RSC Breda 2020 - Academic Preparation Kit

ACADEMIC PREPARATION KIT Breda 2020

Regional Selection Conference of EYP the Netherlands

Word of Welcome Dearest delegates, I welcome you, on behalf of the chairs’ team, to RSC Breda 2020! I am Laura, born and raised in the Netherlands. I have the honour of presiding this conference, exactly six years after I started my EYP journey right here in Breda.

I remember that it was a cold day, I was excited, and that my hands were shaking with nerves every time I was handed the microphone to speak. I was that nervous to make a mistake.

This year, I am returning with double the excitement and much steadier hands! My hands are steadier now because I know that EYP is a context in which I can make mistakes safely. And then, of course, learn from them.

Just like you learn to ride a bike by getting on a bike and maybe falling off a few times, you learn to do things by simply trying, failing, and trying again.

So EYP is about learning, but that is not all it is. It is also about looking beyond borders, sharing your ideas, and opening up to new people. It’s about new experiences and going through them together with people. And most importantly, it is about having fun with these new people! Through EYP, new people can become your best friends and new places can become second homes, if you open up to them.

EYP can broaden your horizons if you let it. You can only sail towards new horizons if you get on a boat and head out onto the sea. So welcome aboard—the journey has just begun.

All the best, Laura Joël, President of the Conference

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ON THE EUROPEAN UNION CULT COMMITTEE ON CULTURE AND EDUCATION

4 10

ENVI I

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY I

15

ENVI II

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY II

20

IMCO

COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL MARKET AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

25

LIBE I

COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS

30

LIBE II

COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS

35

PECH TRAN

COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES

39

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND TOURISM

44

INTRODUCTION ON THE EUROPEAN UNION Intitutional framework & Stakeholders When searching for the best solutions for the key questions of your topic, you can choose the right actor for a specific action. There is no strict rule that resolutions must be implemented only through European Union organs.

The main stakeholders possible are: the United Nations (global level - 193 states out of approx. 195 in the world), the Council of Europe (European states - 47), European Union (28 members, potentially soon to be 27), individual states, civil society1 and individuals. Several other international organisations exist that might be of relevance to specific topics. Keep in mind that coordinated actions are often needed, and while on the ‘smallest’ scale, actions that individuals can take in their own communities can have a great impact.

You are invited to reflect on the scope needed for your action to be feasible: Who is best to implement it? Who will be most successful in doing so?

The following pages offer brief descriptions of the main stakeholders, topics covered and powers.

The United Nations (UN) The UN is an international organisation comprising 193 member states. It aims to: maintain international peace and security; develop friendly relations among nations, achieve international cooperation in solving problems of concern to the entire world2.

It has 6 main organs3, among which the following two are the most relevant: The General Assembly is the main deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the UN, where all members are represented. Its resolutions may not be binding on states, but they are useful in understanding the position of states, and carry significant soft power4.

The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Its decisions are binding on UN member states. It is formed of 15 members, including 10 rotating members and 5 permanent ones (USA, UK, France, Russia and China).

The UN system consists of numerous specialized agencies, programmes, funds, as well as subsidiary organs of the main UN organs5.

The topic overviews point out the UN entities that have a mandate in a relevant area.

Council of Europe The Council of Europe is an international organisation comprising 47 member states including non-EU states such as Russia. It promotes and protects human rights, democracy, rule of law and European culture through international cooperation in the areas of human rights, democracy and it is not part of the European Union.

1 2 3 4

Non-governmental organisations and institutions expressing/advocating for specific causes. promoting the will of citizens.

5

For a comprehensive overview, see UN, Funds, Programmes, Specialized Agencies and others; UN, The United Nations System

See further UN Charter (1948), article 1.

See further, UN, Main organs.

In contrast to the coercive nature of hard power, soft power describes the use of positive attraction and persuasion to achieve foreign policy objectives. Joseph Nye’s three pillars of soft power are: political values, culture, and foreign policy. chart.

The general aims of the Council of Europe are to:

• Protect human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in all its member states;

• Promote awareness and encourage cultural identity and diversity of Europe;

• Seek solutions to (social) problems facing European society;

• Consolidate democratic stability in Europe;

• Promote social cohesion and social rights; and

• Promote and develop a European cultural identity with emphasis on education.

The Council of Europe:

• Is an international organisation;

• It is not a part of the European Union;

• Does not have legislative power - its member states are cooperating on a voluntary basis.

The European Union The European Union currently has 28 Member States. It is a supranational organisation with the ability to create legislation which all members must obey. It is the primary platform for European cooperation. Knowledge of the specific details of how the EU functions is not directly relevant for most of our topics. Instead, this section will cover the actions the main EU institutions can take.

European Council - Setting the strategy Role: Defines the EU’s general political direction and priorities; Members: Heads of state or government from each member state, the president of the European Council and the president of the European Commission; Actions you can ask the European Council to take:

• Decide on the direction for the EU and EU foreign policy;

• Ask the European Commission to initiate proposals for legislation.

European Parliament - The voice of the people Role: Directly elected legislative arm of the EU; Members: 751 directly elected members; Actions you can ask the European Parliament to take:

• Amends and adopts the proposed legislative acts;

• Supervise other institutions;

• Ask the European Commission to propose legislation;

• Debate on international agreements.

European Commission - Promoting the common interest Role: Executive arm of the EU that proposes laws, policies agreements and promotes the Union’s general interests; it is the political leadership of the Union; Members: College of Commissioners, one from each member state - each commissioner is assigned a specific policy area; Actions you can ask the European Commission to take:

• Propose legislation to Parliament and the Council;

• Represent the EU internationally;

• Negotiate international agreements;

• Implement EU policies.

Council of the European Union - The voice of the member states Role: Deciding on policies and adopting legislation, coordinating actions in member states; Members: Government representatives on a ministerial level from each member state; Actions you can ask the Council of the European Union to take:

• Pass legislation together with the Parliament;

• Coordinate actions in member states;

• Conclude international agreements.

Competences of the European Union In some policy areas, the EU has exclusive competence, which means that decisions are taken at EU level. In other policy areas, there is shared competence between the Union and the member states. This means that if legislation is passed at EU level, then these laws have priority. If no legislation is adopted at EU level, then the individual member states may legislate at national level.

Note that there is often a nuance in the overlap between these. For example, although fisheries is a shared competence, the conservation of fisheries is an exclusive competence. In all other policy areas, the decisions remain with the member states.

Exclusive Customs Eurozone monetary policy

Shared Internal Market Social policies pertaining to aspects defined in the TFEU Economic, social and territorial cohesion Agriculture and fisheries Environment

Conservation of marine resources Common commercial policy Conclusion of international agreements under certain condiConsumer protection tions Transport Establishment of competition rules for the functioning of the internal market

Trans-European networks Energy Area of freedom and justice Certain public health policies Research, technological development and space Development cooperation and humanitarian aid

Support, coordinate and supplement Most human health policies Industry Culture Tourism Education and training Civil protection and disaster prevention Administrative cooperation Coordination of economic, employment and social policies

Tips on researching

Why research?

At an EYP event you have the exciting opportunity to share opinions on interesting topics which are of concern to our generation and the world. It’s not only about discussing, it’s about coming up together with solutions to the key question of your topic. In order to make discussions more interesting, to enable you to fully take part in them, and to make sure your ideas for solving the problem are feasible, you need to have a good understanding of the current state of affairs and what has already been attempted, what has worked and what has not.

What to research Start from the Topic Overview. Make sure you understand the concepts and phenomena revolving around your topic. The topic overview should offer concrete leads for you to follow, offering food for thought based on the aim to be achieved and what the situation is, as well as material indicated in the footnotes.

How to research - Tips & tricks • Have a system - write down things you want to look into. Do it one at a time. There is so much information, it’s easy to get distracted and lose focus.

• ‘There’s nothing new under the sun’ - chances are, whatever you’re wondering about has already been asked, and potentially already answered. If you can’t find what you’re looking for at the first go, it might be worth rephrasing your search terms.

• If you can’t find it on Google, try Google Books and Google Scholar.

• Make sure to distinguish facts from opinions (even if of experts/academics).

• It’s all in the sources - is the information confirmed by other sources? Are they reliable, trusted sources? Have you ever heard of the website before? Do they make wild claims you can’t find elsewhere? What potential bias should be considered (could the source be pushing for a certain side to a story)? Check the (legal) notice at the bottom of the website to find out more about the author/initiator.

• Check the date of the source - if it’s from 2002, chances are more things have happened since then.

• Keep track - you know that website where you found an idea that you thought was interesting but not essential to the topic? The idea that you realised later on it was actually crucial? We’ve all been there. Write it down - keep track.

You can add a bookmark folder for the session where you bookmark websites you come across as interesting. Or you can use a word document where you list the links with a few quick words on what you found there. You’ll thank yourself later.

• You’re not alone - your chair is always there for you and happy to assist you throughout your research process.

Don’t hesitate to ask what and how and where to research certain things if you feel you are stuck. Share with other delegates what you found and what you’re missing - discussing what you found so far will help you process the information and better identify what else you want to look into.

Understanding legislation

Step One - Don’t Panic!

Most laws you will find are written in plain, clear, and simple language. You need no prior experience or knowledge to understand them. In fact, most of the Officials learnt to read legislation through EYP, just like you are about to.

Step Two - Be Prepared Research the context of the law - and read a summary before you read any actual legislation. You can find good summaries for EU law on the europa.eu website, often either beside the text or in a press release. Try searching on Google “(name of legislation) summary”. You can even find decent summaries on Wikipedia and in legal journals and blogs, but be careful about opinions being presented as facts. For this reason, you should also be careful if using news articles to get your legislation summaries.

Step Three - Get a Rough Idea This may sound obvious, but read the Table of Contents (this might be a list of Articles or similar, depending on what you’re looking at, but you get the idea). This will give you an idea of the structure, and an overview of what is covered. It is useful to know the outline of what is included and what is not, and you can use this knowledge to make decisions in the final step.

Step Four - Get Straight to the Point Before reading anything, think about what you want to learn. You don’t have to read the whole thing, and legislation is rarely read for fun. You are probably looking for something in particular, like a specific detail. You should already think about what kind of answer will satisfy you. Once you know what you’re looking for, use Ctrl + F to literally find what you’re looking for.

Step Five - So What Does This Mean?

In most cases you can interpret legislation literally - it should mean what it says. If it is not clear what the legislation means, you have to work out the intention behind it, and try to interpret it accordingly.

You might consider:

• Who does this legislation apply to?

• Who would be impacted by this legislation being enforced; or not enforced?

• What was the intention behind setting this?

• Was this replaced by a more recent piece of legislation?

• What is the power of the act: is it legally binding (mandatory) or advisory?

Material made available by the Governing Body based on the academic prep kit for Trondheim International Session. You are more than welcome to make use of this section for any future EYP event, for the purpose of facilitating academic preparation of participants. If you do so, please include this footnote. For any questions, reach out to gb@eyp.org.

TOPIC OVERVIEWS

C

U

L

T

COMMITTEE ON CULTURE AND EDUCATION (CULT) “With recent reports indicating that young Europeans have amongst the lowest levels of financial literacy and understanding of monetary concepts such as income tax and banking, what measures should European states take to support young adults in taking charge of their own financial future in a rapidly changing and digitalising financial future?”

Abstract

Sara Cardoso (PT)

As European countries’ economies continue to grow, their citizens are under increasing pressure to acquire basic economics knowledge in order to be able to make good, informed decisions regarding their personal finances. This ‘knowledge’ includes competence regarding statistics, as well as numeric skills, and is known as financial literacy or financial education.

According to research, people who are financially educated make better investing, saving and borrowing decisions, are more likely to plan for retirement and have more diverse assets. As an increasing number of households face the need to make their own decisions about such issues, financial illiteracy can become a serious threat to their future welfare.

Statistics show that some of the world’s highest financial literacy levels are found in the EU (e.g. Norway, Sweden and Denmark), while on the other hand there are many European countries which score below the global average (e.g. Macedonia, Romania and Portugal).

Background Information As our world is developing at a fast pace, we are experiencing change and evolution in technology and, in many aspects, struggling to keep up. Economics is a sector where we are witnessing rapid development and great disparity between experts - those who have studied the subject and work on it - and the general public. However, the history of financial literacy shows that this has been the situation for the past few hundred years.

Recently, financial literacy has been receiving more and more attention due to the innovations and increasing complexities of the global financial markets, as a result of deregulation, globalisation and technological progress.

Financial markets and services are playing a greater social and economic role in the daily life of the average citizen. At the same time, they are also becoming increasingly complex and the associated risks are multiplying. Households and individuals are assuming more responsibilities in taking financial decisions that could have severe consequences for their financial security and wellbeing. They need relevant and sufficient financial competence to both protect themselves and also to benefit from the many new products available. More finance-savvy households will contribute to overall financial and economic stability, and to the development of the countries they live in.

The financial crisis has emphasised as well the need to improve consumer financial literacy and awareness, especially in the credit and savings fields. The low level observed in most countries has been one of the aggravating factors of the crisis.

Consumers are now faced with a variety of complex financial instruments offering a large range of options, and the consequences of uninformed credit decisions can be disastrous. Especially so if there is credit in question and it involves big commitments, for instance a mortgage loan, which may be the most important financial commitment an individual or household ever makes.

With regards to measurement, the European Credit Research Institute (ECRI) provides in-depth analysis and insight into the structure, evolution and regulation of consumer financial services markets in Europe. Beyond this institute, in order to analyse and better understand financial literacy around the world, a study was conducted in 2014 by a number of entities: McGraw Hill Financial, with Gallup, Inc., the World Bank Development Research Group, and GFLEC. This study featured the Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services Global Financial Literacy Survey, the world’s largest, most comprehensive global measurement of financial literacy. It assessed knowledge of four basic financial concepts - risk diversification, inflation, numeracy, and interest compounding – and was based on interviews with more than 150,000 adults in over 140 countries.

It has been assessed that there is an escalating number of low income and unemployed young adults.

This is one of EU’s largest disadvantaged groups, making up almost 35% of the total young adults in Europe – in some countries it exceeds 40%. Improving the financial literacy of such a disadvantaged group in European society could have significant benefits for everyone. Good financial literacy skills help

individuals to make the most of opportunities based on their available resources; help them to meet their goals, secure their financial wellbeing, and contribute to the economic health of society. Such skills allow people to understand the mechanics of the economy and the market, how to deal with daily financial issues, and protect them from falling into financial danger.

Around Europe, and indeed the world, measures have started to be taken in order to tackle this issue.

In Portugal, for example, initiatives have already started appearing with the aim of reducing the levels of financial illiteracy: Banco de Portugal’s Strategic Plan for 2017-2020 establishes digital financial literacy as one of its strategic goals, having implemented awareness campaigns on their website and on Instagram, the distribution of leaflets and booklets, seminars and training sessions at schools, amongst several other actions.

In the United Kingdom between 2016 and 2018, the “What Works Fund” looked to encourage the creation of ways to improve financial literacy, offering to pay for a formal evaluation of the effectiveness. Hundreds of ideas were submitted and over 50 were funded.

Russia also implemented several initiatives, focusing on the education of children and youngsters, for example children’s summer camps, board-games and even a mobile city-quest game for youth, the “Financial navigator”.

Examples of other relevant initiatives in Europe include: eFinLit, which is developing an online educational platform including social networking tools, online games, databases, and training packages of online selfregulated modules; Dolceta, a web-based, consumer education tool which is available in all EU languages and has modules on financial services; Euroinvestment, an Erasmus+ project aiming to better adults’ financial competences through an interactive online game.

Topical Challenges Financial literacy levels around the world seem highest in countries with developed and advanced economies.

However, in Europe we find the biggest disparities in financial literacy levels: while northwestern European countries generally perform the best on the Financial Literacy Survey, the further south one looks, the worse the situation.

With 26%, Portugal is the worst in all of Western Europe, while no country east or south of Hungary scores over 50%.

According to the European Federation of Finance House Associations (Eurofinas), data shows that European citizens are pessimistic and insecure about their financial future. There are also increasing levels of indebtedness, that even result in consumers not being able to keep up with their bills (over-indebtedness). There is a need to make sure that consumers are properly informed and protected when it comes to financial services, a mission in which financial education has a role to play, alongside the banking industry and national governments.

The first goal is to ensure that at least the basics of financial services are explained to consumers properly and in comprehensible language. Providing such information online can prove particularly efficient, for example.

However, financial education on its own is not enough.

Recently, a meta-analysis has shown that the impact of financial education interventions is not that significant and citizens taking part in training sessions, courses and such are not necessarily better off. Not only is the financial domain particularly complex, the way our minds and memories work makes learning even more of a challenge.

Besides, a recent study suggests that people often don’t know when they need help; people struggle to accurately evaluate how well they understand things and are unlikely to be open to learning.

A parallel issue is that financial services providers often use misleading advertising, which leads the consumer to believe that the terms and conditions of a financial product are different from the reality. This practice is prohibited by the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.

Conclusions Financial services are a part of every citizen’s life and have become indispensable for consumers who want to participate fully in society. However, financial products are getting more and more complex and consumers are having difficulty keeping up with the rapid rate of change.

In order to enable citizens to make their own choices in financial services, there needs to be up-to-date and easily accessible financial education, so consumers can feel confident when facing financial services providers who are not only experts in possession of all the relevant information, but are also motivated by the desire to sell their products, whatever the ethical cost..

Questions and Further Research How can the EU make sure that consumers are properly informed when it comes to financial services?

How can the EU better protect its citizens from being misled by information from financial services providers and prevent financial fraud?

What can the EU do to increase the effectiveness of the measures already in place?

What are some of the factors that increase motivation to be financially literate in countries where the rates are highest?

How can those be taken into consideration when devising new support networks for young adults in this topic area? http://www.ecri.eu/about-us https://howmuch.net/articles/financial-literacy-around-the-world http://www.eurofinas.org/uploads/documents/reports/E-publication_FinancialEducation.pdf https://bruegel.org/2018/05/financial-literacy-and-inclusive-growth-in-the-european-union/ https://gflec.org/initiatives/sp-global-finlit-survey/

Introductory Clauses The European Youth Parliament, A. Aware of the increasing complexity of the financial domain, B. Pointing out the importance of basic financial knowledge for the average EU citizen, C. Noting the alarming levels of financial illiteracy throughout Europe, D. Further noting that financial illiteracy was an aggravating factor of the financial crisis, E. Alarmed by the growing number of households and individuals making important financial decisions without sufficient relevant knowledge, putting them at risks of losing mortgages or falling into overindebtedness, F. Further alarmed by the escalating number of low-income and unemployed young adults that are financially illiterate, G. Commending the already-existing measures for financial education such as the Erasmus+ project “Euroinvestment” or UK’s “What Works Fund”, H. Deploring by the lack of effectiveness of current financial education interventions, as demonstrated by studies.

E

N

V

I

I

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY (ENVI I)

“All burnt out”: 13% of all working people in Noord-Brabant suffer from burn-out symptoms. Diagnosing and tackling the condition remains a challenge across Europe. What should the EU do to combat the mental exhaustion that many Europeans are experiencing?

Job Kemperman (NL)

Abstract Increasingly, people throughout the European Union (EU) are experiencing burnout. The highest levels are recorded in Eastern and Southeastern Europe, with an average of over ten percent of the workers of EU+ countries feeling burned out.1 Additionally, the study found large differences in the levels of burnout between the Member States. Especially countries in the Southeast are facing rates of burnout that are significantly higher than those of Nordic countries.

Figure 1: Percentage of Burned Out Workers in Europe (Schaufeli, 2018)

Background Information Burnout is generally defined as “a state of exhaustion in which one is cynical about the value of one’s occupation and doubtful of one’s capacity to perform”, ranging from burnouts to long-term stress. In the

past decades, research into the most common disease related to mental exhaustion has increased.

Even though this area of non-communicable diseases has wide support in academic literature for its mere existence, controversy remains present around them. A concrete example is the World Health Organisation (WHO), which does not recognise burnout as a medical condition. Many people both within governmental bodies as well as civil society thus fail to recognise burnout as being as serious as physical conditions, arguing that those suffering from it should not ‘be complaining so much’.

Contrary to the common perception, mental exhaustion is not solely related to work. Exhaustion can originate from various aspects of society, such as education, parents and work. Burnout can already occur in high school, because of the pressure on students to perform well, caused by themselves, by their parents, or both. In that sense, more controversy is present around burnouts. The WHO merely describes burnout as an ‘occupational’ phenomenon, not recognising it outside of the occupational area.

Despite the broadened scope of causes, work remains the main origin of mental exhaustion. In that light, the increased number of freelancers for platforms such as Uber is worrying, as workers are often solely working for one specific client instead of several ones. Even though they are called ‘independent workers’, they are not as they depend usually fully on the behaviour of one employer, without the gains of doing so.

The trend might also be explained through the increase in workforce productivity. This means that every hour of labour delivers a higher contribution to the GDP than it used to do. This can to some extent be attributed to better technology, but also to a higher efficiency given and requested by employers within the workspace, which reflects in higher levels of stress.

Furthermore, research shows that an increase in time spent on social media and smartphones can lead to increased mental strain and less time to rest and recharge. Additionally, this constant state of connectivity also means that time out of office is never really time out of office, as there are always emails to reply to, text messages to get back to and calls to be made.

The EU has placed mental exhaustion within the broader topic of mental health. From 2013 to 2018, The European Commission funded the Joint Action on Mental Health and Well-being, which resulted in the European Framework for Action on Mental Health and Wellbeing. The institution takes on a supportive role in stimulating communication and an exchange of ideas and policies to increase efficiency of policies and policy sharing within and between the Member States. One of the key projects of the Joint Action was the Mental Health At Workplaces, which focused on why it is important to increase health promotion within the workplace. 11 out of the 28 Member States participated in the initiative.

The EU-Compass for Action on Mental Health and Wellbeing was established during the same period to collect and share information on the topic, including reports, workshops, surveys and best practices.

Some of the priorities include better access to mental health services and mental health in the workplace specifically. The Framework, the Compass and the Joint Action still exist, but have not been continued by the EU, since the Framework is finished.

The EU does spend part of its budget on health care. It differs from the past since there is now the European Social Fund+, which consists of all EU policies with a social angle. Until 2020, mental exhaustion is part of the EU Health Program. At the same time, it is none of its twenty-three priorities. The new Fund mainly focuses on the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR), a framework that consists of 20 principles on social affairs that are to be implemented throughout all Member States. Several principles of the EPSR relate indirectly to mental exhaustion, but none of them do explicitly. It consists of three main categories: equal opportunities and access to the labour market, fair working conditions, social protection and inclusion. The Fund was adopted by the European Commission in May 2018 and will run from 2021 until 2027.

Except for three Member States, burnout is part of a wider policy debate throughout all Member States.

It generally focuses on a few key themes: work-related stress, the impact of burnout on mental health, and excessive working time. The debate appears to focus on specific sectors and occupations, such as education and social work. Despite the general debate that takes place, only few Member States have incorporated policies on burnout into their legislation.

Another key actor from the EU is the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) at work.

It is concerned with improving the working conditions throughout the EU, for ‘the benefit of businesses, employees and governments’. It helps Member States with the topic and collects data on the working conditions within the Member States.

Topical Challenges A lack of awareness and recognition of mental health problems remains a key issue within the wider society of the EU. Complaints about high levels of stress from work and private life tend to be taken less seriously than physical health problems. It therefore remains a challenge to determine what the EU can do to make sure that burnout and similar health conditions will be recognised as an equally serious problem as physical complaints. The fact that the WHO does not recognise burnout as a medical condition and that it cannot be taken beyond the occupational sphere shows that the debate is far from over. Furthermore, there are large differences between the Member States in the burnout rate. This suggests that the gap between the actual size of the problem and the recognition is larger in some states than in others.

Another difficulty lies in finding a balance between the interests of employees and employers. Improved working conditions come with a price which not all employers are able or willing to pay. At the same time, it is questionable to what extent it should be allowed to stimulate working conditions that cause stress as a means to stimulate productivity and efficiency. How the interests of the people and the economy can be protected at the same time is one of the key challenges of the topic.

Obstacles lie in the EU’s approach on mental health. In current programmes and policy priorities, mental health and mental exhaustion are not mentioned. A policy specifically addressing mental health is not in place anymore. In that sense, it remains challenging to determine if and how the EU should further build upon the current framework.

The same challenge affects its Member States. Very few States have concrete legislation in place, and with

the conflicting interests between employers and employees, it remains difficult to see how legislation could reconcile both interests. Furthermore, it should be defined whether or not the relationship between the Member States and the EU should be of a supporting role, as was the case with the Framework, Joint Action and Compass. Another option would be to let the EU take a guiding role within the process of tackling mental exhaustion within the Member States. Or, on the contrary, should the EU not be having a role in this process at all?

Conclusion The importance of tackling the high rates of burnout is obvious. The quality of life of people affected with the condition, and those around them, can be impacted greatly because of the lack of diagnosis and recognition. However, the policies currently in place seem to be lacking in ambition and response. It therefore remains uncertain to what extent mental exhaustion is considered and approached as a serious issue within the EU and its Member States.

Questions and Further Research How can Member States help employers implement prevent psycho-social risks?

What practices have been shown to be best throughout the EU member states?

In what way can Member States help each other in best practices?

What specific measures against mental exhaustion have shown to be effective?

How can awareness and recognition of burnouts be created?

Burnout - Causes, symptoms and treatment: a video that explains what a burnout is.

Burnout in the workplace: A review of data and policy responses in the EU: a report that gives a general overview of burnout and how dealt with throughout the European Union.

EU asked to prevent ‘burnout’ among civil servants: an article about ambition Belgium legislation against psycho-social risks.

Burnout: What it’s like to suffer the symptoms at school or university: an article on the mental pressure that students experience.

Out of control: is too much work the real cause of burnout?: an article that illustrates what the impact of a burnout might be on life.

Infographic - The Economy of Wellbeing: going beyond GDP: an infographic on The Economy of Wellbeing

Introductory Clauses The European Youth Parliament, A. Aware of the fact that more than 10% of workers experience burnout throughout Member States of the European Union, B. Noting with deep concern the lack of recognition and awareness of burnouts by society, institutions and employers, C. Taking into account the difficulties occurring when diagnosing burnouts, D. Alarmed by the limited number of states with legislation on mental exhaustion, E. Observing the large differences in burnout rates between Northern and Southern Member States, F. Affirming that burnout can occur beyond the occupational sphere, G. Keeping in mind the mental pressure that individuals experience from their surroundings, H. Acknowledging that mental exhaustion is already part of current wider political debate, I. Taking into account that employees and employers have conflicting interests in preventing psychosocial risks, J. Alarmed by the European Commission having ended the Joint Action on Mental Health and Wellbeing, the European Framework for Action on Mental Health and Wellbeing, and the EU-Compass for Action on Mental Health and Wellbeing, K. Recognising the ability of the European Union to guide Member States in tackling mental exhaustion, L. Concerned by the fact that the World Health Organization, i.

refuses to recognise burnout as a medical condition;

ii.

fails to acknowledge burnout also as a non-occupational phenomenon.

E

N

V

I

II

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY (ENVI II) With an estimated 51 trillion microplastic particles in the world's oceans, accounting for around 92% of plastic debris on the ocean's surfaces, what measures can the EU take to counteract the yet unpredictable risk and effect of microplastics on maritime wildlife, ecosystems, and human health?

Abstract

Joris Dietz (NL)

The earth is polluted by humans in many ways, and microplastics, yet miniscule and practically invisible, form one of the largest issues we are facing today. Globally, we emit 1.5 megatons of particles per year.

In Europe, this roughly equals one person throwing one plastic bag into the ocean every week! With microplastics being detected in the freshwater we drink, the fish we eat and the air we breathe, and with great uncertainty about the particles’ potential harm, it is high time for action to be taken.

Background Information Microplastics are plastic particles ranging in size between 1 micrometer and 5 millimeters and typically resist biodegradation. They are made up of polymer chains of carbon and hydrogen with chemical additives that define their properties and functions. Microplastics are known for polluting the environment, entering the waterways in two main ways: Primary microplastics are released directly from household and industry products, either intentionally - for instance when scrubbing particles in shampoo are flushed down the drain - or unintentionally through the abrasion of car tyres or the like. This group includes resin pallets, the raw material for plastic manufacturing, and microbeads, used in personal care products, and accounts for 15% to 31% of all of the plastic in the oceans.

Secondary microplastics are naturally fragmented particles of bigger products like plastic bottles and bags. This degradation takes place in marine environment, so when substantial plastic waste ends up in the sea and gets weathered down by water, wind and sunlight.

Global releases of primary microplastics to the world oceans (IUCN, 2017)

Plastic consumption Modern society has grown dependent on plastic in the last 75 years. Since the introduction of mass produced plastic in the Second World War, global production has increased to 360 million tonnes per year. It is a wildly popular manufacturing material due to its cheapness, durability, lightness and form freedom, which makes it suitable for an enormous range of applications. Plastic is everywhere in our lives: from packaging to clothing, from gadgets to cosmetics. After we dispose of our plastic waste, it gets blown or flushed away from streets and landfills into rivers, and eventually oceans. And so at least 8 million tonnes of plastics leak into the ocean yearly. Through wear and tear this plastic turns into above mentioned secondary microplastics, which add up to released primary microplastics. Together they account for 51 trillion microplastic particles floating in the world’s seas.

Effects Microplastics damage ecosystems, wildlife and potentially human health. According to SAPEA1, microplastics are now present everywhere in our environment. Microplastics blow in the wind and float in our oceans and are there absorbed by animals small and large, where they may cause inflammation, stress and starvation. A number of them - primarily fish - end up on our plates, and that is how we also ingest microplastics. Due to the lack of a scientific base, limitations in measuring methods and the difficulty of researching microscopic particles, evidence and conclusions are minimal. They do warn, however, “that ecological risks of microplastics may be widespread within a century” if emissions are not reduced.

Stakeholders and existing measures The Directorate-General for Climate Action (DG CLIMA) is an executive of the European Commission (EC) in leading efforts to fight climate change. The EC can propose climate laws and monitors the Member States’ adherence to them. Environmental policies - including those covering microplastic pollution - are a shared competence, meaning Member States can only take legal binding action if the EU has not exercised its competence yet or has explicitly ceased to do so.

its competence yet or has explicitly ceased to do so.

Early 2019 the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) proposed an EU-wide restriction of intentionally added microplastics. They state that the use of microplastics in products is not adequately controlled and aim to cut 400,000 tonnes of microplastic emissions in 20 years. Not only cosmetics are addressed, but also industrial products such as detergents, paints, construction materials and medicinal and maintenance products. The restriction is being reviewed and amended by affected sectors and will be discussed by the European Commission during spring 2020.

As of now, there is no specific legislation for microplastics. The EU regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) generally aims to better protect human health and the environment by collecting and evaluating information on the properties and hazards of chemicals.

Companies across many sectors need to register their manufactured substances to be evaluated by ECHA. Since 2012, the Plastic Soup Foundation runs the Beat the Microbead campaign aiming to shed light on the wasteful use of microbeads in the cosmetics industry. 500 microplastic ingredients were identified and classified according to their harmfulness, helping consumers choose products responsibly.

The Netherlands was the first country to ban microbeads and in 2018, the British government enforced a tough ban for personal care products containing microbeads. At the moment 5 out of 28 Member States have banned microbeads in rinse-off cosmetics, but other products such as lipstick and sunscreen remain untouched.

Rethink Plastic is an alliance of leading European NGOs in the field of environment and plastic. They aim to battle plastic pollution through measures for design, production and waste management of plastic products. Last November a low-key seminar was organised in Brussels to discuss plastic waste exports to China, and earlier they held a talk on the economic benefits of plastic prevention measures.

Topical Challenges The issue can be boiled down to three main challenges facing Europe. There is a lack of knowledge and legal regulation between Member States. Also one of the cores of the problem lies in our plastic production, consumption and waste treatment, and therefore a more sustainable Europe with a circular economy would contribute a lot.

Knowledge Scientists struggle with knowledge gaps. Until now there is no substantial evidence for the harmfulness of microplastics on human health and no hard numbers about their amounts. This is partly due to the microscopic scale of the plastic particles, but also caused by the overwhelming novelty of the topic. In the earlier mentioned factsheet the European Commission points out three subproblems. Firstly, the available information on microplastic rates, potential environmental impacts, human uptake and many other aspects is insufficiently reliable. Secondly, systematic studies and data on the amount and fate of microplastics in food and their effects when ingested are limited. Finally, there is a lack of integrated

databases and standardised methods for joint research by European scientific bodies.

Regulations Although there is a wide range of EU policies and legislation with regard to marine litter, and one European regulation broadly stating that ‘a cosmetic product made available on the market shall be safe for human health’, there is a lack of a regulatory framework specialised for microplastics. The numerous national laws do have potential but are not harmonised between Member States, while the shared competence does give the opportunity to do so.

Prevention Taking it broadly, a core problem to this topic is the world’s unsustainability. The earth is warming up, losing natural resources and biodiversity, all at an unprecedented rate. It is high time to support the environment and switch to sustainable systems. In the field of microplastics, or plastics in general, a lot can be done regarding reusing and recycling. Plastic products must be designed to last longer, incorporate recycled materials and be recycled themselves. Also plastic waste management must be improved in order to prevent the disposed plastic to end up in the oceans and degrade to microplastics.

Conclusion We are confronted with an invisible disaster that is happening all around us, making the lack of knowledge on microplastic behaviour and consequences especially alarming. Numerous Member States have taken serious action and international campaigns are on the rise, but we have a long way to go. Better shared knowledge and good thinking are required to effectively combat microplastic pollution.

Questions and Further Research Why can sewer systems not filter microplastics out of our waterways?

Which hurdles are on the road to battling microplastic pollution?

What can average consumers do to reduce microplastic emissions?

How can we fill the knowledge gap on health and environmental risks?

Can you find cosmetic products at home that contain microbeads, in the orange and red flag categories?

A video by ECHA giving a clear overview of the topic of microplastics.

A TEDx talk about the omnipresence of microplastics in daily life.

A scientific paper on trends in environmental microplastic pollution.

A podcast and article by Dutch newspaper NRC on the unknown dangers of microplastics.

Introductory Clauses The European Youth Parliament, A. Deeply disturbed by the 51 trillion microplastic particles in the world’s oceans, B. Realising that at least 69% of all microplastic pollution originates from plastic waste decaying in marine ecosystems, C. Alarmed by the physical harm caused by microplastics when ingested by marine wildlife, D. Aware of the lack of legislation specifically addressing microplastics, E. Noting with regret the lack of scientific knowledge on the effects of microplastics on human health and marine wildlife, F. Keeping in mind the European Chemicals Agency’s proposal to ban intentionally added microplastics in products, G. Welcoming the bans on adding microbeads to products which were enforced by five EU Member States, H. Applauding the efforts made by NGOs like the Plastic Soup Foundation and the Rethink Plastic alliance in fighting microplastics.

I

M

C

O

COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL MARKET AND CONSUMER PROTECTION (IMCO) “Fashion, fast and slow”: With textile production one of the world’s worst polluters, how should the EU facilitate a move towards a circular textile economy, while promoting better, safer working conditions in the industry and eradicating labour rights abuses?

Julia Pieczonka (PL)

Abstract Fast fashion appeals to so many due to the low prices and endless choice it offers. It has adapted to a rapidly growing global middle class population, who are at once able to afford and thus unable to resist unnecessary consumerism. This has prompted the textile industry - and as a result, consumers - to shift from being quality-focused to quantity-focused. Every second, more than 2500 kilograms of clothes go to waste. Approximately 2700 litres of water are needed to produce just one cotton shirt - the water needed to produce one hundred equals the daily water intake of 135,000 people.

Background Information Fast fashion is a term used to describe rushing changes in fashion that are accelerated by the rapid and cheap production of textiles. The very first time this term was used was in the 1990’s to describe Zara’s business model. With affordable prices and always trendy clothes, companies were soon to follow.

Today’s average customer is buying 60% more garments than in the year 2000. Fast fashion is all about quantity and low prices, rather than quality. Clothing companies used to create only 2 collections on average in 2000 - by 2011 this number increased to 5 collections with some brands offering as many as 24 collections in that year. With this many choices and fast changing trends, it is not uncommon for people to have worn some pieces of clothing only a few times before throwing them away. Nowadays most people would agree that they own many more clothes than they need. To supply the demand, the textile production doubled in numbers by 2014 compared to the year 2000. Mass production of fashion has had a negative impact on the environment, on ecosystems and on workers’ lives.

Various stakeholders have attempted to address these issues. The European Parliament with its Waste framework directive was successful in requiring a separate collection of textile waste, however the deadline for this directive was pushed back from 2020 to 2025. A few resolutions regarding these problems have been realised as well, for example on the sustainability of a cotton value chain or on social and

environmental standards. Various initiatives had been brought up by non-profit organisations, for example BCI (Better Cotton Initiative) or DETOX campaign organised by Greenpeace. There are also numerous other initiatives that offer help in specific cases, for example ‘Cleaner Production Methods in the Textile Sector’ launched in Turkey in response to the growing pollution of one of its major rivers, Buyuk Menderes. The aforementioned initiatives, while being an aid in reducing both causes and effects of the fast fashion trends, do not solve the problems that come with it entirely. If current trends are to continue, by 2050 the resource consumption of the textiles industry will triple, the share in carbon emissions budget will rise from 2% to 26% and 22 tonnes of microfibres will end up further polluting the ocean.

Topical Challenges Fast textile production reduces cost by using low quality, synthetic materials. The production processes and washing of clothes made from such fibres results in the release of release microplastics into the ocean.

While bigger plastics are visible in the ocean, microplastics are not, and are found at varying levels, from shallow to very deep. Thus, the amount of microplastics in the ocean is difficult to measure and assess.

One of the most concerning issues with regard to microplastics is that they are ingested by marine life. This is not only a threat to the marine life itself, but also to humans, as microplastics enter the food chain, and can thus eventually be ingested by us, posing a threat to public health. Synthetic fibres from the textile industry are responsible for 34.8% of global releases of microplastics to the ocean.

Using better quality, natural materials solves the problem of microplastic but creates another - ecosystem degradation. Cotton cultivation demands a lot of water resources. Producing one kilogram of cotton requires 20,000 litres of water. While cotton only occupies 2.5% of land in global agriculture, it uses 6.8% of herbicides and 16% of all insecticides used. This also poses a danger to health, especially to that of farmers in developing countries, as they are less likely than workers in developed countries to use protective equipment while applying pesticides.

The textile industry production lines, usually located in developing countries, oftentimes exploit their workers. For example, workers in Bangladesh factories only receive $96 per month. Even though it fulfils the criteria of a minimum wage, it is not enough to make a decent living. This causes many people to take up more than one job in order to be able to support themselves and their family. A normal working week for garment workers is as long as 96 hours but it can last even up to 112 hours - that is 16 hours daily.

Accidents connected to exploitation of textile industry workers have been noted as well - for example the collapse of Rana Plaza in Dhaka, Bangladesh in 2013, which killed more than 1000 workers. Buildings in which production lines are located are often dilapidated and have no ventilation, and workers inhale toxic substances and fibre dust. This can lead to many accidents, injuries and overall harm the health of those working on fashion production lines. Women are especially affected by the poor working conditions, as they make up 80% of the workers in textile labour market.

Textile production has a huge carbon footprint as well. Every step that a piece of clothing has to go through requires energy - producing the material, sewing, washing, drying, dyeing, transport and distribution.

Manufacturing and consumption of fast fashion results in enormous environmental pollution - the industry

accounts for 1.2 billion tonnes of CO2 a year, which is close to the level of automobile industry pollution.

The fast fashion industry is also responsible for putting a lot of pressure on production workers and people living near factories. The dyes used in manufacturing clothes are mostly toxic chemicals and oftentimes they end up being dumped in nearby rivers. Production lines, often located in Asian countries such as Bangladesh in close proximity to water sources, cause the water to be unlivable for wildlife, and cause damage the health of communities living nearby, as they are often using the water sources for washing, bathing and other purposes. Out of over 1900 chemicals used in the textile production, 165 are considered to be dangerous to health or environment by EU standards.

Circular textile economy was named one of the possible solutions for eliminating effects the negative effects of fast fashion. Instead of going to waste, the clothes would be being given a new life in the process of recycling, re-designing and repeated retail. It is also important to use environment-friendly materials, as this method would not be helpful with microplastic release.

Conclusion Fashion trends are changing rapidly but their impact will be long-lasting. In only fourteen years, the industry has doubled its production, and an expected 400 percent increase in world GDP by 2050 means demand for clothing is only going to go up. Although the price tags found on clothes in shopping malls are affordable, a much dearer price is paid elsewhere. While sweatshop workers’ human and labour rights continue to be brutally undermined in order to satisfy the consumerist demands of Europe and the Americas, our environment is subject to further, and drastic, destruction at the hands of the industry.

Questions and Further Research How can the EU implement circular textile economy?

Can the EU ensure better working environment for workers if production lines are located outside of the EU? Is it possible to shift from fast fashion towards a more sustainable business model in the modern world?

Why is getting rid of dangerous chemicals from clothing production challenging and what can be done to make it safer and less harmful to the local environment? http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2019/633143/EPRS_BRI(2019)633143_EN.pdf https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/style-thats-sustainable-anew-fast-fashion-formula https://www.sustainyourstyle.org/old-working-conditions https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/A-New-Textiles-Economy_ Summary-of-Findings_Updated_1-12-17.pdf https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/01/numbers-economic-social-and-environmental-impacts-fast-fashion https://edepot.wur.nl/425277

Introductory Clauses The European Youth Parliament, A. Alarmed by negative impact that materials used in the process of clothes production have on the environment, especially i.

synthetic fibres that release microplastics into the ocean

ii.

cotton, the cultivation of which negatively impacts both the environment and workers’ health,

B. Deeply disturbed by the fact that dangerous chemicals are being used to produce clothing which harm the local environment and are difficult to dispose of, C. Deeply concerned about clothing production workers often being overworked, especially in developing countries, D. Further noting the lack of appropriate education about and facilitation of safe application of pesticides amongst farmers in developing countries, E. Seeking improved protection of workers’ welfare, including better health, safety and working conditions, F. Noting with regret that women are the most affected by poor working conditions and excessively long working hours as they represent the majority of clothing production workers, G. Having considered that the energy required in the process of clothing production makes the process one of the biggest environmental pollutants, H. Endorsing the circular textile economy model to be adapted on a larger scale, I. Taking into account the high rates at which clothing in good condition is thrown away, J. Further noting the unnaturally high demand for clothing icaused by prices being set too low, K. Deeply concerned by the facts, that by 2050 the resource consumption of the textile industry is anticipated to triple;

L

I

B

E

I

COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS (LIBE I) “The Dutch Narcostate”: The Netherlands is a hub for international drug trafficking. Drug criminality is still on the rise and police forces in Brabant are calling for action. Insufficient resources, too little manpower, and a borderless Europe are all contributing to the situation. How can the EU help the region tackle its escalating drug situation?

Heleen Vanagt (BE)

Abstract Drug trafficking is currently bringing in a fifth of all profits accounted for by organised crime. It is estimated that the EU retail drug market is worth at least EUR 24 billion a year. With the European Union (EU) reporting 763,000 seizures of cannabis and 71 tonnes of cocaine seized in 2016, it is clear that drug trafficking in the EU is becoming a big business. North-Brabant is conveniently located in between the port of Rotterdam and Antwerp, which makes the region a hub for drug activity. In recent years the area has been nicknamed ‘the drug barn of Europe’. While the EU has set out a guideline for Member States (MS) in The EU Drugs Strategy (2013-2020), the only added value of the document lies in the articulation of a consensus across MS. The Strategy is a template, rather than a constructive plan. Numbers show that the demand for drugs and drug-related deaths are continuing to increase, despite the Drugs Strategy.

Background Information The first attempt to combat drugs in the EU was established in 1990, this was named CELAD, European Committee to Combat Drugs. Celad, later, was renamed to EMCDDA. Since then, the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the European Commission have been involved in shaping EU action on drugs. Besides those, there are several, more specific EU agencies which operate in this area, e.g.: Europol and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). Europol is the European law enforcement agency, supporting Member States in the fight against organised crime. EMCDDA is an agency providing factual overviews of European drug problems. The last considerable effort made by these institutions to combat drug problems in the EU was made in 2013 with the EU Drugs Strategy. The EU doesn’t want to prohibit drugs, they want to safeguard the health of every European Citizen. The Drugs Strategy has improved international coordination, ensuring that every country’s national drug strategy aligns with the areas of focus of the EU strategy. However, there are no numbers proving the EU Drugs Strategy has played a role in improving the drug situation. Many numbers are even contradicting the aims of the Strategy, since drug-related deaths are still rising and numbers of seizures have not reduced in

in recent years.

The port of Rotterdam has seized more drugs in 2019 than it has in any previous years. In 2017, 842 hemp plantations and 50 drug laboratories were dismantled. In the same year, the police confiscated over 645,000 ecstasy pills. With around EUR 800 million circulating in the soft drug society of Tilburg, there can be no doubt of the major impact of drugs on the region, and no more time must be wasted in developing effective strategies to improve the situation.

While local forces are doing everything in their power, they simply do not have the means to tackle the issue. A report form the Dutch police association warned that officials are unable to combat the emergence of a parallel criminal economy. With the current resources it is only possible to tackle one in nine criminal groups and it is estimated that 3.5 million crimes go unregistered every year. The police force has indicated a lack of money and subsidies and a scarcity of trained manpower. The government has since acknowledged the major drug problem, resulting in Dutch police forces receiving EUR 267 million in addition every year. Although a nice gesture, reports have shown that the improvement in funding has made little to no difference in the Dutch war on drugs.

Furthermore, The Netherlands gave the province of Brabant EUR 20 million out of the Ondermijningsfonds to receive a better insight into the organisation of large drug operations. However, the money of the latter was not granted with the purpose of training more police officers or improving access to proper resources.

It aimed at improving the use of existing resources and optimising manpower. Thus, state forces remain under-equipped to tackle the magnitude of problems at hand.

Meanwhile, the EU Drugs Strategy (2013-2020) is more a guideline for Member States on how to tackle the drug crisis than a concrete action plan. The main aims of the strategy is to decrease the demand for drugs in every Member State individually, to cooperate on an EU and international level and to reduce the availability of drugs. The EU drugs strategy adds value to Member States’ policies by functioning as a platform for coordination for tackling issues at international level and promoting the EU approach to the drugs problem. It also provides a basis for the EU to speak in international fora with a single voice.

However the last evaluation of the strategy showed that on 47% of the actions little to no progress was made or progress was far behind schedule. Key stakeholders in the EU Drugs Strategy are the Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (HDG) and the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE Committee). HDG is a hub for information exchange on national, EU and international information and is also responsible for leading and managing the Council of the European Union’s work on illicit drugs. The LIBE Committee is responsible for legislation, oversees the EMCDDA and proposes a budget implementation through practical advise.

Topical Challenges As stated above, many challenges occur when talking about The Drug Barn of Europe. Firstly, one prominent hurdle for police forces is the constant change of governments and the inconsistency in policies concerning drug crime. With every change of wind from successive cabinets, authorities are unable to form a stable front in neighbourhoods, resulting in drug runners slipping away unnoticed. Firing police officers

is unsustainable and training new manpower takes time, but this is the hard reality for Erik Akkerboom, National Police Chief. How can the EU develop long-term strategies which will remain effective despite changes in the priorities of governments?

Secondly, a borderless Europe is making it difficult for The Netherlands to regulate drugs. Since NorthBrabant is conveniently located between two of the largest ports of central Europe, many criminals have settled for the countryside. With the large number of empty barns, it is easy for an fugitive to hide hemp plantations and drug labs. And although the EU Drugs Strategy calls for cooperation between countries on shared drug problems, the communication and cooperation between Antwerp and Brabant is scarce.

Cooperation between Belgium and The Netherlands is thus highly important, but so is cooperation amongst the entirety of the EU. Most of the drugs produced in The Netherlands are shipped to the entire world, so as Member States’ demand for drugs continues, the supply from North-Brabant will meet it. How can the EU stimulate cooperation between Member States, Belgium and the Netherlands in particular?

And how can they ensure a stable pace of the workflow?

The Dutch drug use prevention policy focuses on discouraging drug use and reducing the risks for drug users and their surroundings, stated by the Country Drug Report 2019 of the EMCDDA. Recently, emphasis has been moved towards counteracting the normalisation of drug use in nightlife. The Netherlands have implemented multiple complementary approaches for prevention interventions. The Healthy School and Drugs programme aims at raising awareness in students from elementary school to higher education. In addition, the project Alcohol and Drug Prevention at Clubs and Pubs aims at creating a safe nightlife environment. Non-governmental organisations (NGO’s) have started to carry out interventions for various at-risk groups in coordination with government services. One interactive tool that has had a positive outcome is the Red Alert App, where information about various drugs is easily accessible.

Furthermore, critics have suggested that the tolerance policy of The Netherlands with regard to drugs has completely backfired. It appears that legalisation of recreational cannabis has reinforced it as a gateway drug, making the step from cannabis to harder drugs seem less drastic for users. It is also argued that the tolerance of drug use in The Netherlands opened the door to drug production. Others believe that increasing police forces goes against the tolerance policy of the country and contradicts their effort to destigmatise recreational drugs. How should The Netherlands maintain a balance between a ‘war on drugs’ and the tolerance policy?

Problems also arrive when it comes to handling criminal cases in relation to drugs. The waiting time in courts has increased, and can now stretch from one year and eight months to five years. Only then are judges able to find the time to handle a drug case thoroughly, resulting in even fewer positive outcomes for task forces. What steps should the EU take in order to accelerate the justice system?

Conclusion All reports in the past decade have shown that The Netherlands is becoming a true narcostate, unable to handle the huge impact of drugs on its society. Crucially, it would appear that the tolerance policy has not played in favour of the country. Interregional communication is not yet optimised, resources and

manpowers have not increased enough and the justice system lacks efficiency. Although the EU and the Netherlands have made countless efforts to try to regulate and control drug use, drug abuse and drug trafficking, there has been little to no improvement.

However, although the vast problems stated above might seem discouraging at first, many possibilities for successful approaches exist. Investment strategies, long-term policies for police forces, new communication methods, full investment in the decreasing of demand, and extending the tolerance policy for all (soft) drugs could all help avoid a return to a classic war on drugs.

Questions and Further Research Should the EU make a new drug strategy for 2021-2028, or should MS be handed more autonomy through support measures and guidelines?

Should Belgium and the Netherlands come up with new systems to cooperate and communicate, and what shape should these systems take?

What role should NGOs such as The Red Alert App, the Alcohol and Drug Prevention at Clubs and Pubs play into the tackling of drug demands?

Is it better to decrease the demand for drugs through campaigning or take measures to try to break down the supply chain of drugs? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsFPgTIKnPM https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/20/netherlands-becoming-a-narco-state-warn-dutchpolice https://www.dutchnews.nl/features/2019/09/a-new-war-on-drugs-is-short-sighted-and-naive/ https://www.rand.org/blog/2018/01/-is-the-eu-drugs-strategy-helping-to-curb-the-harm.html https://nltimes.nl/2019/10/03/drug-crime-rise-due-inconsistent-policy-national-police-chief-says

Introductory Clauses The European Youth Parliament, A. Aware of the convenient location and landscape of North Brabant in terms of facilitating drug plantations and laboratories, with the proximity of the port of Rotterdam and Antwerp and the extensive amount of empty barns, B. Convinced that the cooperation between EU Member States, and between Belgium and the Netherlands in particular, could be improved, C. Taking into account that the Netherlands must try to: i. find a balance between its policy of tolerance, and sufficient regulation of drugs and the protection of its citizens on the other, ii.

avoid a regression to a state of war on drugs,

D. Deeply disturbed by of the emergence of a parallel criminal economy currently valued at EUR 24 billion euros a year, E. Concerned by the lack of continuity in policies made by successive Dutch governments and cabinets, F. Alarmed by the lack of efficiency in the Dutch justice system with regard to handling drug-related cases, G. Alarmed by the demand for drugs from other Member States, making North Brabant the Drug Barn of Europe, H. Noting with deep concern that despite the efforts of the EU Drugs Strategy, drug-related deaths and numbers of seizures are still rising,Taking into account the high rates at which clothing in good condition is thrown away, I. Taking into account the aims of the EU Drugs Strategy, being a guideline for Member States and providing a basis to speak as one voice, J. Expressing its appreciation for EU agencies such as Europol and EMCDDA, who are fighting criminality and providing objective information about drug criminality and drug use, K. Recognising the effort made by the Dutch government to release more funding to prevent a true narcostate, e.g. the Ondermijningsfonds, funding efforts to develop a better understanding of organised drug groups, and subsidies to train more man-power to combat drug-related criminality.

I

L

B

E

II

COMMITTEE ONCIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS (LIBE II) “Press freedom”: With 37% of EU citizens coming across news reports containing biased and inaccurate accounts of events, what can the EU do to improve and facilitate communication between news outlets and members of the public on the ground in order to increase the quality of news coverage while preserving press freedom?

Abstract

Bente Presse (NL)

The move to an increasingly digital environment gives European citizens many new ways of accessing diverse information and views. At the same time, little effort is required to generate and spread verifiably false or misleading information. If this is being done intentionally to deceive the public or for economic gain, it is known as disinformation.

Disinformation poses a threat to democracy since it hampers the ability of citizens to develop informed and balanced opinions on issues. Moreover, the increased exposure of citizens to biased or inaccurate reports erodes trust in traditional media and public institutions. However, the fine line between false news and satire or opinion, along with the increased spreading speed of news online, complicates the task of limiting the impact of disinformation.

Background Information The media empowers citizens through widening their understanding of the current political situation and social landscape, and by providing relevant information to make informed choices. Especially in complex and fast-changing sectors such as health or finance, citizens’ decisions are sensitive to information they receive through media, and the way that information is presented. A contentious example of this is the spreading of misinformation regarding vaccinations and its possible dangers. Such misinformation has reduced vaccination coverage in many EU countries in recent decades.

With regard to the impact of disinformation on personal decisionmaking, special attention should also be paid to elections. Accurate information about the candidates, their positions and background, but also about the eligibility to vote, or date and location of the vote, influence the election’s outcome. This aspect is especially relevant in

light of the European Parliament elections having taken place in the May of 2019. As a preventive and future-oriented measure, the European Commission agreed upon a Joint and Coordinated Action against Disinformation in 2015 with the aim to improve detection and coordinated responses to disinformation, as well as to mobilise the private sector. The action plan explicitly states the need for action due to the upcoming Most prominently, a Code of Practice on Disinformation has been published and signed voluntarily by representatives of the main online platforms like Facebook, Google, Youtube and Twitter.

Compliance with this Code of Practice has since been continuously monitored by the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services.

As the first few hours after release have shown to be critical for detecting and responding to false news, the European Commission has also launched the so-called Rapid Alert System this year. The Rapid Alert System is a digital platform where Member States and EU institutions can share data, insights and best practices regarding disinformation to facilitate cooperation on joint responses.

Topical Challenges Disinformation can take different forms. Not only do we see the spreading of verifiably false information, we also are faced with selective reporting of events, both in the sense that relevant events often go unreported, and that the events reported are done so selectively and partially. The question on how events become news thus arises. In the trade-off between different news-determining factors, such as entertainment, relevance or the news organization’s political agenda, publishers select which events become news and thus which information becomes accessible to citizens. Even if a relevant event is selected to be news, the way it is portrayed or framed can still misinform the public through the use of emotional language, implicit arguing in favour of a particular - often political - opinion or the omission of relevant background information. How can the EU support news outlets in this tightrope walk between opinion and disinformation?

Investigative journalists play an essential role in informing the public about misuse of power, corruption or criminal activities. By publishing sealed or insider information, they also contribute to the exposure of disinformation and thus help to achieve overall impartiality of news reports. However, their profession still entails a lot of risk. Journalists in the EU still face violence, threats or public shaming because of their investigative activities. In combination with dependency on the employer and potential pressure to stick with a given editorial orientation, these factors increase the risk of self-censorship or cause journalists to break off further investigation of sensitive data. Reducing journalists’ vulnerability to both internal and external pressure could thus help to ensure accurate accounts of events.

Unfortunately, journalists’ ability to work appropriately is further compromised by their average working conditions. Facing precarious working contracts with low wages and few social guarantees, professional journalists often have insufficient resources to pursue stories in depth and find their work more and more replaced by less costly freelancing. To maintain their quality in investigative journalism, news media thus need to be supported by a wider range of funding sources.

Due to their profession, journalists also enjoy some rights. Most notably, the confidentiality of their sources is protected by the law. This guarantee of anonymity is meant to ease informants to share information of public interest with journalists. While encryption and anonymity online facilitate the concealment, source verification, a key instrument in detecting disinformation, is hampered. Moreover, it is also questionable

who should benefit from these journalistic protection rights. In the internet era, full-time journalists are complemented by freelancers, bloggers and social media activists, whose legal status as media actors is only vaguely defined.

To entirely fulfill its democratic function, media should not only be free and independent, but also pluralistic. In the end, the inability of any one source to lay claim to Absolute Truth is what makes it so important to guarantee a pluralistic media landscape. Unfortunately, editorial diversity in European media is still challenged by a high concentration of ownership and a lack of ownership transparency.1 Given the increasing economic difficulties of traditional media, this situation is also unlikely to improve in the near future.

In spite of the creation of a Digital Single Market with the aim to increase access to online services across Europe, cross-border media activities are still distorted by differences in national laws. Lax regulations for registering media stemming from third countries in one Member State may force other Member States to accept such media, or conversely, content that is legally published in one Member State can be object to censorship in another Member State. Further harmonisation of EU legislation would thus be of great benefit.

Last but not least, the ultimate target and end-users of media activity should be addressed: the consumer.

Individualised filtering mechanisms in electronic media, which are mostly imposed without the user’s awareness save citizens a great deal of time and prevent an overload of new information, but they also reduce personal control of the flow of information and cause filter bubbles. Together with an inability to check and evaluate sources, such information isolation can have a damaging impact on political opinion.

An improved media literacy and ability to critically assess information sources would improve citizens’ resilience to disinformation.

Conclusions Disinformation is a multi-faceted problem that is rooted not only in the development of digital media, but also involves some political actors, both within and outside the EU, news media and private actors. While not necessarily illegal, disinformation can nevertheless be harmful for citizens and society at large. The risk includes threats to democratic processes and personal decision-making.

Responses to this threat should comply with a free, independent and pluralistic media environment and could encompass empowerment and protection of journalists, self-regulatory approaches for news outlets and increasing media literacy among consumers.

Questions and Further Research How can the EU reduce the professional risk of investigative journalists?

How can media literacy be increased among EU citizens?

How should the EU proceed with reported cases of disinformation? That is, which consequences should news outlets that repeatedly publish false information face?

How, if at all, should the approaches in tackling disinformation differ between digital and traditional media?

1

“Monitoring Media Pluralism in Europe: Application of the Media Pluralism Monitor 2017 in the European Union, FYROM, Serbia & Turkey”, Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom, 2018

Report of the High-Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism, January 2013 “Disinformation: What is the EU’s Rapid Alert System?”: informational video by the European Comission “Tackling online disinformation”: overview of online disinformation and corresponding previous actions presented by the European Commission “Fake news: how to counter misinformation”: report on the European Parliament plenary debate about the spread of disinformation

Introductory Clauses The European Youth Parliament, A. Realising that news reports and their framing of events and issues influence citizens’ opinions, B. Alarmed by the fact that this influence is reportedly being misused to deceive the public, impacting their decision-making, C. Noting with regret that 68% of EU citizens report encountering false news at least once a week, D. Acknowledging that the spreading of verifiably false information, of strongly biased information and the omission of relevant information all constitute forms of disinformation, E. Recognizing the need for a pluralistic media landscape to allow citizens to form opinions without the undue influence of one dominant editorial line, F. Bearing in mind that news outlets select their content according to how high they believe the news ‘value’ of that content to be, which can lead to the public’s exposure to world events being narrow and skewed, G. Observing that improved media literacy empowers citizens to detect and respond to disinformation, H. Fully alarmed by the high professional risk that investigative journalists in the EU are exposed to, including harassment, personal threats and public shaming, I. Noting with regret that professional journalism is further jeopardised by increasing financial pressure on traditional media, J. Desiring a re-evaluation of the legal status of media actors, in order that they can adapt to new forms of journalism, such as freelancing and social media activism, K. Expressing its appreciation for the efforts of fact-checker organisations and investigative journalists in verifying news reports and exposing disinformation, L. Noting with satisfaction the signing of a Code of Practice on Disinformation by representatives of the most influential social media platforms, as well as its monitoring by the European Commission.

P

E

C

H

COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES (PECH) “Fish are friends”: With the next negotiations for a global treaty on the protection of marine biology coming up in 2020, what further steps should European states take to encourage a sustainable blue economy and reduce economic pressures on the oceans, while safeguarding the socio-economic benefits of the industry?

Giulia Pipolo (NL)

Abstract Marine litter has become a global challenge over the past few decades. Estimates suggest that an equivalent of 4 trucks of plastic will be dumped in our oceans per minute by 2050.

Fisheries, commercial shipping and marine tourism pose a threat to the marine environment by contributing significantly to maritime pollution, a substantial part of which is plastic pollution. Once plastic products are released into the oceans, they decrease significantly in the value they would have in a circular economy. In this economic system, resources are kept in use for as long as possible, through means such as recycling, which means that their use value stays in the economy instead of going to waste.

Our oceans provide us with vital products and services, such as tourism, shipping and fishing, and is therefore a valuable resource and central part of our economy. The current worth of the marine economy is around 500 billion Euros and provides more than 6,6 million jobs across Europe. In order to benefit from the marine-based economy sustainably, most Member States of the European Union (EU) are striving towards a ‘blue economy’. This system encourages the sustainable use of ocean resources in order to achieve economic growth, improved livelihood and jobs, and ocean ecosystem health.

Background Information In the past couple of decades, the global demand for fish and other economic driving forces have increased and will continue to increase, resulting in great economic pressure on the maritime industry. Aside from the pressure on the more traditional industries, by for example pressuring the fishery industry to implement sustainable fishing methods, there are numerous upcoming industries, like the offshore renewable energy production, mineral mining and seabed extractive activities, which experience economic pressure.

A study conducted in Finland showed that the economic development had a way more significant influence on fish stocks than was expected, and therefore called for technical advancements in fishery practices by 2048. The solution of increasing the aquaculture sector in order to reduce the fishery on wild fish stocks may not turn out to be as productive as it was thought to be. The positive effect of less wild fish being caught will be overwhelmed by a greater demand and technological progress in the fishing industry, which will result in increasing fishing pressure on wild stocks. As aquaculture is much more expensive than traditional fishery, due to the requirement of more technological advancements, the industry will most likely not be able to meet the fish demand by itself without any financial support.

Furthermore, there are a number of conservation issues. A large amount of fish stocks are depleted, meaning that the consumption of these stocks is greater and faster tha n its replenishment. Causes include the lack of property rights and information: fisherman do not know how many stocks are available. In order to restore and recover the stocks, the amount of fish caught must be reduced. However, this will inevitably mean that fishermen will get lower profits, thereby harming the economy of the industry. Most conservation measures are therefore likely to be opposed by economic stakeholders.

In 2008, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive was adopted. This framework is the first-ever legislative instrument that is directly related to the protection of marine biodiversity and the achievement of Good Environmental Status (GES). This directive is aiming to achieve GES of EU waters by 2020 to protect the resource-base on which our marine-related economic and social activities depend. In order to make sure this goal is achieved by 2020, each EU Member State is required to draft a Marine Strategy, which has to be updated and reviewed every 6 years.

During the Barcelona Convention in 1975, 16 Mediterranean countries adopted the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP). The Convention and MAP are now more active than ever, consisting of 22 countries who are determined to protect their sea and coastal environment, while boosting their regional and national plans in order to achieve sustainable development.

The Common Fishery Policy (CFP) aims for an environmentally, economically and socially sustainable aquaculture and fishery. Aside from this, it also assists in safeguarding the fishing industry and ensures fair living standards for people in fishing communities. Even though it is important for the industry to maximise their catches, this policy points out that fishing practises should not be harming the ability of fish populations to reproduce. All Member States are required to have their limits set by the end of 2020.

However, the CFP is heavily subsidising fishermen for their catches, which encourages them to catch even more fish. This is contributing to the depletion of wild fish stocks.

Topical Challenges The challenges surrounding this topic are spread out across different sectors. The EU is striving towards a sustainable ‘blue economy’, but in achieving this, the EU will have to take the economic pressure as well as socio-economic aspects into consideration, including tourism, shipping and job opportunities.

Blue economy Marine litter and the ‘blue economy’ are butting heads. Because the EU has decided to strive towards a blue economy, it will have to get rid of the marine litter. Marine litter has significant economic impacts, one of which is the concept of ‘ghost fishing’. When fishing gear gets dumped or abandoned at sea, these devices are still capable of capturing wild fish, without anyone profiting from the catches. Ghost fishing therefore reduces fish stocks that would otherwise be available for commercial fishers and damages the fishing nets and propellers of bypassing boats, resulting in a loss of fishing opportunities.

Contrary to the negative effect of ghost fishing, marine litter also has great economic potential. Every single item of plastic has a significant value to it. At present, this value is but going to waste the moment it ends up in our oceans, due to the fact that the accumulated plastic is not part of the economy anymore.

The litter in our oceans is currently the product of a linear economy (take-make-dispose), meaning that produced products will be thrown away as waste, losing their value.

Economic pressures More and more Member States are starting to think about what measurements need to be taken in order to prevent the wild stocks in EU waters to vanish. The most obvious solution would be to reduce fisheries in short term to ensure there are wild stocks to fish in the long term. However, due to the fact that this will harm the fishery sector in the short term, this measurement is not likely to be welcomed with open arms.

Socio-economic aspects (tourism, fisheries, shipping, job opportunities) The total worth of our current maritime economy is 500 billion euros and the economy employs a total of 5.4 million people. However, many methods used in fishery practices are wasteful and unproductive.

Around 20% of the catch is thrown back into the oceans, littering the waters with dead fish.

Moreover, one-third of the total catch go to waste before reaching the consumer. The CFP has acknowledged the problem of wasteful practices, without proposing a concrete solution.

Tourism, and cruise ships in particular, are a substantial contributor to ocean pollution. However, approximately 183 billion Euros in total are flowing from the marine tourism sector each year, thus onethird of the whole maritime economy. In addition, 3.2 million people are employed by the marine tourism sector. Even though we can and already have started banning cruise ships, the consequences for the working sector have to be taken into account.

Conclusions The maritime sector is a complex mechanism that not only employs more than 5 million people, but is also a substantial part of our economy. The current problems that the EU is facing in regard to this sector include socio-economic aspects, as well as economic aspects while striving towards a ‘blue economy’. In the past few decades the European Commission has adopted the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Common Fishery Policy and the Mediterranean Action Plan, but we still seem to be stuck in a linear economy. In order to find the most effective solution, the EU will have to take all aspects and policies into account.

Questions and Further Research How do Member States reduce pollution coming from maritime tourism, without harming the tourism sector?

How can the European Union protect its ecosystems, whilst keeping up with the large demand for fish stocks?

How does the European Commission ensure policies like the Common Fishery Policy are being respected?

How can the maritime sector reduce fish stocks in the short term, without harming the economic aspects of the industry?

Is there a way in which the maritime industry can economically and environmentally profit from the marine litter?

Skills and career development in the blue economy https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/skills-career-development_en What is a blue economy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzZMJi6uyto Socio economic study on marine litter and its consequences, focus on chapter 5 about Tourism and recreation. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/26014/Marinelitter_socioeco _study.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y TED Talk about the ‘blue economy’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx8FV8dgA78 How does the tourism sector affect our oceans: water pollution. https://www.seagoinggreen.org/blog/waterpollution

Introductory Clauses The European Youth Parliament, A. Acknowledging the fact that the amount of marine litter is expected to exceed the amount of fish in oceans by 2050, B. Noting with deep regret that marine litter and ‘ghost fishing’ reduce current fish stocks and cause a loss in fishing opportunities, C. Observing the economic potential of marine litter in a linear economy, D. Conscious of the fact that a reduction of unsustainable fishing practices is necessary to rehabilitate ecosystems and wild fish stocks, E. Recognising that around 20% of the global catch is thrown back into the oceans, F. Alarmed by the marine tourism sector’s substantial contribution to marine pollution, G. Keeping in mind the estimated worth of the marine economy of 500 billion euros, providing more than 6.6 million jobs across Europe, H. Concerned by the economic pressure on small scale fisheries to implement sustainable fishing methods and technological advancements, I. Bearing in mind the depletion of fish stocks arising from conservation issues and a lack of information available to fishermen, J. Emphasising that the Common Fishery Policy is contributing to the depletion of fish stock by subsidising fishermen for their catch, K. Applauding the Marine Strategy Framework Directive for contributing to the achievement of Good Environmental Status in EU waters by 2020.

T

R

A

N

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND TOURISM (TRAN) “On the right track”: Flying has become the cheapest option to travel across Europe and trains have fallen out of fashion. With the EU signalling its commitment to climate neutrality by 2050 and Member States discussing a flight tax, investing in the Trans-European Train Network has become a priority once again.

How should the EU go about improving its train network whilst ensuring it is affordable and accessible to all EU citizens?

Lidewij Mes (NL)

Abstract Last August, young climate activist Greta Thunberg chose to sail the Atlantic Ocean, instead of flying over the Atlantic, to attend climate conferences in New York City. Her reasons? Planes are leaving a tremendous carbon footprint on our world.

Aviation, for many people, is an indispensable means of transport. It brings us all over the globe in a fast, safe and cheap way. On top of that, the aviation industry generates economic growth, creates jobs and facilitates tourism and international trade.

However, the aviation industry is also a great contributor to global warming.

In 2018, carbon dioxide emissions totalled 895 million tons, making up 2,4% of global carbon dioxide emissions. This may not seem substantial at first glance, but as the carbon dioxide emissions increased by 32%, this number is expected to become much higher in the near future. The United Nations (UN) aviation body estimated that the amount of carbon dioxide airplane emissions in 2018 will triple by 2050. However, the greenhouse gas emissions from air travel are growing much faster than predicted: the International Council on Clean Transportations has found that the emissions from air travel will increase 1.5 times as fast as the UN forecasted.

For this reason, keeping in mind the European Union’s (EU) goal of having a climate-neutral Europe by 2050, Member States are discussing a flight tax, and are, more importantly, focused on investing in more sustainable means of transportation, such as the Trans-European Train Network. Leaving walking or biking out of the picture, taking a train is the most sustainable way of travelling. Compared to airplanes, the total amount of carbon dioxide emissions produced by trains is about

75% lower. Also concerning the use of space, noise level, and energy consumption, trains are far more sustainable.

Background Information As with most human activities involving combustion, aviation releases a large amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses into the air. Over the past two decades, the aviation industry has grown drastically. In 1998, 1.467 billion passengers were counted. In 2017, this number was 3.979 billion. Airlines nowadays are focused on finding ways to serve even more passengers. With this growth of the aviation industry, also came a growth of carbon dioxide emissions, to the point that the aviation industry became one of the most polluting means of transportation.

To charge the aviation industry for its contribution to global warming, nine EU countries, including the Netherlands, Germany and France, have appealed for an EU-wide aviation tax. This way, the people who use aviation transport, would pay a fairer price for the carbon dioxide emissions they release, and passengers would consider using other means of transport that are more sustainable.

Europe’s train network, however, has been struggling since the late 1960s. In terms of freight and passenger transport, rail transport has been in decline. The share of the rail freight land transport market experienced a drop from 32,6% in 1970 to only 16,7% in 2017. Also the rail’s share of passenger transport has experienced a slight drop. In 1970 it was over 10%, but this dropped to 6,9% by 2006, and stagnated since then..

The main weaknesses of rail transportation concern dynamism, flexibility, reliability and customer orientation on the part of railway undertakings. Moreover, the rail system is often stalled by its ageing infrastructure and rolling stock, as well as its weak financial situation.

Over the past 25 years, the European Commission has been trying to restructure the European rail transport market by focussing on three main areas that are critical for the development of a strong and competitive rail transport industry: Opening the rail transport market to competition, improving the interoperability and safety of national networks and improving rail transport infrastructure. To make rail transport safer and more competitive, the EU has implemented the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS). This is a system that increases the interoperability of trains in the EU, enhances safety, and makes train transports more efficient. As the European rail network currently is quite fragmented, the EU aspires to create an effective EU-wide transport infrastructure network through the Trans-European Transport Network Policy. In addition to this, in order to increase competition in a cross-border sense, there is EU legislation that allows rail operators to run services in and between other countries in the EU. The European Railway Agency (ERA) plays a prominent role in promoting interoperability, by harmonising technical standards in Technical Standards on Interoperability (TSI).

Topical Challenges The challenges concerning this topic can be divided into two core issues: Improving the Trans-European Train network, and making sure that the train network is affordable and accessible for everyone.

Improving the Trans-European Train Network In most cases, rail travel and transport are taken care of as a national issue. All European countries have developed their railway network on their own, with few cross-border connections. This way, the European rail network is quite fragmented, and cross-border travel by train is complicated. Aviation, on the contrary, is handled as an international matter, which makes aviation the more accessible option for cross-border transport.

The best way to develop a European railway system would be to completely rebuild the network. However, this is not feasible financially, which is why it is important to make sure the ERTMS cooperate with the different national systems. Because of the vast differences between the national train systems, cooperation is very complicated. Some measures could be positive for one country, but negative for another. This causes considerable compatibility problems and slows down the development and implementation of ERTMS significantly.

Apart from that, there are countless different carriers and ticketing systems which can make it hard for customers to navigate the modern rail system.

One of the main reasons people dislike taking the train for longer routes is that it takes a train much longer to reach its destination than other means of transport. For example, when you take the train from Amsterdam to Madrid, this takes about 15 hours. With the plane, this would take only two hours. However, making trains go faster is easier said than done.

Keeping the train network affordable and accessible The development of the European train system should not be done at the cost of accessibility and affordability of trains. Keeping costs down is important for the mobility of people with lower incomes, and people living in less urban areas.

A lot of investments come with improving the train network, yet this should not cause a rise in prices for the train. Also, the main goal is to create a better connection between big cities in Europe. However, it is important that people who live in more rural areas have the same opportunities for taking the train. The train network should be accessible to anyone who wants to use it.

The reason why plane tickets are so cheap, is because most airlines receive all kinds of subsidies and financial advantages from their government, in order for them to provide cheap transportation. Additionally, because of the liberalisation of the European Market, the competitiveness between airlines has increased immensely, causing a drop of the average price paid for a plane ticket.

Compared to plane fares, international train fares are very expensive. As the European train network is quite fragmented, every country has different train fares, causing that international train tickets are unnecessarily high. Also, because of all the different safety systems in every country, train drivers need to be trained on how to work with these different systems. The costs of training train drivers are passed on the ticket fares.

Conclusion In order to keep carbon dioxide emissions from rising, it is essential to improve the train network, so that it becomes easier to travel through Europe by train. Over the past years, the European Commission has set up various plans to improve the Trans-European Train Network, yet there has not been a lot of development.

In order to make travelling through Europe by train easier, and to make travel by train preferable over travelling by plane, a couple of challenges need to be tackled. These challenges concern two main issues; improving the Trans-European Network and assuring the train network is affordable and accessible to anyone.

Questions and Further Research How can we ensure that, when a better European train system has developed, people will choose taking a train over taking a plane?

What are other reasons for planes being relatively cheap and trains being relatively expensive?

What can be done to make sure trains are affordable for everyone?

How accessible is the train network now, for both people who live in urban areas and people who live in more rural areas?

What can be done to improve the accessibility?

Video: What is ERTMS? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xk1JTuN2Mw Trouble with making trains go faster https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140813-the-challenge-to-make-trains-fast https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/media/publications/doc/modern_rail_en.pdf Achievements https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/130/rail-transport

Introductory Clauses The European Youth Parliament, A. Alarmed by the fact that the amount of CO2 emissions produced by the aviation industry will increase 1.5 times as fast as predicted, B. Aware of the increasing affordability of air travel compared to rail travel, C. Pointing out that trains produce 75% less CO2 than the aviation industry, D. Conscious that the train is not the most efficient means of transport, E. Realising that the European rail network is fragmented, making train fares relatively more expensive and cross-border travel by train more complicated, F. Deploring that Luxembourg is the only Member State of the EU that has fully implemented ERTMS, G. Concerned about the accessibility of the European train network for all EU citizens, H. Viewing with appreciation the current integration of the EU’s Trans-European Train Network policy.