Entries by YEE

, ,

Bottom Trawling: The controversial history of an unsustainable practice

Bottom Trawling: The controversial history of an unsustainable practice

Written by

Contents

Share this article









Sources

  • Wardle, C. S. (1986). Fish behaviour and fishing gear. In The behaviour of teleost fishes (pp. 463-495). Boston, MA: Springer US.
  • Steadman, D., Thomas, J. B., Villanueva, V. R., Lewis, F., Pauly, D., Palomares, M. L., … & Collinson, T. (2021). New perspectives on an old fishing practice: Scale, context and impacts of bottom trawling. Our Shared Seas, Report, 44.

  • De Groot, S. J. (1984). The impact of bottom trawling on benthic fauna of the North Sea. Ocean management, 9(3-4), 177-190.

  • Hiddink, J. G., Kaiser, M. J., Sciberras, M., McConnaughey, R. A., Mazor, T., Hilborn, R., … & Jennings, S. (2020). Selection of indicators for assessing and managing the impacts of bottom trawling on seabed habitats. Journal of Applied Ecology, 57(7), 1199-1209.

  • Parker, R. W., Blanchard, J. L., Gardner, C., Green, B. S., Hartmann, K., Tyedmers, P. H., & Watson, R. A. (2018). Fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions of world fisheries. Nature Climate Change, 8(4), 333-337.

  • Paradis, S., Goñi, M., Masqué, P., Durán, R., Arjona‐Camas, M., Palanques, A., & Puig, P. (2021). Persistence of biogeochemical alterations of deep‐sea sediments by bottom trawling. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(2), e2020GL091279.

  • Clark, M., & Tilman, D. (2017). Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environmental Research Letters, 12(6), 064016.

  • European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (2008). Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union, L 164, 19-40.

  • Scholaert, F. (2023). Action plan to protect marine ecosystems for sustainable fisheries. European Parliamentary Research Service.

What is Bottom Trawling?

Fisheries are an essential resource, supporting human well-being and sustaining the livelihoods of billions of people worldwide, especially in coastal communities. As a major economic sector, fisheries have profound socio-political and environmental impacts. Various fishing techniques are employed globally, each selected based on factors such as the target species, fish behaviour, location, and timing. Bottom trawling is a widespread fishing practice which accounts for approximately 26 per cent of the total fish catch within the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and on the high seas. 

 An exclusive economic zone, as prescribed by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is an area of the sea in which a sovereign state has exclusive rights regarding the exploration and use of marine resources, including fishing.

This practice is especially prevalent in Europe, North America, and East Asia, where it is used to harvest a variety of marine species, including cod, shrimp and squid. Bottom trawling involves dragging a weighted net or a rigid frame along the ocean floor, a method that is often confused but is distinct from pelagic trawling, which targets fish in the water column. 

Environmental impacts

Originating in the United Kingdom during the 1300s, bottom trawling underwent significant industrialization in the 20th century due to advancements in technology. Over time, various trawling gear, including beam trawls and otter trawls, have been developed to suit different environments and species, impacting the environment in diverse ways. Despite its economic advantages, bottom trawling is contentious due to its considerable environmental and ecological impacts. It is linked to several major threats to biodiversity, such as the overharvesting of target species, bycatch of non-target species, and the destruction of seabed habitats. Studies have shown that this method reduces marine species diversity and biomass, often favouring short-lived species, which disrupts the ecosystem’s food web and functioning. This disruption can lead to a decrease in prey availability for commercially important fish.

The practice of bottom trawling is also under scrutiny for its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Fisheries collectively use about 40 billion litres of fuel annually, generating approximately 179 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions, which accounts for 4% of the global food production emissions. Among these, bottom trawling is particularly harmful, as it releases carbon dioxide stored in the seafloor into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. Without bottom trawling, this carbon could be safely stored under the sea bed. Research from 2021 found that continuously trawled areas at depth of 500 metres has 30% less organic carbon in the sediment at similar depths where trawling was banned for just two months. This 30% reduction is significant, as it showcases how bottom trawling can drastically deplete organic carbon that would otherwise remain sequestered in marine sediments. Additionally, an older study indicated that bottom-trawl fisheries emit nearly three times more greenhouse gases compared to non-trawl fisheries, furtherly highlighting the serious impact on climate change. 

Socio-economic impacts

The socio-economic effects of bottom trawling are varied and significant, though comprehensive formal documentation is limited. A recent report from Steadman and others highlights key areas of impact, including economic consequences, social conflicts, food security, harbour conditions, and health and safety. While bottom trawling can provide affordable fish, its economic impact is felt differently across various communities. It often depletes resources that small-scale fishers depend on, impacting food security for coastal communities. For example, in Southeast Asia small-scale fisheries support millions through direct consumption and aquaculture feed, benefiting lower-income populations. Beyond these economic and social consequences, bottom trawling has also been linked to human rights abuse, particularly in regions with weaker regulatory systems. Regional variations in socio-economic impacts are also evident. For example, Scotland’s Inshore Exclusion Zone (IEZ), established in 1889 to protect small-scale fishers by banning bottom trawling within three miles of the shore, was repealed in 1984. This change allowed bottom trawling to encroach on inshore waters, leading to the collapse of local fisheries, heightened conflicts, and the loss of traditional cultural practices. 

Regulatory framework

In response to the significant environmental and socio-economic challenges posed by bottom trawling, Europe has developed a range of regulatory frameworks. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), introduced in 2008, has been a key legislative instrument aimed at protecting the marine environment across Europe, with a focus on achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) of marine waters . However, as environmental pressures have evolved, so too have the strategies to address them. The European Union has now placed increased emphasis on the Marine Action Plan (MAP), which is part of the broader European Green Deal and aims at making fishing practices more sustainable. This includes transitioning to more selective fishing gear, utilising technological innovations to reduce bycatch of sensitive species, and gradually phasing out mobile bottom trawling in all Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) by 2030 .

Call for collective action

While bottom trawling remains a vital part of the global fishing industry, its environmental and socio-economic impacts cannot be overlooked. Recent efforts in Europe, particularly through the latest Marine Action Plan, signal a shift towards more sustainable fishing practices. Greece and Sweden have taken a significant step by banning bottom trawling within all their National Parks and Marine Protected Areas (Greece) and the entirety of their territorial waters (Sweden), setting a positive example that more European countries might follow. 

Many NGOs, such as Oceana and Seas at Risk, are at the forefront of efforts to phase out bottom trawling, including this campaign urging the EU to take stronger action against Member States that continue to allow bottom trawling in Marine Protected Areas. Similarly,  the Transform Bottom Trawling Coalition is working to build a global movement aimed at restoring ocean health by eliminating destructive fisheries, while protecting the livelihoods of communities who depend on a sustainable ocean. Achieving these goals will require collective actions from all stakeholders – policymakers, industry and consumers – who must work together to phase out destructive practices and ensure sustainability of our oceans for future generations. 

As we continue to explore these issues, a series of webinars will follow this article offering deeper insights and discussions on the future of bottom trawling. We invite you to join these sessions and contribute to shaping a more sustainable future for our oceans! 

More on ocean-related issues

17.9.2024 by
, ,

Overcoming barriers to inclusive language

Overcoming barriers to inclusive language

#VoiceItRight

Share this article









Written by

Contents

Sources:

Follow the #VoiceItRight campaign on



Instagram




Facebook

As we already mentioned, in the context of youth work and climate activism, language plays a pivotal role in shaping perceptions, influencing behaviour and reflecting values. Inclusive language ensures that climate activism is accessible and welcoming to all, regardless of background or identity. 

This is crucial to avoid bias, stereotypes or expressions that discriminate against groups of people based on race, gender, socioeconomic status, disability or other factors. 

Inclusive (intercultural) communication: is a transparent, truthful, accessible, and engaging communication that reflects the diversity of the society, promotes a climate of openness to intercultural encounters, and creates a shared sense of belonging.

Understanding barriers to inclusive language

If we want to foster inclusive language in our work for climate action it is important to recognise obstacles and barriers that can be hinder climate activism initiatives and inadvertently marginalise groups. In fact, many environmental terms were developed in context that did not prioritise inclusivity. For instance, the term “Developing countries” can be considered paternalistic. 

Lack of diversity within environmental movements and youth organisations can lead to the exclusion of voices and perspectives that could otherwise share best practices and useful approaches to foster inclusivity. 

By understanding and addressing these barriers we can foster communication that is equitable, accessible and truly representative of diverse perspectives. This awareness can help us to avoid language that can unintentionally exclude, alienate, or marginalise certain groups, perpetuating existing inequalities and limiting participation. A language that is inclusive and culturally sensitive serves as a tool for empowerment, fostering dialogue, and building inclusive movements that reflect the needs and contributions of all people.

Prevalence of technical language

The extensive use of jargon and technical language can make environmental issues seem inaccessible or irrelevant to those without a background in the field. In fact, too often scientists use the deceptively passive “neutral” language to explain climate change-related events to better reflect both scientific accuracy and the true gravity of the situation. 

At the same time, the media tend to follow the scientists’ lead, by adopting the so-called “neutral” language in order to avoid alarming anyone with any uncomfortable emotions. 

This has serious consequences, as it may limit the reach of activism’ initiatives. In fact, only people with certain knowledge on the topic or educational levels feel qualified to participate. 

Cultural and linguistic differences

Environmental activism often originates in contexts where the dominant cultural norms shape the discourse, potentially excluding those from different cultural backgrounds who may have unique perspectives on environmental issues. A core example of this is the role of indigenous communities, who are often at the forefront of environmental stewardship and yet could find their voices marginalised if the language used does not reflect their experiences. 

Western-centric approaches

Too often environmentalism has been shaped by and centred on western perspectives. This western-dominated approach typically emphases certain principles, practices and solutions that may not align with the environmental realities or cultural values of non-Western communities.

An example of this approach relies on the focus on conservation efforts like national parks or wildlife reserves, which are rooted in the idea of preserving “pristine” nature. Despite the good intentions behind these methods, they might hinder or even undermine the traditional ecological knowledge of indigenous and local communities who have been sustainably managing their environments for generations.

Another consistent difference is the tendency of framing environmental issues through a lens of individual responsibility. This includes reducing personal carbon footprints or adopting a sustainable lifestyle. Although these actions are important, they often do not consider structural inequalities that disproportionately affect non-Western and vulnerable groups. In fact, most communities in the Global South who contribute the least to global carbon emissions are the most affected by and suffer the most from the consequences of climate change. However, the dominant narrative may place undue emphasis on individual actions without addressing the larger, systemic forces driving environmental degradation.

Stereotypes

A certain use of language can perpetuate stereotypes and bias or fail to acknowledge systemic inequalities. This has the potential to alienate marginalised groups. For instance, framing environmental issues solely in terms of individual responsibility can overlook the disproportionate impact of environmental degradation on low-income and vulnerable communities, who may have less capacity to effect change through personal choices alone. As a consequence, feelings of exclusion or frustration can characterize those who feel that their struggles are not being adequately addressed. 

How to ensure inclusive (intercultural) communication

According to the Council of Europe guidelines, we can distinguish three key components of inclusive communication.

  • Accessibility for everyone
  • Representativity of the population
  • Narratives that favour openness to valuing diversity.

Accessibility

Everyone has access to – and ability to understand and feel targeted by – public communication and information that is needed to fully enjoy their rights. The words and images used, the communication channels, the language style and availability of the core information in several languages, are important features for inclusive communication.

In environmental activism it is crucial to keep a simple language in order to allow the message to come across and reach a larger audience. In fact, language barriers are a problem for English speakers all over the world, not just non-native speakers. As the majority of projects are conducted in a language not native to the participants and the audience, there will inevitably be language challenges.  Also, the discourse surrounding climate change is characterised by complex jargon, unclear definitions, and a constantly changing language.

Furthermore, equality has always to be taken into account: as societies are even more diverse and multicultural, it may be necessary to provide contents in different languages, by providing translations or subtitles. 

When having conversations about climate change, linguistic inclusiveness shouldn’t come last. It is critical that we spread the word about how crucial it is to include linguistic diversity in climate solutions. 

It is equally important to use gender-neutral language to describe a group of people in order to avoid generating a feeling of exclusion.  

Representativity

In the context of climate activism, it is essential to embrace pluralism in the environmental discourse, in order to incorporate a wide range of voices, particularly those from non-western and marginalised communities. 

A clear example are indigenous people, whose wisdom and customs to reduce the effects of climate change’s effects can be complementary to our competence to safeguard the planet. Furthermore, SDG17—partnership, which is at the centre of the Sustainable Development Goals—is also in jeopardy when there is a lack of inclusivity in the discourse.

Inclusive and alternative narratives

By ‘alternative narratives’ we intend pluralist, progressive, and human-rights-based communications of facts and commentaries in relation to phenomena which may be subjected to prejudice, stereotypes and hate speech. In this sense, alternative narratives are a form of constructive and inclusive communication, promoting critical thinking while avoiding a paternalistic or morally superior attitude. 

In the framework of climate action, the human rights-based approach is translated into the attention to how environmental issues disproportionately impact vulnerable communities. This leads to the use of a language that advocates for the rights and well-being of marginalised groups. 

By framing environmental issues within a human rights context, we can highlight the connections between environmental justice and social justice, ensuring that the movement addresses both environmental degradation and the inequalities that exacerbate it. 

Adopting alternative narratives means also avoiding paternalism and morally superior tone, by encouraging people to dialogue and questioning dominant narratives. This approach fosters a more collaborative and respectful movement where all participants feel valued and heard, without making them feel like they are being talked down to or excluded. 

The core point is to focus on building bridges and being mindful of how language can bring people together rather than alienate and divide them. By using inclusive and culturally sensitive language, we can avoid reinforcing existing prejudices and perpetuating stereotypes. 

More articles from the #VoiceItRight campaign

16.9.2024 by
,

Diving deeper into eco-emotions: Youth & Activism

Diving deeper into eco-emotions: Youth & Activism

Join an online conversation with Panu Pihkala and Juni Sinkkonen.

Practical information

  • When

    18th September 2024 at 17 CEST

  • Where

    Online

  • Fees

    Free

  • How

    Youtube Live

Funded by

Related project

Dealing with Eco-Anxiety

Share This Event








Have questions? Get in touch!



Let’s talk mental health – from one climate activist to another!

For this webinar led by our project’s eco-emotions expert Juni Sinkkonen, we have invited Pimpichcha Sullivan-Tailyour from Force of Nature and Natalie Heller from Climate Mental Health Network to have an open conversation about what concerns climate activists today, and how they’re coping with emotion (over)load. 

We will discuss:

  • Personal journeys into climate activism;
  • Activism burnout and everything that comes with it;
  • How to take sustainable climate action.

Speakers

Juni Sinkkonen

The webinar is led by Juni Sinkkonen. Juni is a certified psychologist and eco-emotion expert, who has done research on you ng climate activists and their identities. She will start her PhD in autumn 2024 examining the interrelation between the field of psychology and the societal sustainability transformation.

Natalie Heller

Natalie Heller sits on the Gen-Z board of the Climate Mental Health Network and studies Public Health and Environmental Studies at George Washington University. As an advisor, she works on ways to include youth in the climate mental health movement and how older generations can support it.

Pimpichcha Sullivan-Tailyour

Pimpichcha Sullivan-Tailyour is a youth climate activist and environmental science student at Kings College London. Her activism has mainly consisted of deepening youth’s connection with climate activism, whether it is through education, listening circles or bridging intergenerational conversations. She explores how systems change the vision for the future.

Missed the webinar? Catch the recording now!

Other upcoming events

11.9.2024 by
, ,

The impact of language on perceptions of climate change

The impact of language on perceptions of climate change

#VoiceItRight

Share this article









Written by

Contents

Sources:

Follow the #VoiceItRight campaign on



Instagram




Facebook

Language is more than just a means of communication; it’s the lens through which we view the world, shape our thoughts, and engage with each other. In the realm of climate activism, language serves as a powerful tool that can either unite or divide, empower or marginalise.

Imagine language as the thread that weaves the fabric of our collective consciousness. The words we choose can spark action, inspire hope, and bring about change. But they can also perpetuate stereotypes, alienate those who are already vulnerable, and reinforce existing power dynamics. This dual nature of language makes it a critical component in any social campaign, particularly one aimed at addressing the complexities of climate change.

Why do we need an inclusive language when talking about climate change?

When we talk about climate change, the language used often frames the issue in ways that are too technical, abstract, or detached from the lived realities of those most affected. Terms like “carbon footprint,” “mitigation,” and “adaptation” may resonate in policy circles, but they can feel distant or inaccessible to young people and marginalised communities. This disconnect is not just a barrier to understanding; it’s a barrier to action.

On the flip side, inclusive language invites participation and fosters a sense of ownership. For instance, using stories and experiences from marginalised communities can bring the abstract concept of climate change into sharp focus, making it relatable and urgent. Instead of merely talking about rising sea levels, we might share the story of a coastal community in the Global South that is losing its homes and heritage. Such narratives are not just informative; they are transformative.

The importance of language also extends to how we frame solutions. Eurocentric narratives often dominate the discourse, sidelining indigenous knowledge and local practices that have sustainably managed environments for centuries. By broadening our linguistic horizons and embracing diverse perspectives, we enrich the global conversation on climate action and ensure that solutions are culturally relevant and inclusive.

In youth work, the stakes are even higher. Young people are not just the leaders of tomorrow; they are the change-makers of today. The language we use with them can either empower them to take charge of their future or discourage them by making them feel excluded or unheard. Consider the difference between saying, “You are the future” versus “Your voice matters today.” The former, while well-meaning, places the burden of change on an undefined future, while the latter empowers youth to act now.

Language, Intersectionality, and Marginalised Youth

Intersectionality, a term coined by scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, refers to the way different forms of discrimination—such as racism, sexism, and classism—intersect and create unique experiences of oppression for individuals, particularly those from marginalised groups.

The role of intersectional language in climate activism

In the context of climate activism, language plays a pivotal role in either highlighting or obscuring these intersecting identities and the challenges they face.

For marginalised youth, especially those from communities of colour, low-income backgrounds, or non-Western cultures, the impact of climate change is not just an environmental issue but a deeply personal one that intersects with issues of social justice, economic inequality, and historical oppression. The language used in climate discourse often fails to capture these complexities, instead presenting a one-size-fits-all narrative that overlooks the nuanced realities of these young people.

When climate activism ignores intersectionality, it risks alienating the very groups that are most affected by climate change. For example, discussions that focus solely on carbon emissions without considering how environmental degradation disproportionately impacts low-income communities can render the concerns of these groups invisible. Similarly, climate campaigns that centre Western perspectives may inadvertently marginalise indigenous knowledge systems and the voices of youth from the Global South.

Language that acknowledges intersectionality, on the other hand, can empower marginalised youth by validating their experiences and recognising the unique challenges they face. It opens up space for their voices to be heard, not just as victims of climate change, but as leaders in the movement for environmental justice. For instance, instead of framing climate action as a universal issue with a single solution, language that emphasises intersectionality would highlight the diverse strategies needed to address the different ways in which climate change affects various communities.

Moreover, inclusive language in climate activism can help build bridges between different social movements, fostering solidarity across issues of race, gender, and class. By recognising that the fight against climate change is also a fight against systemic inequality, activists can create more holistic and effective strategies that resonate with a broader range of youth.

For marginalised youth, whose identities are often shaped by multiple layers of discrimination, language that reflects intersectionality can be a powerful tool of empowerment. It can validate their experiences, amplify their voices, and place them at the centre of climate action, where they belong. In doing so, it not only strengthens the climate movement but also ensures that the solutions we create are just, inclusive, and sustainable.

More articles from the #VoiceItRight campaign

Language is more than just a means of communication; it’s the lens through which we view the world, shape our thoughts, and


Read More

Inclusive language ensures that climate activism is accessible and welcoming to all, regardless of background or identity. This is crucial to avoid


Read More

Inclusive language ensures that climate activism is accessible and welcoming to all, regardless of background or identity. This is crucial to avoid


Read More

10.9.2024 by

Call for Applications: YEE Youth Scientific Advisory Board 2024/2025​

Call for Applications: YEE Youth Scientific Advisory Board 2024/2025



Apply now

7-10 h/ month

Volunteering

remote

1 year mandate

Start October 2024

Join the YEE Youth Scientific Advisory Board (YSAB)!

Youth and Environment Europe (YEE) is looking for dedicated individuals to join our Youth Scientific Advisory Board (YSAB). As a member, you will play a crucial role in supporting YEE’s projects, campaigns, advocacy actions, and training programs by providing essential and up-to-date information on selected environmental and climate topics.

This position is remote, and requires 7-10 hours of work per month on average. The membership of the scientific board will run for 1 year (with possible extension). 

Application deadline:

18th September 2024

Your responsibilities

  • ⚬ Provide scientific insights to ensure YEE’s actions, positions, and activities are aligned with the latest research.
  • ⚬Support the drafting of position papers to ensure YEE’s advocacy is backed by independent, youth-centred sources
  • ⚬ Contribute with data and resources for the development of handbooks, articles, and other educational materials.
  • ⚬ Help build capacity and raise awareness among young people on pressing environmental and climate issues.

What we offer



  • An opportunity to influence and shape youth-led environmental initiatives.


  • A platform to share your expertise and collaborate with like-minded individuals.


  • The chance to contribute to meaningful projects that place youth at the centre of environmental research and advocacy.

Candidates we are looking for

Expertise

Members shall be young students or young early career professionals with a background in hard science in one or more of the following fields:

3.9.2024 by
,

Understanding Eco-emotions

Understanding Eco-emotions

Join an online conversation with Panu Pihkala and Juni Sinkkonen.

Practical information

  • When

    28th August 2024

  • Where

    Online

  • Fees

    Free

  • How

    Youtube Live

Funded by

Related project

Dealing with Eco-Anxiety

Share This Event








Have questions? Get in touch!



Why are we doing this

How are the triple planetary crisis and our mental health connected? Why is eco-emotion research on the rise? Where does our environmental anxiety come from?

To answer these questions, we have invited the author of Climate Emotions Wheel, and a leading expert on interdisciplinary eco-anxiety research Panu Pihkala and a psychologist Juni Sinkkonen.

Speakers

Juni Sinkkonen

Juni Sinkkonen is a certified psychologist and eco-emotion expert, who has done research on you ng climate activists and their identities. She will start her PhD in autumn 2024 examining the interrelation between the field of psychology and the societal sustainability transformation.

Panu Pihkala

Dr Pihkala (b. 1979, he/his) from the University of Helsinki has been awarded several prizes in Finland for his books about eco-emotions. He also hosts the podcast Climate Change and Happiness together with Dr. Thomas Doherty and serves as an advisor for many projects about eco-anxiety.

Missed the webinar? Catch the recording now!

Other upcoming events

22.8.2024 by
, ,

How the next EU budget must deliver for biodiversity | Joint Statement

How the next EU budget must deliver for biodiversity | Joint Statement

Put biodiversity on a path to recovery beyond the next funding period to build a safer, healthier future for people and nature.

Investing in biodiversity protection is not just about preserving nature; it’s an investment in our future and economy. The EU has been funding nature conservation since the early 1980s, and in 1992, it launched its flagship funding program, LIFE.

Over the past 30 years, the LIFE program has co-financed numerous environmental and climate-related projects, improving the conservation status of 435 species and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These projects have also contributed to public education, the expansion of the Natura 2000 network, and improved environmental governance.

The European Commission found that the LIFE program generated a tenfold return on the €3.46 billion invested from 2014 to 2020. In conclusion, investing in nature enhances social and economic prosperity for both current and future generations.

The coming months represent a key opportunity to address financing for biodiversity conservation and restoration measures across the European Union (EU). By 1 July 2025, the European Commission will release its proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), officially kickstarting the period of negotiations between Member States and the European Parliament.

Effective and well-targeted financing is crucial for achieving EU biodiversity objectives, but significant funding gaps represent a serious impediment to successfully addressing biodiversity loss. The current financing needs from 2021 to 2030 were estimated at EUR 20 billion a year and changed to EUR 48.15 billion per year based on more recent calculations.

With the recent adoption of the Nature Restoration Law, it is crucial to support Member States in effectively implementing and enforcing its provisions. However, stricter financial regulations and efforts to reduce public debt raise the potential for intense debates regarding the allocation of resources within the EU, particularly concerning expenditures related to biodiversity.

Though focused on the post-2027 MFF, this paper also takes a broader perspective on biodiversity financing and considers the longer-term need to re-evaluate current approaches. The proposals are therefore designed to put biodiversity on a path to recovery beyond the next funding period to build a safer, healthier future for people and nature.



Read the full statement

Help us spread the word! Share this statement









Learn more about our work on biodiversity

Nature Protection and Biodiversity as Enablers of Rights, Participation and Well-Being Written by Olivia Robertson Volunteer at YEE – Biodiversity Contents Share


Read More

National Restoration Plans (NRPs) are a cornerstone of the Nature Restoration Law (NRL), outlining how Member States (MS) will implement the regulation


Read More

As European youth, we hold all relevant decision-makers accountable for this grave backsliding in European conservation law. We call for the return


Read More

The conclusion of the 16th meeting of the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP16) marks a pivotal


Read More

Despite the law’s importance in combating deforestation, the European Union recently announced a 12-month delay.


Read More

While nighttime activities are popular with humans for a few nights a year, some creatures keep it creepy all year round.


Read More

21.8.2024 by
,

We want Clean Air Now!

We want Clean Air Now!

YEE organises a fully-funded 3-days programme about clean air and a race in Berlin.



Sign up

Practical information

  • When

    5th to 7th September 2024

  • Where

    Berlin, Germany

  • Fees

    Fully funded

  • How

    Sign up

Funded by

Related project

Breathing for better future

Share This Event







Have questions? Get in touch!



Why are we doing this

The European legislative framework on air quality is being updated.  This is the perfect occasion to get involved in a matter of public health that concerns us all!

Our main goal is to show decision-makers that young people are mobilised and care about air quality issues. With our actions, we aim to urge member states to take responsibility for the transposition of the recently adopted Ambient air Quality directives and follow WHO recommendations.

Learn more about air quality legislation and the consequences of air pollution.

What do we have planned?

The Seminar: We want Clean Air Now! (5th – 6th of September)

Before action comes reflection. That is why we want to start by taking the time to talk about air quality.

Over the course of this 2 days seminar, we will:



  • delve into the key elements of air pollution, how it is measured and which consequences it has (from a medical, environmental and economic standpoint).


  • investigate the main causes of air pollution and work together to discuss concrete action points through interactive sessions.


  • be joined throughout this seminar by experts from different fields helping us to refine our thought process to ensure we come up with actionable solutions and a clear advocacy strategy.

Travel, accommodation, and public transport expenses will be reimbursed in accordance with our travel policy.

The Race: Run for Clean Air (7th September at app. 10 AM)

”Run for clean air” is a relay race designed to draw public attention towards the ongoing process of reforming the Ambient Air Quality legislative package.

With this run, we want to bring to light the issue of air pollution to the German population because Germany has been particularly reluctant to include ambitious air quality targets in the European law to safeguard the auto industry.

The race will consist of a 1km path, run by several teams representing different cities with various degrees of air pollution.

This race follows a similar style as previous event – “It’s not the finish line” – that we organised in Strasbourg on the day of the vote in the plenary session of the European Parliament of the last draft of the reform. 

While the race is open to seminar participants, we warmly welcome external participants to join as well.

All participants are required to:



  • Live in Europe*


  • Be younger than 35 at the time of the event

  • *Priority will be given to participants from Germany, France and Belgium

Other upcoming events

31.7.2024 by
, ,

Going to court, again!

Going to court, again!

Interview with Fridays For Future Estonia

Last year, young activists from Fridays For Futre won Estonia’s first ever climate court case, where the state energy company Enefit was ordered to halt the construction of a new shale oil facility. Despite this, Enefit has been issued another construction permit, and the Estonian youth are going to court again. With this second lawsuit, Estonian climate activists are sending a clear message to Estonia and Europe: fossil fuels must be left in the ground, and youth will fight with all possible means.

Written by

Share this article









In October last year, Estonia’s supreme court ordered the state energy company Enefit to halt the construction of a shale oil facility. This ruling was the result of a case brought forward by a group of young Estonian climate activists, who in 2020 decided to take the municipality of Narva-Jõesuu to court for issuing a construction permit for the shale oil facility. The group of young people argued that the construction permit was given without adequately assessing its climate impacts and the commitments made under the Paris Agreement, as well as the European Union’s objective to achieve climate neutrality by 2050.

The court ruled that the municipality had assessed the climate impact well enough but not the environmental impact, and revoked the permit. For the first time in Estonia, the Supreme Court stated that the mitigation of climate change is a constitutional obligation.

This is one amongst several recent climate cases in Europe, where especially young people are taking their states to court, for inefficient climate action. In this case, it was Fridays for Future Estonia who stood behind the claim, eventually winning the court case. We have had the chance to speak with some of the young activists behind this case, to learn more about how climate litigation works and why it can be such a powerful tool for climate advocacy:

Last year you won Estonia’s first ever climate court case! What motivated you to use the legal system for your climate action? 

We went to court because we ran out of other options and we were not willing to accept the government constructing a new fossil fuel plant amid the climate crisis. We had already presented public appeals, and organised peaceful weekly climate strikes, not to mention online advocacy. Suing the plant was our last option. As long as the rule of law holds, legal action is the only tactic that authorities and businesses can’t ignore.

How did you start the process? What do you need in order to file a climate court case?

First, it is essential to understand the stages of the oil plant’s completion, specifically the stage at which the operation of the plant can be impeded. The oil plant requires several permits, such as the construction permit and the integrated permit. Initially, we successfully contested the construction permit issued to the plant. This time, we are challenging the integrated permit which allows the plant to operate. Legal experts from the Estonian Environmental Law Center helped us find shortcomings in the permits and prepare arguments for both court cases. We submitted two complaints against the integrated permit: one as an environmental organisation under the name MTÜ Loodusvõlu, and another by a young activist in the movement, to protect her rights. Since this time the case also involved issues regarding human rights and children’s rights, we formed a team of multiple lawyers of various backgrounds to cover all necessary areas of legal expertise. The most crucial aspects of initiating a climate lawsuit are finding the right moment in the long chain of decisions to challenge legally, then finding lawyers who are willing to bring an innovative case, and securing funding to pay them.

This year you are filing new complaints to the court, why?

On May 27, 2024, the Environmental Board of Estonia issued an integrated permit to the aforementioned state-owned oil plant, allowing it to operate for the next 10 years. This is the same plant that we already successfully challenged in court once. By issuing the integrated permit, the Board rejected the arguments presented by us and other environmental organisations, urging them to refuse the permit. The plant will produce shale oil, a fossil fuel so polluting that it is not compliant with EU environmental regulations. That is why the oil is exported and used for fuelling long-distance ships, thereby contributing to the export of carbon emissions.

We based our complaints on the following arguments.

  1. Firstly, by granting the oil plant an integrated permit, the Environmental Board did not sufficiently consider the plant’s climate impact. The plant will increase Estonia’s current greenhouse gas emissions by about 6% and will take approximately 20% of Estonia`s carbon budget, which, in turn, makes it harder to reach our climate goals. Additionally, the measures to mitigate the climate impact are inadequate and largely based on underdeveloped technologies, such as carbon capture.
  2. Secondly, by granting the complex permit, the harmful effects of the oil shale mining required for the plant’s operation on the natural environment were not taken into account. Groundwater layers and wetlands, including Natura 2000 areas, which are already degraded due to mining, would be damaged.
  3. Thirdly, there is no overriding public interest in operating the oil plant. It does not create a significant number of jobs, is not highly profitable, and does not ensure our energy security to the extent that we should collectively endure the environmental damage it causes. 
  4. Fourthly, the oil plant exacerbates climate change, which has dangerous consequences for people’s health, including children’s. For many people suffering from chronic diseases, the impacts of climate change are more serious than usual. For example, heatwaves, which have already become more frequent due to climate change, hinder adequate sleep and increase the likelihood of dangerous epileptic seizures.

What is your goal with the new court case?

We hope to revoke the integrated permit for the plant to stop the shale oil plant once and for all. This way we can push Estonia towards a climate-neutral economy and industry. We are trying to show to all fossil fuel enterprises that hope to burn the last of Estonia’s oil shale for rapid profit, that it is not going to be easy for them.

What would be your advice to a group of young people wanting to start something similar? What is the first thing to start with? 

The first piece of advice would be to not be afraid. Turning to court, especially against a powerful actor like a large corporation or even the government can feel very intimidating. However, even the youngest and most vulnerable people have the right to a healthy environment, including a safe climate, that states and businesses must respect. The second piece of advice would be to build a team so that you are never quite alone. We have greatly benefitted from working together with legal experts, environmental NGOs, and volunteers, who have all helped us with different skills and support.

How can other young people or youth organisations support your new court case?

You can help us by sharing our messages––international pressure could be an impactful way of pressuring the government to stop the plant. Our main court battles lie still ahead. These may last for several years and are going to be costly. We would very much appreciate if you could donate to help us cover the costs of the case: https://fridaysforfuture.ee/en/what-can-you-do/#donate

More from environmental law

Youth perspectives on the EU deregulation agenda Written by Claire Leduc Volunteer at YEE – Environmental Law Contents Share this article   Can environmental protections be simplified without weakening environmental


Read More

We have had the opportunity to speak with Fridays for Future Estonia, about their decision to go to court, again! Last year, these young activists won Estonia’s first ever climate


Read More

Recommendations to the EU Commission on how to address the gaps in the exercise of Aarhus rights with regards to European youth.


Read More

Rivers – anywhere you are in Europe, there must be a river not far from you. Ancient Greeks would marvel at rivers like Gods. How have we now come to


Read More

How to sue a state - article

Many climate lawsuits are started by young people, including an ongoing climate lawsuit in Sweden led by a group called Aurora, led by over 600 youth and children, including Greta


Read More

30.7.2024 by

Conclusion of the YEE Annual Meeting 2024

Conclusion of the YEE Annual Meeting 2024

Prague, 14 July 2024 – We are delighted to announce the successful conclusion of our Annual Meeting, held from 12-14 July 2024 in Prague. This event brought together our member organisations to discuss key issues, elect new leadership, and expand our network.

Overview

During the Annual Meeting in Prague, 22 official delegates from our member organisations gathered to discuss key issues such as strategic planning, member engagement, and future initiatives. The event also included the election of new board members and internal auditors. Additionally, we welcomed three new member organisations into our network and reviewed and voted upon membership cancellations.

Elections

 

Executive Board 2024/2025

We are pleased to introduce the newly elected Board Members for the 2024/2025 term. Their mandate officially began on 14 July 2024 and will continue for one year. The new board reflects our commitment to geographical and gender balance, ensuring diverse representation of our member organisations.

See the new YEE board members.

Internal Auditors

We are also pleased to introduce our new internal auditors (Alessia Scattaglia and Gzim Zhilivoda), who will play a crucial role in maintaining transparency and accountability within our organisation.

Membership Update

After the Annual Meeting, the YEE network gathers 45 member organisations from 24 countries.

New Member Organisations

We are excited to welcome three new member organisations to our network. Their inclusion strengthens our community and enhances our collective efforts.

The new members of the YEE network are:

Membership Cancellation

The YEE membership committee has reviewed and identified members who have been inactive for the past two years, have not paid membership fees, and have not attended an annual meeting during this period. These members have been notified but have not responded. Consequently, their membership cancellation has been put to a vote.

The YEE membership of all the below organisations have been canceled:

  • CliMates, France
  • Eco-Unesco , Ireland
  • DJN Germany
  • SYC, Armenia
  • United Vision, Czechia

Further more, Odyssea from Luxembourg requested the cancellation of their membership due to the dissolution of their youth department.

We look forward to a productive year ahead with our new board members, member organisations, and internal auditors!

More To Explore

23.7.2024 by