decision “an unbelievable setback for bio-medical research in the area of stem cells” in Europe. In the case of Vo vs. France (2004), the ECtHR argued that the definition and status of the embryo “remain an area where fundamental differences are encountered” and refrained from taking a stand on whether Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, protecting the right to life, concerns an embryo. It has thus effectively decided to leave the decision to each individual state and does not wish to interfere on the issue. In addition to the decisions by the CJEU and ECtHR, the reader should take note of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, signed by the EU and its Member States. The Convention aims to “protect the dignity and identity of all human beings and guarantee everyone, without discrimination, respect for their integrity and other rights and fundamental freedoms with regard to the application of biology and medicine”. Furthermore, the signatories state “interests and welfare of the human being shall prevail over the sole interest of society or science”.

In discussing this topic, the committee needs to find a balance with the various scientific, ethical and legal considerations. What stand should the EU take in supporting and promoting stem cell research? Are embryonic stem cells necessary for successful research, or should the scientific community focus on finding and exploiting different sources of cells, such as the induced pluripotent stem cells? If the interests of researchers, religious communities and the general public clash, what kind of legal solutions should be provided?

By Andreia Moraru (RO)

Keywords embryonic stem cells (ESC), adult stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS), biomedical research, bioethics, Horizon 2020, stem cell patents, freedom of research, Greenpeace vs. Brüstle, Vo vs. France, Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine

Research links Stem cell research Research Channel: “Understanding embryonic stem cells” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYNBNZJ8Xck&feature=relmfu Bloomberg: “Embryonic stem cell patents infringe EU law, top court says” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/embryonic-stem-cell-patents-infringe-eu-lawtop-court-says.html National Centre for Biotechnological Information: “Stem cells, embryos and the environment: a context for both science and ethics” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733909/pdf/v030p00410.pdf

Euro Stem Cell: “Regulations in EU Member States regarding human embryonic stem cell research” http://archive.eurostemcell.org/Documents/Outreach/stemcell_hesc_regulations_2007FEB.pdf

Euro Stem Cell: “Human embryonic stem cell research and ethics” http://www.eurostemcell.org/files/Human_ES_ethics_1.pdf

The Guardian: “Look no embryos! The future of ethical stem cells” http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/mar/13/ips-reprogrammed-stem-cells

Legislation Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/164.htm

Judgement of the CJEU in Greenpeace vs. Brüstle http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?doclang=EN&text=embryos&pageIndex=1 &part=1&mode=req&docid=111402&occ=first&dir=&cid=665960#ctx1

Regulation on advanced therapy medicinal products (you are requested to read the introductory part, pages 1–4, and skim through pages 4–11 to find the relevant articles in the context of the topic) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:324:0121:0137:en:PDF

Directive on legal protection of biotechnological inventions (you are requested to read the introductory part, clauses 1–56, and skim through articles 1–14 to find the relevant ones in the context of the topic) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31998L0044:EN:HTML

5. AFCO – Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection Is the solution to the Eurocrisis 'more Europe' or less? With the aftermath of the financial crisis dragging on for longer and longer, what institutional reforms are required to deal with the current political stalemate?

OVERVIEW There are two strands of economic policy making at a government’s disposal: fiscal policy (taxation, budgets, public sector spending) and monetary policy (interest rates, central bank policy). Usually the two work together in a country to help create stable economic conditions which encourage growth. In the Eurozone, the Member States have a common monetary policy, set by the board of governors of the European Central Bank (ECB). There is one currency, one interest rate and one legal tender for 17 very different economies. This step has not been taken on fiscal policy however, instead there is a series of agreements and treaties such as the Stability and Growth Pact and the Treaty on Stability, Cooperation and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (also known as the Fiscal Compact). Each Eurozone Member State parliament sets fiscal policy for its own country, within certain borrowing and spending limits set by these agreements and monitored by the European Commission, which is often out of sync with the monetary policy being pursued by the ECB. In the years preceding the sovereign debt crisis, this posed a considerable challenge. For example in Ireland, the government followed an expansionary fiscal policy at the same time that the ECB was lowering interest rates so as to boost growth in other Eurozone economies. This was one of the main reasons behind Ireland’s current debt crisis, as an independent Irish Central Bank would most likely have raised Irish interest rates to prevent an economic bubble. The current problems in the Eurozone stem from the fact that because all the countries share a common currency, when one falls into excessive amounts of sovereign debt, investor confidence in the currency and its Member States starts to flounder. Under the impression that sovereign debt may not be repaid, investors stop lending to EU countries and banks, who in turn stop lending to individuals, and the credit system grinds to a halt. The topic will focus on the idea that this problem is more of a political one rather than an economic one. While a large number of peripheral states are carrying a significant amount of debt relative to the size of their economy, the sum of all Eurozone debt as a percentage of the size of the Eurozone economy is 91.8%, much lower than Greece at 160.6% or the USA at 99.46%. The problem is that, if such a case were to arise in the USA where a state could not pay its debts, it would immediately get a federal grant, thereby relieving market fears and allowing the state’s economy to grow. By contrast, in Europe, states get loans which have to be paid back at a rate of interest. In a country such as Greece this is now widely considered to be an impossible task. In other words, the resources are available to the Eurozone countries – the problem is agreeing how they should be best allocated. This explains why fixing the problem is political: it will require

changes to the EU’s institutions, either by giving more power over fiscal policy to these institutions, start to roll back monetary union or continue with the new policies of EU budgetary oversight. There are essentially three options facing the EU: 1. independent national budgets confined by parameters set in EU treaties and by the Commission, 2.

fiscal union,

monetary breakup.

The current approach of the EU has been to follow option one. This allows governments to make their own budgets within certain limits and gives the European Commission oversight of Member States’ budgets to ensure implementation. The other more radical options are to either harmonise fiscal policy or walk away from monetary union. The main opposition to fiscal union comes in the shape of arguments about national sovereignty and the democratic deficit. Is it right that the Commission, Council and Parliament, often deemed either undemocratic or powerless, become the main decision making bodies as regards to crucial issues such as taxation? Those in favor of a fiscal union argue that the benefits of the euro make the gains from saving it greater than the costs. Previous currency breakups have almost always led to rampant inflation, debt defaults and job losses. The breakup of a currency the size of the euro could lead to a seizure in international capital markets and a financial crisis on a par with the Great Depression. Those who advocate fiscal union have proposed institutional changes such as, but not restricted to: •

an EU Treasury Department to set budgets for Member States,

•

giving the European Parliament more power, such as the right to initiate legislation,

•

reform of the European Council to make it more accountable,

•

a directly elected President of the European Commission,

•

the issuance of Eurobonds as a means of harmonising the yield on European public debt,

•

greater supervision of Member State budgets by other parliaments and the European Commission,

which they believe would both enhance democratic legitimacy and deepen the fiscal union.

Should we allow for a breakup of the euro, carry on with the system in place, or encourage deeper integration? Can Member States maintain control over their budgets while also being members of a monetary union? What measures can be taken to deal with the perceived democratic deficit in the EU’s institutions in the context of the debt crisis? What changes need to be made to the EU’s institutions to deal with the problem? By Niall Murphy (IE)

Keywords Eurozone, fiscal union, monetary union, sovereign debt, national sovereignty, European Fiscal Compact, democratic deficit, eurobonds, federalism, institutions of the European Union

Research links Federalism Debating Europe: "Should the European Union be a federation?" http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2012/09/19/should-the-eu-be-a-federation/ European Commission: “Towards a federation of nation states” http://ec.europa.eu/news/eu_explained/120912_en.htm The Guardian: “Europe’s crisis is an opportunity for democracy” http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/28/europe-crisis-opportunity-democracy Gazeta Wyborcza: “Put citizens at the heart of the union” http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/2694331-put-citizens-heart-union?xtor=RSS-9

Fiscal Union Debating Europe: “Infobox: Arguments for and against fiscal union” http://www.debatingeurope.eu/infobox-arguments-for-and-against-fiscal-union/ European Voice: “Ministers issue blueprint for stronger union” http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2012/september/ministers-issue-blueprint-for-strongerunion/75159.aspx

Where they stand Euractiv: “Barroso lays ground for future EU treaty change” http://www.euractiv.com/future-eu/barroso-lays-ground-future-eu-tr-news-513563 Euractiv: “Merkel calls for political union to save the Euro” http://www.euractiv.com/priorities/merkel-calls-political-union-sav-news-513201 La Repubblica: “Van Rompuy prepares modest reform” http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/news-brief/2693581-van-rompuy-prepares-modestreform?xtor=RSS-9 The Guardian: “Europe must learn the lessons of the recent past, says Jean-Claude Trichet” http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2012/sep/06/jean-claude-trichet-europelessons

Eurobonds The Guardian: “An essential guide to Eurobonds” http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/may/24/eurobonds-an-essential-guide

Democratic deficit The Irish Times: “Treaty threatens to widen democratic deficit in the EU” http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0521/1224316455662.html

OVERVIEW The EU Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), established in 2005, is the cornerstone of the EU’s strategy to avoid anthropogenic climate change. Emissions trading is the primary market-based mechanism to reduce emissions. In it, it is assumed that setting a price on greenhouse gas emissions will result in the society cutting emissions where it costs the least or is most costeffective. The EU ETS operates on the cap-and-trade principle: the European Commission and the Member States act as central authorities that set certain national allocation plans (NAP), within which companies receive emission allowances. Companies that succeed in keeping their emissions below their caps can either retain the allowances for future use or sell them at a price determined by the market. At the moment, the EU ETS includes the 27 Member States, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, and the installations regulated by it are responsible for 40% of the countries’ total greenhouse gas emissions. The EU ETS is being implemented in three distinctive phases or trading periods. Phase I (2005– 2007) was a learning phase that set the basis for Phase II (2008–2012). Phase III will run from 2013 to 2020, and a number of changes in the system will be made for this period. Most importantly, a move towards full auctioning of emission allowances will be made. So far, most of the allowances have been allocated free of charge. 50% of the allowances should be auctioned in 2013, up from a mere 10% in Phase II. Aviation industry, responsible for a significant percentage of emissions in Europe, will also be included in the scheme in the third trading period. The EU Emission Trading Scheme was the world’s first large-scale experiment in emissions trading, and its successes and failures bear high significance for the international climate change regime as a whole. Emissions trading is an integral mechanism in almost all prevalent plans for a global climate agreement. However, it is somewhat difficult to conclusively assess whether the ETS has had a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions since its establishment in 2005. There is evidence of carbon emissions having declined in the EU, but critics argue that it can be as much due to the financial crisis and recession in Europe as it is to the ETS. A crucial question to be considered is the extent to which emissions trading can work in reality. Regardless of the fact whether the ETS has had an overall effect on emissions or not, it has been affected by a number of important problems, such as overallocation of emission allowances and price volatility, two problems that are closely interlinked. As stated above, most allowances have so far been allocated free of charge, and especially in Phase I of the ETS, there was a considerable oversupply of allowances. ArcelorMittal, the European steel giant, reportedly lobbied the authorities successfully to receive an allocation far above its needs and could then reap considerable windfall profits by selling its surplus allowances. This has resulted in price fluctuation – the allowances nearly lost their value on the market in 2007 – and general unpredictability on the carbon market. Furthermore, the scheme was not originally designed to tackle situations as the financial crisis, when industries are downsized and emissions clearly fall below the baseline as a

result. In principle, this problem should be gradually solved as the cap is tightened, but it remains to be seen whether this is the case in reality. The EU ETS cannot be discussed in isolation from the international climate change regime and climate action, or lack thereof, taken by other major polluters. While the EU has frequently stated its ambitions to take a leading role in the global fight against climate change and is already setting an example by having clear emissions reduction targets for the coming years, it cannot forever continue on the unilateral path if the other major economies, especially the US and China, are not to join the effort. All reductions are essentially insufficient without them. Furthermore, it will be difficult to make the European carbon trading system any more effective without similar systems being established elsewhere. In the worst case, a stringent emissions trading scheme in Europe could only force carbon-dependent industries to relocate from Europe en mass, a phenomenon known as carbon leakage. The EU and Australia have already agreed to link their carbon markets in 2015, and while Connie Hedegaard, the Commissioner for Climate Action, claimed that the linkage would “build further momentum towards establishing a robust international carbon market”, much still needs to be achieved on the field. Critics of the EU ETS argue that in essence, the scheme is nothing but a distraction, preventing the EU from establishing more stringent and reliable measures, such as carbon taxes. On the other hand, it has been argued that emissions trading is the only politically viable option in both Europe and elsewhere. It has been built on the fundamental idea that it is possible for the world’s nations to continue pursuing economic growth with only minor concessions (and even profit from envinronmental action), an idea that is attractive to politicians and their electorates alike. Furthermore, a complete revamp of the existing regime could take years. In discussing this topic, the committee needs to consider several European and international viewpoints on the issue to reach the best solutions. Several political, economic and scientific considerations should be kept in mind. Is emissions trading an effective mechanism of reducing emissions? What are the main problems with the EU Emission Trading Scheme, and how should they be solved? What should the EU’s strategy be in linking its carbon market internationally? Should the EU consider other major alternatives, either to replace the ETS or complement it? By Jari Marjelund (FI)

Keywords emissions trading, European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), carbon leakage, carbon tax, international climate regime

Research links Introductory European Commission: Emission Trading Scheme http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm

UNFCCC: Emissions trading http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/mechanisms/emissions_trading/items/2731.php The Guardian: “What is the emissions trading scheme and how does it work?” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/07/ets-emissions-trading Viewpoints The Guardian: “Australian and EU carbon markets to be linked” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/aug/28/australia-eu-carbonmarkets?INTCMP=SRCH The Guardian: “Global carbon trading system has ‘essentially collapsed’” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/10/global-carbon-tradingsystem?INTCMP=SRCH The Guardian: “Is it time to overhaul Europe’s carbon trading scheme?” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/28/overhaul-europe-carbon-trading-scheme International Herald Tribune: “U.S. fight against E.U. airline emissions plan heats up” http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/u-s-fight-against-european-airline-emissionsplan-heats-up/ The New York Times: “Airlines, emissions and Europe’s sensible plan” https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/opinion/airlines-emissions-and-europes-sensibleplan.html?_r=0

7. EMPL I - Committee on Employment and Social Affairs I

The European pension sector is going through difficult times: ageing hits the sustainability of pension schemes hard, volatility on the financial markets creates chaos for policy makers and regulation forces pension schemes into holding more risk capital than ever before. What can Member States and regulators do to ensure a decent standard of living beyond retirement for all European citizens?

OVERVIEW The changes in Europe’s economic circumstances are challenging the sustainability of pension schemes. Reforms are required so that pension systems adapt and correspond to the current economic circumstances whilst delivering a decent standard of living for Europe’s pensioners. One of the major challenges to the pension sector is that of the ageing population of Europe. According to Eurostat the combination of lower birth rates and higher life expectancy means that the proportion of those aged 65 and over in the EU-27’s population will rise from 17.4% in 2010 to 29.5% by 2060. As such the adequacy of pensions is not secure if the required increase in expenditure is not guaranteed. The current sluggish economic growth, budget deficits and low employment rate across the EU puts further pressure on pensions and emphasise the urgent need to develop and improve pension systems. Pension systems vary across Member States. Given the significant diversity of systems and national regulation, finding a common ground within the EU that can lead to a harmonised pension system will be complex and difficult. This is further emphasised while trying to deal with current economic issues and without infringing on the existing rights of current and future pensioners. However, this variety of pension schemes can serve as an advantage: by analysing each national pension system and comparing them we can conclude which single or combination of systems could work the best in light of current economic circumstances. Most Member States have adopted the three-pillar system, which separates the major objectives of a pension. First pillar pensions are state-funded and state-run pension systems which aim to reduce poverty for the elderly. These public pension schemes are usually based on Pay-As-You-Go (PAYG) financing, but are increasingly under pressure given the ageing demographic, falling employment levels and therefore falling contributions. The second pillar is the supplementary, occupational pension which is funded by the recipients and the employers. This includes definedcontribution plans (DC) and defined benefit plans (DB). Finally the third pillar is the personal, voluntary private funded saving and investment plans. The European Commission can make non-binding recommendations regarding pensions and has an important role in the coordination of pension policy. A few months ago the Commission published the White Paper on Pensions and plans to revise the Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision(IORP) Directive. The White Paper aims to promote security, adequacy and sustainability in the pension provision for European citizens. In the Commission’s view,

supplementary pensions need to be made more secure, cost-efficient and tailored to achieve a more flexible labour market in the EU. Even within this framework there are substantial differences in the pension schemes of each Member State. For instance, in some states total pension income is almost completely dependent on public pensions (first pillar) while in others, like the UK and the Netherlands, total pension income is mostly dependent on funded pension plans (second and third pillars). Another example is the difference between the Dutch system, which has a mix of company pension funds and industry-wide pension funds, and the UK where there are mostly company pension funds in which the system is more market-based rather than treating pensions as a public good. There is a myriad of other differences between the pension schemes of each national state that should be taken into consideration when designing a sustainable pension system. These include the contribution level, the participation level, information transparency and risk share. The crisis has highlighted the vulnerability of the European pension schemes and has emphasised the need to review these systems and develop a new one that is financially sustainable, secure and delivers adequate retirement incomes. Should the EU continue its advisory role while Member States have exclusive rights to define the principles of their social security system? Or should the EU advocate for Member States to agree changing the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) so that they give in their sovereignty in the field and possibly have a harmonised pension system? How should pension systems develop according to the current circumstances and challenges? What lessons can be learnt from each countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s pension system? These are the key questions the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs I must answer in their discussions as without these answers future pensioners face an uncertain future. By Maria Pashi (CY)

Keywords Defined contribution plans (DC), Defined benefit plans (DB), Pay-As-You-Go (PAYG) pension, annuity, industry-wide pension, final salary pension, average salary pension risk bearing, White Paper on adequate safe and sustainable pensions, Solvency II,IORP Directive

Research links 1. Introductory material This Europa Press Release briefly summarises the current pension http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/99

system:

Background on the Dutch pension scheme:http://www.apg.nl/apgsite/pages/images/40.0506.10A_LR_tcm124-104061.pdf

Background on UK pension scheme: http://www.iccr-international.org/pen-ref/docs/penref-d2-uk.pdf

2. Official links

This summarises and provides links to the Commissionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recent White Paper: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2012/03/articles/eu1203011i.htm 3. Articles and other resources

This article provides an example of the failings of the current pension system: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2199910/GSK-slashes-pensionbenefits-thousands-UK-workforce.html Here we see possible solutions to the pension problem but also acknowledgement that there may not be a one-size fits all solution: http://www.apg.nl/apgsite/pages/english/pension-knowledge/pensionmarket/knowledge-base/collective-pensions-better-for-uk.asp The EPC, an independent think-tank, offers numerous different expert opinions on the topic: http://www.epc.eu/events_rep_details.php?cat_id=6&pub_id=1238

8. EMPL II - Committee on Employment and Social Affairs I Unpaid internships, extending education, returning to the family home and mass migration: in light of the current economic crisis and especially rising youth unemployment, what action should the EU take to effectively fight the exclusion of young people from the job market?

OVERVIEW 40% of the jobless worldwide are young people. The UN, EU and the ILO’s statistics predict that there will be nearly 75 million unemployed youth aged 15 to 24 in 2012, an increase of nearly 4 million since 2007. In 2009, there were close to 100 million young people (aged 15–30) in the European Union, representing around a fifth of the total EU population and as such, the inability of this group to integrate in the job market effectively poses a real threat for Europe when it comes to the future of the labour market. There are multiple reasons for youth unemployment: besides the general situation on the labour market, one might mention education and training systems, labour market and employment policies, but also the stratification and distribution of opportunities in society. Currently the escalating youth unemployment rates in many European countries (chiefly Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy) can be attributed to both the global financial and economic crisis of 2007–2010 and its modulation in the ongoing crisis gripping the European Economic and Monetary Union. The policy of unrelenting austerity that has dominated European crisis management thus far can also be held partially responsible for the most recent increase in youth unemployment rates in Europe. However, as has been indicated by the abovementioned statistics, these initiatives do not seem to be working very effectively, so perhaps an alternative approach is to be taken. The question remains - what would this alternative approach look like and what can be done on the EU level? Should the EU continue supporting current initiatives, such as ‘Youth on the Move’, ‘Youth Opportunities initiative’, ‘European Voluntary Service’ and other attempts to get young people into the labour market, should they be redesigned or, perhaps, closed down altogether? What else can be done to provide equal opportunities for young people in Europe? Should employment become a shared competence between Member States and the EU or should more power be put at an EU level to tackle the problem? Are the issues of employment perhaps better addressed at the Member State level? How do we protect the young unemployed and ensure that they do not become lost generation? These are among the central questions that need to be considered by the committee to tackle the problem of youth unemployment in Europe. Indra Mangule (LV)

Keywords International Labour Organization, Youth on the Move, The EU Youth Strategy, unemployment, internships, financial crisis

Research links 1. Introductory material material Youth Unemployment Figures: http://ec.europa.eu/youth/news/latest-youth-unemployment-figures_en.htm Global Employment Trends for Youth 2012: http://www.ilo.org/global/research/global-reports/global-employmenttrends/youth/2012/WCMS_180976/lang--en/index.htm

2. Official Official Sources European Employment Observatory Review: Youth employment measures, 2010 (A Review by the European Commission): http://ec.europa.eu/youthonthemove/index_en.htm Internships: Head start or labour trap? http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/features/WCMS_187693/lang-en/index.htm European Commission: Youth Strategy (EU youth strategy, legal basis, implementation, evidence based decision making): http://ec.europa.eu/youth/index_en.htm 3. Articles and other sources Youth Unemployment in Europe Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Findings: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/ipa/09227.pdf Youth Unemployment in Europe: http://www.social-europe.eu/2012/07/youth-unemployment-in-europe/

OVERVIEW The collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 was one of a number of events that marked the beginning of the current financial crisis. Such events caused multiple banking crises in several European countries, contributing to the current Europe-wide economic crisis. Since the beginning of the banking crisis several measures have been taken to tackle its causes. Firstly, banking bailouts were meant to restore confidence to the financial markets and compensate bank runs (massive liquidity withdrawals) and unpaid credits. Secondly, BASEL III set the milestone in global regulatory standards on banks. Thirdly, however, as shown by the proposal to introduce the Financial Transaction Tax (FTT90) to the EU, European banking taxation has proven to be a difficult challenge. Indeed, Britain’s refusal to adopt the tax demonstrated that without a worldwide taxation, European banks (a sizeable number of which are located in the City of London) would face a competitive disadvantage and could move their business to more lucrative places. As a European response to the banking crisis, the European Commission established the European System of Financial Supervisors in January 2011. One of its bodies is the European Banking Authority, which has the power to overrule national regulators if they fail to properly regulate their banks. The Authority acts as a hub and voice for the EU and national bodies, safeguarding public values such as the stability of the financial system, the transparency of markets and financial products and the protection of depositors and investors. There are already a number of regulatory institutions in the Member States. The national financial sectors are already under the supervision of the National Central Banks (NCB) and another national financial supervision authority (names differ from Member State to Member State, but usually it arises from the national ministry of finance or equivalent). The European Central Bank (ECB) is the financial regulatory institution for all Member States that joined the Eurozone, its main task to control inflation. Given that private banks make profit by connecting customers that have capital deficits to customers with capital surpluses they take part in ‘risky’ banking. At this juncture it is worth noting that all banking involves taking risks, for instance when a bank provides a customer with a loan they are taking a risk as to whether or not they will pay it back. The crisis however was brought about by excessive risk taking. By evaluating possible benefits, banks do not fear to act against their customers’ interest and eventually become major economic players in the financial

market. On the other hand banking associations such as the European Savings Banks Group (ESBG) offer a platform for co-operation and knowledge sharing among retail and saving banks. What the committee needs to ask itself is how to discourage excessively risky banking whilst safeguarding European banks’ competitiveness in the global economy. Given that the EU does not have exclusive competence to regulate aspects of Internal Market, which institutional and judiciary reforms need to be undertaken to achieve a commonly regulated and governed banking sector? On the other hand, are we as Europeans ready to give even more power to the EU? Recent discussions about the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) verified that bestowing more powers to institutions that fail to be controlled by national parliaments is a very unpopular move amongst the European population. The committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs needs to take a stand towards a basic EU question (more European integration versus national sovereignty) and find a compromise between free market and state intervention. Alexandre Narayanin (FR)

Keywords Banking crisis, European Banking Authority, risky banking, National fiscal regulatory authorities, Internal Market, shared competence of the EU, Basel III, European System of Financial Supervisors, National Central Banks

Research links 1. Introductory material Reading the executive summaries of each article would help you grasp a better understanding of the ongoing financial crisis: http://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2010/paris/pdf/090110.pdf Introduction to the FTT: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/sep/28/european-union-tobin-tax Overview over the National fiscal regulatory authorities: http://www.frsglobal.com/europe.html 2. Official sources This website summarises the EU’s inability to act because of inexistent exclusive competence in this field: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/bank/crisis_management/index_en.htm “Van Rompuy paper” for a fiscal union: http://euobserver.com/institutional/117527

Opposition against “Van Rompuy paper” for a fiscal union: http://www.euractiv.com/euro-finance/leaders-confused-van-rompuy-pape-news-513607

ECB website drafting the different levels of Member States’ integration in the European Monetary Union (EMU): http://www.ecb.int/ecb/orga/escb/html/index.en.html 3. Other Outline of the key points of the Vicker’s report: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/sep/12/vickers-report-key-points A French example of capital fleeing because of heavy taxation: http://www.cityam.com/latest-news/hollande-hikes-taxes-rich-flee-london Al-Jazeera asks whether Goldman Sachs poses a threat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHI5vE_SJA8

OVERVIEW In March 2011, a group of Syrian teenagers painted a revolutionary slogan on a wall. They were inspired by revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt that brought a perspective for freedom and democracy. The government’s response shocked the country: the teenagers were arrested and subsequently tortured. Thousands took to the streets in what would later become a full blown civil war. Up to September 2012, the conflict has claimed an estimated 25,000 lives. The Syrian economy has collapsed and a large part of the population relies on emergency aid. Approximately 250,000 refugees have been registered in neighbouring countries, and over a million people are displaced within Syria itself. At the centre of the conflict is the struggle between those aligned with the government and those who form the opposition. Syria is ruled by the Ba’ath party of President Bashar al-Assad, which does not allow any effective political opposition and has been in power for over 40 years. There is a strong religious divide: the minority Alawi religious group dominates the ruling party, while the rebel movement mostly consists of Sunnis, who form a majority in Syria. They have very limited influence under the current government and hope that their position will improve as a result of the revolution. There is an important third religious minority in Syria: the Kurds. They are mainly located in the north of the country and have generally been supportive of the protests. The Kurdish leadership has been pushing for more autonomy in their region. Human rights have reportedly been violated by both of the fighting parties; several massacres have taken place, prisoners have been tortured and airstrikes are targeting residential neighbourhoods. A large percentage of the population is in need of humanitarian aid. Refugees are being accepted into several of the neighbouring countries and the EU is providing some assistance there. However, despite the amount of media attention, aid organisations have complained that there is a lack of funding for aid efforts in Syria. The EU’s response to the Syrian conflict falls under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). In this field, EU competences are held by the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC), composed of the Foreign Ministers of the Member States and chaired by High Representative Catherine Ashton. However, during weighty international crises like this one, the European Council, composed of the Heads of State, tends to take the lead. The Parliament and the Commission have only a limited role to make policy recommendations. The execution of the EU’s foreign policy is in the hands of the High Representative, who is supported by the European External Action

Service (EEAS), the EU’s new diplomatic service. In response to the crisis in Syria, the EU has instated sanctions against Assad’s regime. These measures have gradually become stricter as violence worsened. They target both the capacity of members of the Assad government to act, as well as any resources that might be used to suppress the population. EU Member States have unanimously called for Assad to step down, and the EU has supported the rebel movement with non-lethal supplies in its efforts to fight government forces. On the one hand, a revolution could create the momentum for the democratic reforms that Assad has refused to implement. On the other hand, there are no guarantees that the rebel movement would be any more democratic than the current government. The rebel movement is not unified, and many commentators in Europe fear that more traditional Islamic factions among the rebels would prefer a very strict religious regime in Syria. Furthermore, there have been reports that Al Qaeda is actively involved in parts of the rebel movement. Kofi Annan, who was the special envoy to Syria on behalf of the UN and the Arab League until September 2012, tried to negotiate an agreement between the government and the rebels based on his six-point peace plan. This plan essentially calls for the end to fighting, and the start of political reforms that would recognise the rights of a larger part of the Syrian population. Annan has now stepped down as he saw no perspective for progress; he was succeeded by Lakhdar Brahimi, who will continue to use the six-point peace plan as a basis for negotiations. Apart from diplomatic initiatives and humanitarian aid, several options for active military intervention have been discussed. In 2005, the UN agreed to the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) – that whenever there are gross violations of human rights it is the duty of the international community to intervene and protect civilians. It allows the UN Security Council to send in military forces in case human rights violations are taking place. Nevertheless, its members have so far been divided on the issue. Of the five permanent members, China and Russia have opposed any strong language against Syria, while the US, France and the UK have been pushing for a more active role for the UN to overthrow Assad. China and Russia would only support a neutral peacekeeping force that would concentrate on the protection of civilians, and they are afraid that a UN resolution would be used to overthrow Assad’s government even if that is not authorized in the text. This is what happened in Libya, where Russian and Chinese support for a UN Security Council resolution was never intended to lead to the overthrow of Muammar Gadaffi’s government. If the decision is made to intervene, it is still a question what type of mission would be effective in this conflict. There are different costs and risks involved depending on the type of intervention, including the risk of getting involved in a stalemate that will drag on for years. Also, Syria has one of the largest stocks of chemical and biological weapons in the world, and has threatened to use those against any foreign army that enters its territory. Essentially, the Committee on Human Rights will need to weigh the different costs and benefits of its policy options to decide on a coherent and effective approach to the conflict in Syria. By Wim van Doorn (NL)

Keywords Syria, Ba’ath party, Bashar al-Assad, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), European External Action Service (EEAS), Alawi, Sunni, Kurd, Lakhdar Brahimi, six-point peace plan, UN Security Council

Research links 1. General Sources The homepage of the Human Rights committee of the EP: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/droi/home.html

European External Action Service, Syria: http://www.eeas.europa.eu/syria/index_en.htm Timeline of Syria’s history: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14703995

Overview of the conflict by the New York Times: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/syria/index.html

Interactive map of events since the start of the uprising: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2012/02/201225111654512841.html

Syria’s crisis and the global response in short – Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/syria/syrias-crisis-global-response/p28402

Kofi Annan’s six-point peace plan: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/03/2012327153111767387.html

The Economist provides detailed reporting on events in Syria, an overview of the articles can be found here: http://www.economist.com/topics/syria

2. Articles and Reports Huffington Post on the Save the Children report about child traumas in Syria: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/25/syrias-children-tortured-conflict-savechildren_n_1911604.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Report from the UN on human rights in Syria: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=42909&Cr=syria&Cr1=

IRIN on the lack of funding for humanitarian aid in Syria: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/505c2f852.html

BBC on the sanctions in place and their effects, March 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15753975

Euractiv on a push for new sanctions in September 2012: http://www.euractiv.com/globaleurope/eu-recognises-little-syria-news-514684

Reuters on China and Russia, as well as chemical and biological weapons: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/us-syria-crisis-russia-chinaidUSBRE87K0Q220120821

Prospects for Intervention: http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/185299

The Guardian on the influence of Al Qaeda: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/30/alqaida-rebels-battle-syria

OVERVIEW “In 2015, roughly 920 million people will still be living under the international poverty line of $1.25 a day. […] Over a 25-year period, even though the proportion of people worldwide suffering from malnutrition and hunger has fallen since the early 1990s, progress has stalled since 2000–2002. The estimate of the number of people who will suffer chronic hunger this year is 925 million, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN – down from 1.023 billion in 2009, but still more than the number of undernourished people in 1990 (about 815 million).” Despite significant advances in agricultural productivity over the past few decades, vast areas of the world, especially Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, lack access to adequate food and nutrition. Malnutrition has a serious impact on the wellbeing and stability of entire societies, putting any hope of long-term economic and political development at risk and resulting in a vicious cycle of poverty and instability. A number of crucial factors contribute to the problem. First, the number of mouths to feed has increased from three billion in 1960 to seven billion in 2012. While agricultural productivity has increased considerably at the same time, the world’s agricultural systems have constantly been under intense pressure to produce enough food to meet the needs of the growing population. Furthermore, population growth has been fastest in some of the poorest regions of the world, regions without necessary funding and agricultural infrastructure to deal with such developments. The global population is expected to reach around nine billion by 2050, which will put further pressure on agriculture. Second, the means to purchase foodstuffs on international markets are not equally distributed, and there are huge discrepancies in the availability of food and nutrition to different regions and nations. The price of food may fluctuate considerably over time, and we have recently seen several crises related to the price of food, for instance in 2007–2008. Poor countries relying on food imports are especially vulnerable to price fluctuations. Market speculation and countries imposing restrictions on food exports have often made these crises and the overall situation worse. Third, feeding seven billion people is often at odds with environmental sustainability. There are various reported examples, for instance in Southeastern Anatolia, where agricultural projects have had a negative influence on the environment. Furthermore, rising living standards increase the demand of meat, the production of which consumes more resources than the cultivation of crops. This has been the case in China, for instance, where the middle class has expanded by hundreds of millions of people over the past couple of decades. At the same time, global climate change has resulted in increasingly unpredictable weather conditions and natural catastrophes around the world. Most crises relating to the price of food are direct consequences of such sudden events. And, if the population in a given area is barely able to survive on favourable weather conditions, a flood or a drought can indeed be catastrophic, as has recently been seen in Pakistan and elsewhere.

It is obvious that to find effective solutions to problems of such global magnitude, cooperation of all relevant stakeholders is necessary. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations Agency for “defeating hunger”, and the EU, for instance, have cooperated on more than 100 projects around the world, and the EU channels its funds through the FAO. This way, some €230 million have been directed to 28 underdeveloped countries on four continents, affecting some 9 million people in rural areas. Examples of other successful initiatives are the Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP) and the Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP). Such programmes are good examples of cooperation at different levels, incorporating not only government agencies but the private sector and farmers’ associations as well. The idea behind the FAAP, for instance, was to bring together political, technical and financial resources and expertise to raise productivity in African agriculture. An example of an innovative solution is the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), developed by the University of Illinois. The UAV can be used to collect agricultural data in a given region, enabling better productivity. The power of such innovations may be considerable, as was seen in the so-called Green Revolution of the 1940s–1970s, when researchers and private sector managed to increase agricultural productivity significantly through better fertilizers and other inventions. What are the key stakeholders in the promotion of agricultural productivity and production? How should the EU, FAO and other organisations respond to the projected population growth and the resulting scarcity of food? What initiatives can be taken to increase agricultural productivity, while ensuring sustainable development? By Danijel Dadović (HR)

Keywords malnutrition, sustainable development, Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), agricultural sustainability, Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP), agricultural science

Research links 2012 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm

Framework for African Agricultural Productivity http://www.fara-africa.org/media/uploads/File/FARA%20Publications/FAAP_English.pdf

FAO–EU partnership http://www.fao.org/europeanunion/eu-in-action/eu-food-facility-details/en/

GAP – Southeastern Anatolia Project – basic information http://www.gap.gov.tr/english

Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP) – in more detail http://web.macam.ac.il/~arnon/Int-ME/water/p453_s.pdf

2015 Millenium development goals https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG_FS_1_EN.pdf

International investments in agricultural http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/em2009/docs/Hallam.pdf

Environmental sustainability in agricultural development http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/environmental-sustainability-in-an-agriculturaldevelopment-project-a-U03qgJzQLj?key=elsevier

Agriculture and rural development: Hunger and malnutrition http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTABOUTUS/Resources/KevinCleaver-paper.pdf

12.

CULT - Committee on Culture and Education

Equal opportunities for all: what action should the European Union take to ensure youth with migration background have equal access to education throughout Europe and what is the responsibility of the individual?

OVERVIEW “The Union shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity.” (Art. 165, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) The first thing to bear in mind when tackling this topic is that education policy is one of the areas where the European Union (EU) has a supporting competence. The current working method is the Open Method of Coordination (OMC), which is based on the voluntary cooperation of the Member States and thus leaves both individuals and individual Member States considerable freedom of action. The second thing to be underlined is that the first ever EU official document regarding the education of youth with a migrant background is the Council directive 486, dating back to 1977, a directive which the European Commission has questioned several times: because of its poor record of implementation, its limited scope (it was restricted to children from the Member States) and its almost nonexistent impact on national regulations. Moreover, the directive, after 35 years, doesn’t reflect anymore the reality of migrant education. At the time it was passed, the Schengen Agreement was little more than a dream for Europeanists, while now, thanks to a radical increase in mobility from inside and outside the EU, approximately 6.5 % of the total EU population is composed of people who are not a citizen of the Member State where they reside and in most of the EU education systems more than 100 nationalities are represented. A first obstacle is the term ‘migration background’, which has no official definition, though in most Council documents it relates to “children of all persons living in an EU country where they

were not born, irrespective of whether they are third-country nationals, citizens of another EU Member State or subsequently became nationals of the host Member State”. This reference seems not to take into consideration the clear distinction between rights and privileges of an EU and of a non-EU citizen and the phrasing doesn’t set an age limit to these “children”, while it is obvious that different levels of education require different types of actions. Two examples which may clarify this ambiguity: a family, who took refuge in a Member State, whose children of schooling age have to attend classes in a completely different language from their native tongue contrasted with an EU citizen who is forced to attend his town university courses because he can’t afford the higher tuition fees of another Member State’s prestigious university he had been accepted to join. The two cases surely have a similar root, since all the actors involved suffer from an obvious competitive disadvantage, but involve totally different problems.

The heterogeneity of the question is reflected by the heterogeneity and shortage of answers. In fact, the EU is facing the educational dimension of migration in most of its specific frameworks, such as the Lifelong Learning Programme, with the recognition of migrant children as an important target group and with projects related to intercultural education, school integration of migrant pupils and social inclusion for disadvantaged youth. However, the inexistence of a unitary substantial response causes most of these efforts to be a waste. A clear indication of major carefulness for the issue has been delivered in 2009 with Strategic Objectives 2 and 3 of the “Strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training” (known as “ET 2020”), an all-embracing agenda in the field of the education and training for the Member States. Besides, in the last years, EU Institutions have been trying to update and redefine correctly the issue by carrying out polls, public consultations and surveys, aimed at EU citizens, Member States’ governments and NGOs specialised in the sector.

The latest consultation, the results of which were published in August 2009, unveiled how the different stakeholders position themselves concerning this issue. As stated in the first paragraph, the role of the EU in this issue is now limited to setting targets, benchmarks and deadlines that only some Member States bind themselves to respect and do respect in the end. The two factions regarding this are those who see the “EU as a mere multiplier and disseminator of good practice” and those supporters of a better involved EU, even in the policy making phase. The diversity of national situations calls for different national policies, but could this problem benefit from a common European response? Moreover, the policies suggested in the consultation mainly deal with centrepieces of the different education systems, meaning that a centralised policy would result in a single European pedagogic system. Would a group of Member States reluctant to form a political union be ready to build a structure, meant to be a vehicle of a European identity? Furthermore the answers are strictly connected to social and employment policies, given that the issue is directly related to the fields of social protection and social inclusion. Should EU migration policies include statements concerning equal access to educational opportunities, while national governments are still arguing about how to contain the migration flow? Lastly, the controversies surrounding the future of the Directive 77/486/EEC seem to be the focal point of discussion: whether to widen its scope, revise the Directive entirely or repeal it and advocate its functions at lower-level governance structures? In conclusion it is readily observable that each and every face of the issue equally contributes to the educational gap the Member States are experiencing these days. This prevents very many European youngsters to have a say in their future and in the future the community they chose to live in. What should the EU institutions do to make sure that education remains the engine for equal opportunities and growth? By Lorenzo Parrulli (IT)

Keywords Education, migration background, youth, social inclusion, discrimination, integration, mobility, Open Method of Coordination, strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020), Lifelong Learning Programme

Research links Committee on Culture and Education – http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/cult/home.html

European

Parliament

Site

Integration

Migration and Education - European Commission http://ec.europa.eu/education/school-education/migration_en.htm

Integration in different policy areas – European Web http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/Integration_in_other_policy_areas.cfm

Green Paper "Migration & Mobility: challenges and opportunities for EU education systems" http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/20080703-migrant-children-and-education_en.htm

“Foreign students at centre of migrant furore “– Financial Times http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/30e644ee-f2a3-11e1-ac4100144feabdc0.html#axzz27B7PByR0

“Academic red tape” – European Voice http://www.europeanvoice.com/CWS/Index.aspx?PageID=178&articleID=75075

“Picking on foreign students” – The Economist http://www.economist.com/node/21562203

OVERVIEW Despite the fact that women represent 60% of university graduates across Europe, only 1 in 7 board members in Europe are female. If progress continues at the current rate, a gender ‘balance’ of 40% cannot be reached for at least 50 years. With the increasing need to counter-balance the effects of a shrinking working-age population and the persisting trend of gender inequality in the labour force and other decision-making mechanisms, the debate on the role of women in the labour force has gained momentum in the last few years. Achieving the goal of gender equality in the workplace is not only important in overcoming general gender-based discrimination, but it is also vital for the economic and social development of the EU. The EU itself recognizes this importance, with the formulation of its goals in the Europe 2020 initiative, which focuses on the importance of widening the human capital base. The last decade has seen a constant increase in the proportion of women who take part in the labour force, with the overall EU percentage having reached 58.3% by 2007. Despite this higher level of labour force participation, there are many challenges left to tackle in order reach the goal of gender equality in the workplace.

One of the main problems is the under-representation of women in high-income jobs and decision-making positions. Women occupy on average just 13.7 % of board seats in the largest publicly listed companies in EU Member States and on average only 30% of European entrepreneurs are women. There is a wide gap between the employment level of women and men with children; the difficulty of balancing work and family life constituting a greater barrier to women’s employment and career development than to men. Another important challenge the EU faces is the variation between Member States, with female employment figures varying from 36.9% (Malta) to 73.2% (the Netherlands), addressing different cultural backgrounds and economic structures continues to be a concern.

Key objectives identified by the Strategy for Equality Between Women and Men (2010-2015) include ‘equal economic independence for women and men’ as well as ‘the reconciliation of private and professional life’. EU Directives 2002/73/EC, 2004/113/EC, 2006/54/EC and 76/207/EEC as well as the Initiative Europe 2020 are examples of policies that have been adopted by the European Union to reach these aims. Additionally, the European Institute for Gender Equality assists the Member States in the realization of these goals. Despite these efforts, gender gaps exist in many important areas.

While Scandinavian countries stand out with their advanced applications of quotas and social services, their social model is often criticized for being incompatible with the economies of many other Member States. On the other hand, voluntary initiatives that are seen in the United Kingdom and Germany seem to be ineffective in bringing about rapid change. The main challenge remains coming up with an integrated approach that balances stricter legislative measures, social concerns that need to be addressed and elimination of gender stereotypes while taking into account differences among the Member States. Should stricter legislative measures with sanctions be encouraged or an approach that prioritizes voluntary initiatives? Are policies like parental leave and childcare facilities enough to ensure work-life balance for women? Should training in non-traditional professions and self-employment be encouraged as an alternative to more conventional methods? How can gender mainstreaming be incorporated into the policies of the EU and Member States? By Irem Tumer (TR)

Keywords Gender equality, gender stereotypes, gender mainstreaming, entrepreneurship and selfemployment, care services, corporate governance policies, positive discrimination, quotas

Research links 1. Introductory material

UNDP- Basic Gender Handout: http://www.undp.org.ir/DocCenter/gender/BASIC GENDER HANDOUT(EN).pdf Mainstreaming Gender in The European Union: http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/archive/papers/00/000201.html 2. Official Sources Sources Commission Report on Equality Between Men and Women (2009) pp 7-17: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=86&type=2&furtherPubs =yes

Strategy for Equality Between Men and Women (2010-2015) – first link under the title ‘2010’: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/document/index_en.htm Women in economic decision-making in the EU: Progress report- pp 13-15 and annexes: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/women-on-boards_en.pdf EU Legislation on Gender Equality: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/genderequality/law/index_en.htm

3. Articles

The Economist: Women in the Workforce: Female power: http://www.economist.com/node/15174418 European Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Lobby: Women in the EU: Facts, Figures & Quotes: http://www.womenlobby.org/spip.php?article3224

14.

CLIM - Committee on Climate Change

The EU's role in international climate diplomacy: with the 18th Conference of the Parties (COP 18) in Doha taking place this November, many once again scrutinise the forums and forms of negotiations for effectively tackling climate change. Has the time come to redefine the current approach, find new regimes or admit defeat?

OVERVIEW In December 2011, world governments convened in South Africa for the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP 17) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). At the end of the conference, the parties formally committed themselves to preparing a legally binding agreement by 2015. The so-called Durban Platform also provided for a second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol, after the first commitment period is to end in 2012. Several key politicians proclaimed COP 17 a relative success and a crucial step towards creating a comprehensive long-term solution to climate change. Critics, however, considered the conference another disappointment in a series of high-profile climate conferences with minor results. Since the governments signed the Copenhagen Accord at COP 15 in 2009, for the first time agreeing on “the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below two degrees Celsius”, little concrete action has been taken.1 “Right now the global climate regime amounts to nothing more than a voluntary deal that’s put off for a decade”, a Greenpeace spokesperson argued in December 2011.2 The UN Framework Convention was established in 1992, and it has since then been the primary arena for international climate negotiations. Already in 1992, the governments agreed to work towards limiting the increase in average global temperature, keeping it below “a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”.3 The Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, has been the primary mechanism of achieving that goal. The first commitment period of the Protocol will expire in 2012, and the key aim of the recent climate change conferences has been to establish a legally binding agreement for the “post-Kyoto age”. The UNFCCC is at the core of the international climate regime, but its results – or lack thereof – has resulted in calls for a new approach. There are a number of key issues to be tackled if a successful framework for climate action is to be found. While there is a strong scientific and political consensus that action needs to be taken, no agreement has been reached on who should bear the primary responsibility of doing so. The question of sharing the burden, it could be argued, is the very crux of the issue. The Kyoto Protocol imposed emissions reduction targets for developed nations only. The US, among others, has declined to ratify it, and Canada formally withdrew from it just days after COP 17. Now, as China, India and other developing nations build their economic muscles, the leading developed nations are even less likely to enter an agreement that does not impose reduction targets on nearly all countries of the world, with the possible exception of the least-developed nations. The

http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/6911.php?priref=600005735#beg http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16129762 3 http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php 2

developing nations, however, still argue that the current warming is a result of the developed nations’ emissions, and that it would be unfair to impose responsibilities on their own economies. In the end, however, it seems evident that any major framework needs to include “common but differentiated” responsibilities for all major polluters. The EU has frequently stated its ambitions to lead the world in climate action and has developed several policies to battle global warming both domestically and internationally. However, it has been unclear how keen the other key nations have been to follow its lead. At COP 15 in Copenhagen, US President Barack Obama famously excluded the EU from the crucial final discussions. At COP 17 in Durban, however, the EU again managed to take the lead in brokering an agreement during the final hours of the conference. It remains to be seen what kind of a role the EU will pursue and be able to take at COP 18 in Doha this November. While the Durban Platform holds a promise of an all-encompassing, legally binding agreement, the scientific community is increasingly arguing that the world is very much running out of time if it wishes to stay below the 2-degree line. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has estimated that the emissions trajectory that would likely limit global warming to 2 degrees must peak before 2020 – the same year the upcoming climate agreement should enter into force. Already now, the Arctic ice has been shrinking at a record pace. According to Richard Gledhill, Gledhill a climate change specialist at PricewaterhouseCoopers, even staying below the 2-degree limit would force us to revolutionise the way we use and produce energy. James Hansen, Hansen a climate scientist at NASA, claims that a 2-degree increase would already be “a prescription for long-term disaster” and that we should aim much lower.4 The current projections, in any case, put us at somewhere between 4–6 degrees. Thus, mitigation and adaption are policies that are likely to become increasingly important in the near future. “Admitting defeat” could mean giving up the 2-degree aim and pursuing further emissions cuts but at the same time, preparing to live in a world 4–6 degrees hotter than today. In discussing this topic, the committee is required to consider the wider political and diplomatic issues revolving it and discuss the international climate regime as a whole rather than debating individual measures of climate action. With COP 18 in Doha approaching, should the EU stay on the path that was laid down at COP 17? Will the current approach succeed or are stronger initiatives needed? How should we balance the responsibilities of developed and developing countries? As the temperature is rising, so is the pressure on decision-makers.

By Didrik Helsing (SE)

Keywords greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 18th Conference of Parties (COP 18), Kyoto Protocol, Durban Platform, Copenhagen Accord, emissions trading, European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), adaptation and mitigation

http://www.livescience.com/17340-agu-climate-sensitivity-nasa-hansen.html

Research links 1. Introductory material United Nations Climate Change Conference in Doha http://www.cop18qatar.com/ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) http://unfccc.int/2860.php Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change http://www.ipcc.ch European Commission: Fact Sheet on Climate Change http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/factsheets/climate_change.pdf European Commission: Directorate-General for Climate Action http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/clima/mission/index_en.htm 2. Other sources Live Science: “2 degrees of warming a recipe for disaster” http://www.livescience.com/17340-agu-climate-sensitivity-nasa-hansen.html

WRI Insight: “Reflections on COP 17 in Durban” http://insights.wri.org/news/2011/12/reflections-cop-17-durban

Mail & Guardian: “COP 17: Success or cop out” http://mg.co.za/article/2011-12-13-cop17-success-or-cop-out

BBC: “Reaction to UN climate deal” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16129762

Interim Report of the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements (Summary) http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Interim%20Report.pdf

Nature: “Durban maps path to climate treaty” http://www.nature.com/news/durban-maps-path-to-climate-treaty-1.9635

15.

ITRE - Committee on Industry, Research and Energy

With companies seeking talent in the West and improved education combined with lower costs in the East, how can the EU promote entrepreneurship and protect business at home?

OVERVIEW In 1764 James Hargreaves invented the spinning jenny, a key moment in the Industrial Revolution. This was arguably the first moment that the West, in particular Western Europe, overtook the East and for 250 years since this it has remained the case. Yet it has become abundantly clear in recent decades that there is no guarantee that this pre-eminence will continue. Indeed what nations like China and India have is access to the sort of resources that Europe can only dream of, not least their huge populations. Major companies such as Apple have begun making use of these resources by producing their goods in China, whilst money is flowing into Europe from the East, most notably with the Chinese Investment Company, which now holds stakes in Morgan Stanley, Blackstone and Thames Valley Water. With Beijing and Delhi seeming to be likely successors to London and Frankfurt as global financial hubs, the EU must take steps to ensure that there remains a spirit of entrepreneurship and risk-taking across the continent. This is not to suggest that Europe can no longer compete, indeed perhaps the future of European business can already be found in the Baltic. Technology start-ups such as Spotify and Skype (acquired by Microsoft for $8.5 billion in 2011) show a possible future for European entrepreneurs, taking risks on new technology and making significant gains. The Baltic region is behind many significant attempts to support entrepreneurship around the continent, not least through the Baltic Entrepreneurship Partners, a collection of university programmes designed to support new businesses in the region. This success is being noted across Europe, with the UK government providing support for Graduate Apprenticeships in universities across the country with the aim of supporting the next generation of new businesses and entrepreneurs. Alongside promoting investment in new business the EU must support small and medium enterprises (SMEs) if it wishes to protect its economy. These SMEs make up 99% of all European businesses and represent the likely motors behind economic recovery. Companies with smaller work forces are far better placed to react and innovate in comparison with major multi-nationals whose sheer scale can often lead to inertia. Hence it is no wonder that the 2008 Small Business Act seeks to anchor the principle of ‘Think Small First’ throughout government funding for business. In particular it looks to exempt micro-businesses (those with fewer than ten staff) from EU legislation, using the smallest businesses to drive growth, investment and innovation. However there remains a lack of shared European understanding as to what constitutes an SME, with a German SME allowing up to 250 workers whilst a Belgian SME contains no more than 100. As such some companies may struggle to see the benefits of legislation designed to remove ‘red-tape’ from their work because of a simple matter of definition. As such the committee would be well advised to clarify what an SME is and how the EU can best support them. The EU is certainly aware of the need to promote entrepreneurship and there are a great number of schemes and funds available to business leaders, including support from the European Investment Bank and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, all of which provide

resources to Member States and financial institutions to invest in business. Yet the effects of such funding are not likely to be apparent until banks and other institutions start lending to businesses that are crying out for additional finance. If the EU is not able to get money to businesses then one has to ask how it can hope to preserve and protect European business. It is this question that will be fundamental to delegates when discussing the topic and it will require imaginative solutions to ensure that Europe can remain an important business location in the decades to come. By James Benge (UK)

Keywords Entrepreneurship, risk-taking, small and medium enterprises, Small Business Act, Europe 2020, Apprenticeship schemes, innovation

Research links 1. Introductory material

In this interview Sir Ronald Cohen, a leading entrepreneur and author, lays out the key strengths and weaknesses of European entrepreneurship: http://www.kauffman.org/entrepreneurship/state-of-entrepreneurship-in-europe.aspx This article briefly explains the roles and policies of key actors: http://www.euractiv.com/innovation/entrepreneurship-europe/article-117477 The Commissionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s resources on enterprise and industry provide a thorough overview on SMEs and entrepreneurship: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/index_en.htm 2. Official sources

The Small Business Act for Europe looks to enshrine support for SMEs across Europe: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/small-business-act/index_en.htm Similarly the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme looks to offer indirect support to businessmen: http://ec.europa.eu/cip/eip/index_en.htm Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs is a valuable resource for supporting young business men and women, offering European experiences for young entrepreneurs in a similar way to the universities programme it takes its inspiration from: http://www.erasmus-entrepreneurs.eu/ This offers a number of reports on the state of SMEs across Europe, of particular use would be the January 2012 report that analysed job creation by SMEs:

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/performancereview/index_en.htm 3. Articles and other Resources

The EU is not the only major body supporting entrepreneurs; Google for Entrepreneurs is just one of a number of private sector resources supporting entrepreneurs that you should be able to find: http://www.google.com/entrepreneurs/ This article argues that entrepreneurs can be the drivers behind European growth: http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/2509/gloomy-euro-pessimism-can-beovercome