YEE’s reflections on the Santa Marta Conference

A reaction to the outcomes of the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels

Written by

Contents

Share this article

Our team has spent the last week closely monitoring the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, which took place from 24 to 29 April 2026 in Santa Marta, Colombia. Coming off the back of the 30th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC COP30) in Belém, which was also called the COP of Truth, Santa Marta felt like the first real test of whether governments are actually ready to handle that reality.

If Belém was about securing our seat at the table through the Belém Action Mechanism, Santa Marta was about the how. For the first time, we saw a space not bogged down by UNFCCC veto politics. Because it was a dialogue rather than a formal negotiation, it was a safe space for the willing where fossil fuel lobbies were kept out, allowing youth, Indigenous Peoples, and civil society to raise their voices directly to states in a genuine back-and-forth.

What really hit home for us was the translation gap. Let us be real: the EU does not lack the tools to end the fossil era. We have carbon pricing, trade mechanisms, and massive leverage in the World Bank. The problem we see is political coherence.

Currently, these instruments are still calibrated to protect incumbent interests like the old industry while maintaining a thin veil of climate credibility. We saw EU representatives talk about global leadership while greenlighting new domestic gas projects in Germany and the Netherlands back home. This approach seems like a choice to protect the status quo over our future. For instance, while France has submitted a roadmap with time-bound phase-out dates, the broader EU submission remains vague and relies too heavily on loan-based support, and others like Norway, unfortunately remain committed to being stable suppliers of oil and gas.

 

Why this matters for youth

The Childhood and Youth Subchapter group pushed for change in how we judge progress by demanding that the best interests of the child become a binding legal criterion for every single energy project. This is both a moral plea and a structural necessity tied to the new Science Panel for the Global Energy Transition (SPGET), which is a massive win because it can finally close the discrepancy between high-level policy and the indigenous and local expertise that has been ignored for too long.

However, we are wary of the shift toward a technocratic space. If we treat the transition as a technical exercise of energy addition rather than a rights-based phase out, we risk repeating old inequalities. We noticed a clear gap: while there is mention of consulting communities, there is still very little on the actual decision-making power for youth. We must ensure the three new workstreams on roadmaps, economic dependencies, and trade do not become mere technical blueprints but tools for social justice.

This shift is even more urgent given the current security crisis. With the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed and Europe’s fossil fuel bill jumping by 24 billion euros in just a few months, the old argument that quitting fossils is an economic risk has been exposed as a myth. The real risk to our generation is staying hooked on a volatile and expensive past. By moving the next conference to Tuvalu in 2027, the movement is officially putting the people on the absolute frontlines in the driver’s seat. We are no longer waiting for the powerful to catch up; instead, we are shifting the center of gravity toward those who have the most to lose and the most to teach us about resilience.

 

YEE response statement

The era of voluntary promises has reached its limit. The Santa Marta Conference has exposed a dangerous translation gap where the EU possesses the tools to end the fossil era but lacks the political courage to deploy them fairly. We demand that the best interests of the youth move from a box-ticking exercise to a binding legal mandate for every energy project. If Europe wants to be a partner to the Global South, it must stop using trade mechanisms as protectionist shields and start funding a just transition that does not leave our generation with the bill. We must move beyond temporary windfall taxes toward permanent frameworks and the immediate redirection of the $1.2 trillion in fossil subsidies to end the proliferation of fossil fuels once and for all. We are moving toward a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty with or without the powerful leading the way.

We have followed Santa Marta with mixed feelings but renewed clarity. The willing are not yet powerful, but the momentum is past the point of no return. We specifically look to the new Science Panel (SPGET) to bridge the gap between high-level science and national roadmaps that prioritize social justice over technocratic blueprints. To the governments back home: the economic and security case for a phase-out is closed. The only thing left is your decision to act.

As we move forward in 2026, we will be rigorously following this agenda in the run-up to the 64th sessions of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Bodies (SB 64) intersessional meetings in Bonn (8–18 June 2026). Our focus is on accountability. We will be tracking the formal submission of the conference report as it is handed over to the COP30 Presidency to influence the 2nd Global Stocktake. Furthermore, we are demanding that the Santa Marta outcomes, including the new subsidy disclosure methodology, are officially integrated into the global roadmap heading toward COP31 in Antalya. 

More articles about environmental decision-making
, ,

YEE’s reflections on the Santa Marta Conference

Read more

Position statement on COP 30 Just Transition outcomes

This position statement reacts to the outcomes of COP 30, specifically on the Just Transition Work Programme.

COP 30 in Belem was widely anticipated as the “implementation COP”. That is, the Parties bound by the Paris Agreement commitments were expected to deliver concrete updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and stimulate collective action. Most notably, Parties at COP 30 were expected to deliver on the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) – initially launched at COP 28 in UAE – which entails the guiding principles for designing pathways for just and equitable energy transitions. These principles pertain to the creation of new non-fossil-fuel-related jobs and Just Transition plans grounded on national/local social dialogues and public participation, ultimately prioritising inclusivity and poverty eradication concerns.

The wording matters

Although COP 28 laid the political grounds for just transitions, it was criticised for adopting weak language on fossil fuels. At COP28, the choice to use the phrase ‘transitioning away from fossil fuels’ – rather than stronger language like ‘phasing out fossil fuels’ – created an avoidable interpretation gap. The latter could have signaled a roadmap to terminate fossil fuels exploration, extraction, refinement, trading and burning, whilst the former alludes to a “transition away” without clear milestones and targets. It is thus no coincidence that the weak language on fossil fuels at COP28 corresponded with a record number of fossil fuel lobbyists attending COP30, especially when compared to the size of national delegations, a trend observed since 2021*. We therefore suspect that this disproportionate physical presence had an influence on the final text of the JTWP at COP 30, decision CMA/2025/L.14. In fact, we do not see “fossil fuels” referred to at all, posing a step back compared to COP 28 Decision. Colombian President’s address to delegates at COP 30 aptly confirms the case: “I cannot contradict science […] It is not clearly stated, as science says, that the cause of the climate crisis is the fossil fuels used by capital. If that is not said, everything else is hypocrisy.” 

*Attendance data is available from 2021. Comparative data for the previous Conferences are not available.

A missed opportunity, and a big step for Just Transition at COP 30

COP30 saw over 80 states – including the EU bloc – push to include a ‘Transition Away from Fossil Fuels Roadmap’ in the final Belém Package. However, this effort failed after more than 100 states rejected the proposal. 

We may have been declined a Roadmap agreement at UN level but we hail the joint decision of the Parties to establish the Just Transition Mechanism (also billed as “Belem Action Mechanism” – or “BAM”). This transforms the Just Transition Work Programme from objectives and methodologies to a more concrete framework of implementable components (e.g., international technical exchange and capacity building). 

We also welcome the strong coalition of 24 UN states that stood firmly by the Belem Declaration on the Transition Away from Fossil Fuels (thereafter “Belem Declaration”), among them, 9 EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Spain and Slovenia).

What’s the EU doing about it?

As a European youth network, we are strategically drawing attention to Ireland and the Netherlands for two different – but potentially connected – reasons:

  1. The Netherlands demonstrated leadership by co-initiating, together with Colombia, the First International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels, planned for April 2026 in Colombia. Where COP negotiations fall short to deliver, it is crucial that the issue at stake does not remain stagnant but rather advances at least through bilateralism. 
  2. We underline the initiative of the Netherlands as a representative EU member-state in this bilateral process, and we consider that the outcomes of the Conference can inform Ireland’s upcoming Presidency of the European Council, which begins on 1st July 2026. 

 

Including and empowering young people in Just Transition efforts is paramount

As one of the largest European youth networks for environmental civil society organisations, we welcome the fact that youth were considered in the Just Transition realm of the Belem Package as indispensable stakeholders for the implementation of the agenda: “The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement […] recognizes […] [t]he importance of ensuring broad and meaningful participation involving all relevant stakeholders, including […] youth”. 

We also welcome the strategic integration of the Plans to Accelerate Solutions (PAS), a new element in the COP framework that highlights ongoing and newly agreed initiatives driving climate action at all levels of society. This innovation underscores why COP 30 was billed as the ‘Implementation COP’.

Among these Plans, we set apart the “Plan to Accelerate Just and Inclusive Planning of the Energy Transition” and the “New Skills Development for the Future: Empowering Women and Youth for a Just Transition – A Global Multi-Stakeholder Partnership”. Together, these plans address the Just Transition from multiple angles, aligning climate objectives with social justice, especially by tackling gender and youth disparities in the context of fossil fuel phase-out.     

The progress made on the Just Transition agenda at COP30 – including the discourses and practices adopted – should also shape the Belém Declaration. While the Declaration explicitly acknowledges the link between fossil fuels and global climate change (a step forward from the Belém Package), it fails to address the specific impacts on younger generations or outline a strategic approach to engage them. This omission is striking, given that youth will bear the brunt of escalating climate impacts. Youth demands were clearly articulated in the “Global Youth Statement,” and presented at the Youth-led Climate Forums during COP 30. We echo and endorse the Statement’s call for “a full, fast and fair fossil fuel phase-out […] rooted in human rights, intergenerational equity (adopting the NDC Youth Clause), gender justice and the protection of the rights of nature, while ensuring a just transition”. 

Next steps for EU’s Just Transition post-COP 30

 

Preparedness disparities for just transitions between the EU and other UN Parties

We recognise the EU’s push for a Just Transition Roadmap at COP30, even though these negotiations ultimately failed. Nevertheless, just transition affairs are already more mature within the EU policymaking realm. In fact, since 2020-21 a Just Transition Mechanism (JTM) has been established and Territorial Just Transition Plans (TJTPs) have been developed across member states. 

FAQ: But what are the EU Territorial Just Transition Plans (TJTPs) and the EU Just Transition Mechanism (JTM)? 

The EU JTM is an overarching policy and resources (financing & knowledge resources) framework, aiming to help local communities, companies and industries whose operations are disproportionately dependent on fossil fuels -and primarily on coal-, in their pathways to decarbonisation, whilst ensuring that no societal stakeholder is left behind. It runs alongside the EU’s long-term budget, the “Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF)” 2021–2027. The JTM mobilises a total of €55 billion by 2027, with €19.32 billion directly allocated through the Just Transition Fund under the EU’s Cohesion Policy.

The EU TJTPs primarily earmark the geographical territories where there is the highest need for the EU JTM to be leveraged (see the beneficiary territories in the relevant map below). The Plans were drafted in a participatory manner, involving the affected stakeholders of each territory, outlining relevant challenges, as well as the development needs and objectives to be met by 2030. They identify the types of operations envisaged and specify governance mechanisms.

EU Just Transition Mechanism could be compromised in the next MFF

The current EU JTM, however, is set to be transformed and “absorbed” into the European Commission’s proposed “European Fund for Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion, Agriculture and Rural, Fisheries and Maritime, Prosperity and Security.” This new fund, with an estimated budget of €771.3 billion, will be part of the proposed MFF 2028–2034. Roughly 90% of this amount (€698.3 billion) is expected to be poured through a new structure, the “National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs)”. According to the European Parliamentary Research Service, the NRPPs allocate significantly less (€210.2 billion) to social cohesion objectives compared to the €392 billion earmarked in the current MFF 2021–2027.

On the other hand, the Commission’s proposal includes an additional €45.4 billion for NRPPs from the Social Climate Fund. It also mandates that at least 43% of the NRPPs budget (€300.269 billion) address climate and environmental goals, and at least 14% (€71 billion) support social objectives. At this point, we need to emphasise that just transition is inherently tied to interventions that integrate social, climate and environmental priorities simultaneously.

Yet, the proposed MFF budget does not explicitly include a just transition strategy. Alongside the broader simplification of EU legislation, the progress achieved in just transition territories risks being undermined, as just transition is now subsumed under the NRPPs. In practice, this means that the development of plans focusing on just transition processes and projects will depend on the discretion of individual member states.

Despite the reduction in funding specifically allocated to social cohesion, the overall mix of EU funds could still support just and equitable transitions – if member states choose to prioritise them. It is therefore crucial that younger generations are actively involved in drafting these plans, especially at the local level, drawing on the COP Plans to Accelerate Solutions (PAS) mentioned earlier. Social cohesion cannot be measured by quantitative indicators alone, such as employment and economic inequality. Meaningful intergenerational participation in planning is equally vital, fostering transparency, trust in public institutions and multi-level governance, thereby strengthening social cohesion at both local and national levels.

Finally, YEE has been a partner in the EUTeens4Green project (concluded in 2024), which empowered teens and young adults (ages 15–24) to become agents of change by proposing actions in their just transition territories, contributing to the governance of the Cohesion Policy. The project revealed both barriers to youth participation and concrete proposals that should inform the drafting and implementation of NRPPs. Key recommendations include financial and technical support for Youth and/or Intergenerational Climate Assemblies in Just Transition Territories; structured consultations with youth-led and youth-centered civil society organisations, with clear procedures for integrating their input into the plans; and dedicated funding for training, capacity building and awareness-raising programs (e.g., through Erasmus+).

Takeaways and Call to Action

Just Transition affairs span across multiple stakeholders, domains of interest, territories, and continents. On the premises of just transition developments at COP 30, and from the standpoint of a European youth network, we examine the position of the EU and its Member States both at the international and domestic (EU) level. 

At the international level, we remind:

  1. The intention of the EU in favor of a Global Just Transition Roadmap 
  2. The establishment of the “Belem Action Mechanism” at COP 30, with the younger generations being accounted for as relevant stakeholders
  3. The Belem Declaration, signed by 9 EU Member States (including Ireland and the Netherlands)
  4. The First International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels planned for April 2026, co-initiated by the Netherlands and Colombia
  5. That Ireland will take over the Presidency of the European Council in July 2026
  6. The Plans to Accelerate Solutions – particularly the ones concerning Fair and Equitable Transitions, through inclusive planning and reskilling.

Therefore, we urge Ireland – a signatory Party to the Belem Declaration and upcoming Presidency of the EU Council – to closely follow the developments in Colombia in April 2026, and to ensure the effective and continuous coordination of the implementation of the Just Transition agenda in the EU, alongside the Netherlands and other EU signatories to the Belem Declaration. This coordination should take account of Global Resource Justice considerations and domestic sufficiency of the bloc in critical raw materials, required to replace the energy generated through the burning of fossil fuels.

At the domestic (EU) level, we underline that the proposed National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs) can either impede or become an enabler for the continuation of Just Transition efforts in the EU. The lack of explicit designated funding in the MFF 2028-2034 for the just transition territories could undermine the Just Transition “acquis” in the EU. 

Hence, we propose:

  1. The funding package within the NRPPs does not overlook just transition territories, but instead serves as a catalyst to support their secure and continuous progress toward achieving fair climate neutrality by 2050.
  2. That younger generations are actively involved in the drafting of NRPPs through a place-based approach, in line with the recommendations of the Plans to Accelerate Solutions at COP 30, for example by consulting youth-led and youth-focused civil society organisations, particularly those working on social and environmental rights.
  3. Funding allocated to capacity building and the development of green skills, including both upskilling and reskilling initiatives.

Help us spread the word! Share this statement

Learn more about our work on COP30

Position statement on COP 30 Just Transition outcomes

Read more

Climate-induced displacement

The cost of reparations and who is to pay

Written by

Contents

Share this article

As environmental destruction intensifies, disasters caused by climate change impact livelihoods all around the world. A response to these extreme challenges can include migration, which occurs either voluntarily or involuntarily, chosen preemptively as an adaptive strategy or forced by emergencies.

However, some people intentionally choose to remain in their homes due to strong cultural ties or a lack of capacity to move due to financial issues. While the full picture of climate mobility is important to understand, this post will focus mainly on involuntary displacement, migration and relocation.

Following 2023 as the hottest year ever recorded, in 2024, Europe experienced its most extensive floods since 2013, leading to the displacement of almost half a million people across the region. Further afield, tropical storms caused severe damage across Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam, displacing over a million people at once. With the ever-growing impact of climate change, the urgency of well-structured reparations cannot be stressed enough. 

 

Scale and urgency of the current displacement situation 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that climate extremes and some weather events have become significantly more frequent and intense due to the global impact of human activities, particularly economic and industrial activities. The scale of territories becoming uninhabitable increases alarmingly as a result of sea-level rise and erosion. While livelihoods and settlements are destroyed by floods and storms, people have no choice but to flee their residences. 

Communities in the Global South, war-torn and conflict-impacted areas, are among the most affected. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) stated that 95% of all people who involuntarily left their homes due to internal conflicts in 2021 were in countries that are at high risk from climate change effects.

Disproportionate impact of climate change and climate-disasters is not only defined by the geographical location, but also by socioeconomic inequalities and inequities, hence aggravating vulnerabilities faced by the communities living in those areas manifold. Older people, women, children, indigenous communities and individuals with health problems are less protected in the face of food scarcity, water scarcity and other threats. Therefore, financial and social differences can make it harder for these groups to stay safe and healthy.

The globally estimated number of people displaced internally because of a climate-related disaster is around 250 million over the past 10 years, with 70,000 displacements happening every day, according to the UN refugee agency (UNHCR). Scientists estimate that there could be 1.2 billion climate refugees by 2050, caused by the escalation of intense rainfall, flooding, tropical cyclones and droughts.

 

Addressing climate displacement through loss and damage and adaptation frameworks 

Reparation and resilience-building efforts aimed at addressing climate-induced displacement are incorporated into the concept of loss and damage (L&D). These efforts involve using climate finance to compensate for unavoidable economic and non-economic losses, such as lost livelihoods and cultural connections, and they are operated through the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD). Additionally, these responses are integrated into adaptation strategies by supporting preventive actions like planned relocation and assistance to host communities, which help build long-term resilience.

UNFCCC Frameworks like the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) and its Task Force on Displacement (TFD) recognise displacement as an indispensable component of Loss and Damage (L&D) beyond adaptation limits. The TFD recommendations (2018) provide a structured framework to “avert, minimise and address displacement” through enhanced risk assessments, early warning systems and integration into L&D funding, recognising economic (livelihoods) and non-economic losses (cultural, social ties). This approach emphasises systematic data on displacement cycles for equitable finance allocation under the Paris Agreement.

 

Climate finance allocation to support environmentally displaced people 

Addressing climate change means taking necessary measures by utilising climate finance. This must take unfair disadvantages into account. However, the current way of raising, allocating, spending and managing climate finance fails to address historical injustices; namely, that frontline communities that contributed least to the climate crisis are the ones facing extreme climate-related disasters and challenges most frequently and devastatingly.

In 2023, 82 per cent of displacement caused by conflict took place in countries that are highly vulnerable to climate change, yet these countries receive much less climate funding compared to others. A report by the UNHCR, created in collaboration with the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) and other organisations, shows that at-risk states get only about $2 per person each year for climate adaptation, while non-fragile states receive $161 per person. Tackling the connection between climate change, conflict and displacement needs more funding and better coordination.

Existing mechanisms, such as the aforementioned FRLD, aim to address gaps in current financial systems by providing new, supplementary and reliable funding to tackle issues such as displacement, migration, crop failures, damage to infrastructure and lack of data. But current financial promises to FRLD amount to $821.74 million, which is much less than the estimated $724.43 billion needed each year to cover both economic and non-economic losses in developing nations, making it significantly underfunded. Additionally, these figures do not include the costs related to displacement, which are typically not considered in loss and damage evaluations.

On top of the large financial gap between the pledged amount and actual loss and damage needs, a $2.4 trillion fossil fuel profits in 2023 and a $2 trillion fossil fuel subsidies increase in 2022 showcase another dimension of unfair financial disparity.

With the ever-growing impact and consequences of climate change, the urgency of governments to facilitate accessible and equitable financial distribution is higher than ever. Thus, industries should adhere to their responsibility, derived from being high emitters, to increase financial contributions to the FRLD to ensure such mechanisms deliver urgent support for disaster relief.

 

NCQG and historical responsibility 

The New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG) – the new global climate finance target set to a minimum of $100 billion each year, decided during the 29th meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (COP29), must consist of three separate sub-goals that focus on mitigation, adaptation and Loss and Damage. This structure is essential to ensure clarity, accountability and transparency in monitoring finance flows and ensuring that resources are distributed fairly.

Financial quantum and allocation of a total amount estimated to $6.88 trillion should be provided each year under the NCQG. The financial structure should clearly separate grant-based funding, concessional loans and blended finance. Specifically, Loss and Damage should be fully supported by grants to prevent additional strain on vulnerable economies.

The concept of reparations in the context of climate finance suggests that those historically responsible for causing climate change should also bear the costs associated with environmental damage. This principle is reflected in environmental law through the “polluter pays principle,” which was introduced in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Additionally, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) acknowledges the concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” (CBDR) as a key part of international environmental law. This means that while all countries are expected to take action to address climate change, their level of responsibility is not the same. 

Considering the Global North’s major contribution to the current climate crisis, it bears the historical responsibility for providing the necessary financial assets for disaster recovery. Therefore, the polluter pays principle (PPP) mentioned earlier also reckons remediation costs for reparation and resilience-building as integral in addressing aftermath effects like displacement, alongside prevention and control aspects. The “Fill the Fund” campaign, launched by a global civil society coalition in 2025, directly addresses climate inequities by demanding wealthy countries’ immediate contribution to the underfunded Loss and Damage fund. This campaign seeks to enable funds to reach those affected more quickly, placing human rights and justice at the centre, to prevent displacement and rebuild livelihoods.

Historical emitters should also take more competent actions to tackle climate change. In parallel to actively addressing irrevocable harm, it is also imperative to prevent future disasters. Since COP30 failed to deliver an ambitious plan for fossil fuel phase-out, the pursuit of an adequate level of mitigation is uncertain. A lack of concrete climate mitigation ambition means a continued climate change threat posed to humans and other living beings. “We need to finance a just transition for people irreversibly impacted by climate change. A just transition that guarantees a safe and resilient future for these people requires an immediate and significant scale-up of financial support to address current and future loss and damage.”

One of the key milestones for climate justice occurred last July, when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a unanimous Advisory Opinion regarding the obligations of states concerning climate change. Considering the imperative role of climate finance in reparation and resilience-building, the ICJ decision highlighted that international cooperation is a legal requirement, and this includes providing financial support at a level that allows for achieving the temperature targets set out in the Paris Agreement. 

 

Why does equity matter?

The urgent need to respond to the challenges posed by climate change – and the growing number of people facing displacement due to changing environmental conditions that make staying in their homes unsustainable – requires unique approaches to managing climate mobility.

As if the impact of involuntary displacement and relocation is not damaging enough, additional and compounded vulnerabilities emerge from its interaction with other socioeconomic phenomena like race, class and gender. Thus, such conditions should be taken into consideration when delivering disaster relief and recovery. 

Developed nations have the primary responsibility to fund reparations and resilience-building, considering their total greenhouse gas emissions are the main cause of current events. It is also important to note that the communities directly affected by the impacts of the climate crisis are often the ones that have contributed the least to causing it.

Therefore, there is a serious need for increased focus and funding on disaster risk management, emergency response and preventive measures in every country and community.

More articles about climate justice
, ,

Climate-induced displacement

Read more

Can the EU energy goals guarantee a safe and solid electrification of our cities?

The EU’s ambitious electrification goals promise cleaner cities, but recent energy crises show that resilience must power the transition as much as renewables do.

Written by

Contents

Green loans and mortgages in the EU are financial instruments that offer preferential terms (such as lower interest rates) to borrowers for financing projects with clear, positive environmental benefits, such as improving a home’s energy efficiency.

Share this article

The transition to clean energy is reshaping Europe’s cities – from how we power our homes to how we move and build. Electrification is at the heart of this transformation, seen as a key solution to the climate crisis. Yet, as the European Union accelerates its green transition, recent events such as the April 2025 blackout across the Iberian Peninsula raise an important question: Can Europe’s energy systems handle the pressure of full electrification?

Urban Energy Demand and Infrastructure Gaps

To meet the objectives of the European Green Deal and achieve climate neutrality by 2050, alongside the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels), the European Commission has introduced a series of directives, most notably the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, which promotes and mandates the efficient and circular use of resources, the improvement of buildings’ energy performance, and the reduction of a building’s Global Warming Potential (GWP), a key metric for assessing emissions throughout a building’s entire life cycle.

European cities, particularly those with higher levels of energy poverty, are characterised by having many historic buildings with energy efficiencies far below the levels required to meet the established energy targets (75% of the building stock is considered energy inefficient, as noted in points 6 and 7). Given that buildings account for 36% of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions in the EU and that two-thirds of the energy used for heating and cooling still comes from fossil fuels, point 14 highlights the urgent need for a progressive phase-out of these energy sources.

It is essential to emphasise that all life-cycle emissions, particularly those from new buildings but also from major renovations and refurbishments, must be accurately assessed. This includes the selection of materials and a thorough analysis of site-specific conditions and climate factors, which are critical to the strategic placement and design of buildings.

The EU’s ambition, as stated in consideration 20, is for all new buildings to be zero-emission by 2030, and for the existing buildings to achieve zero-emission status by 2050. This goal may be reached through various strategies (consideration 22), including the integration of solar energy systems (consideration 32). Additionally, buildings must be prepared for electric vehicle integration, which will play a key role in both decarbonising and enhancing the efficiency of the electricity system (considerations 49, 50, 51).

Despite the REPowerEU initiative, energy-inefficient buildings (many of which belong to a lower class) remain highly vulnerable to energy price increases, as energy expenses constitute a major portion of household budgets (consideration 63). The Renovation Wave, supported by financial and administrative mechanisms from Member States, must therefore ensure that this transition is fair.

All the challenges that will arise with the electrification of cities must be grounded in a strong European energy independence, ensuring the stability, affordability and security of the energy grid, as well as an active state involvement in the management and implementation of the National Renovation Plans.

European Energy Dependence

In this context, the European Union has developed an Action Plan for Affordable Energy, which broadly focuses on “decreasing energy costs for citizens, businesses, industry and communities across the EU, considering the needs of all people, including vulnerable groups”.

This need arises from Europe’s strong dependence on fossil fuels and, consequently, from the price volatility of these energy sources, which has made Europe “more vulnerable to external pressure and global market uncertainty” 

Another contributing factor lies in inefficiencies and the lack of system integration within the electricity network, issues that could be addressed through improved interconnections, grid infrastructure, system integration, and increased flexibility. Additionally, operational costs and service-related charges also significantly impact overall energy prices. The full implementation of REPowerEU projects is critical for enabling Europe’s energy independence from other countries such as Russia, and must proceed with urgency, while also promoting an unprecedented expansion of renewable energy production. However, reducing energy costs and dependence alone won’t be enough. Europe also needs to modernise its energy infrastructure to prevent large-scale failures.

The Modernisation of the Grid

This Action Plan is structured around four core pillars: (i) lowering energy costs for all; (ii) completing the Energy Union; (iii) attracting investment; and (iv) preparing for potential energy crises.

The first pillar stands as a fundamental element in the construction and rehabilitation of cities, as it reflects the indirect relationship between the need for energy use and, consequently, the reduction of its cost. Therefore, the energy efficiency of buildings must be maximised (a challenge, particularly in the context of European city centres). Ultimately, this quality can enable urban buildings to achieve energy neutrality.

The Action Plan, however, outlines several projects and initiatives aimed at establishing integrated energy networks across Europe such as increasing the interconnection level of the Iberian Peninsula with the rest of Europe, the forthcoming Heating and Cooling Strategies (Q1 2026), and the Electrification Action Plan (Q1 2026), which must be implemented with the utmost speed, quality, and security to ensure the energy stability of European countries. One of the major current challenges, as reflected in the aftermath of the April 2025 blackout, concerns the connection of the Iberian Peninsula’s grid to the broader European network, as well as the development of a recovery and storage plan and a modernised energy infrastructure.

Funding Strategies

At the end of the day, it is funding that enables Member States to develop concrete and actionable plans. Within the directive referenced throughout this document, consideration 58 highlights recent initiatives aimed at increasing EU-level financing for improving the energy performance of buildings. These include the “Renovate” component of the Recovery and Resilience Facility, particularly within the REPowerEU plan, as well as the Social Climate Fund. For ordinary citizens, these policies translate into warmer homes, lower bills, and cleaner air. But the challenge lies in ensuring that no one is left behind, especially low-income households and communities dependent on fossil fuel jobs.

In addition to these funding mechanisms, “green” mortgages and “green” loans also have the potential to play a significant role in transforming the economy and reducing carbon emissions (considerations 60 and 61), namely as an incentive for the rehabilitation or renovation of existing buildings. Even with financing in place, system failures can quickly undermine progress.

The Social Impact of Energy System Failures

In April 2025, the Iberian Peninsula, Andorra (and some regions in southern France, along with parts of the European energy grid), experienced a major blackout that resulted in a widespread interruption of electricity supply.
This event, once considered an “impossible” scenario, generated instability and insecurity in the governance of the affected territories, which are aiming to achieve near-total electrification in the coming years. The instability of the energy grid and storage systems, combined with the lack of structured emergency energy recovery plans, has further reinforced public resistance in a population still largely hesitant about full electrification and household energy dependence.

Indeed, the Action Plan for Affordable Energy emerges at a somewhat ironic yet strategic moment, anticipating the urgent need for the modernisation and expansion of the European energy grid, particularly the connection between the Iberian Peninsula and the rest of Europe. This network, supported by a strong energy storage capacity capable of responding rapidly and effectively, will contribute to greater social, political, and economic stability across European cities. In my view, a key shortcoming of the plan lies in its fourth pillar (preparing for potential energy crises), which should be further developed and detailed to address and prepare for potential failures within the system itself.

Fragile Grids, Urgent Actions

In a context where the European energy grid remains fragile, particularly the Iberian energy network, there is a pressing need to investigate, modernise, and develop action plans for potential energy emergencies, as well as to invest in effective and sustainable energy storage.

This discussion and conclusion raise crucial questions: Is it possible to achieve these targets within such a short timeframe without compromising the safety and stability of cities and the European community as a whole? How can we anticipate and respond to energy emergencies like the one that occurred in such a brief period? Can the EU plans guarantee a safe and solid electrification of our cities?

More articles about energy issues
, , ,

Can the EU energy goals guarantee a safe and solid electrification of our cities?

Read more

Climate Justice and Adaptation Measures

The most vulnerable groups to climate impacts are always the ones most protected through adaptation measures. Unfortunately, in today’s reality, this sentence is not true, and there is a long way to go to achieve that goal.

This article will explore why effective adaptation measures must always be just and inclusive, and present a case study of the Baltic Sea Region.

Written by

Contents

Adapted Adaptation Justice Index Framework, showcasing the dimensions that occur most often.

What are National Adaptation plans?

National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) were established in COP16 and implemented at COP17. Their aim is to identify climate risks and corresponding adaptation needs, while outlining strategies for implementing relevant adaptation measures. Countries are encouraged to share their documents with the UNFCCC Secretariat and the general public.

Share this article

Why do we need just adaptation strategies?

With the increasing occurrence of climate-related disasters caused by droughts, floods, storms and wildfires, the implementation of effective adaptation measures has become an important topic of discussion between policymakers. 

In this regard, many scholars highlight that there is a strong connection between inequalities and vulnerability to climate change. One example is that marginalised communities often live in areas that are more at risk of being affected by, for example, flooding, and thus resulting in a need for more protection. Similarly, not recognising the special needs of these groups may also cause maladaptation, therefore, artificially putting them in increasingly greater danger in case of an emergency.

On the other hand, wealthier communities often live in more secluded and secure spaces. Furthermore, in many places around the world, these groups possess monetary resources and political connections that guarantee them better protection against any type of climate disaster. 

These examples showcase that the meaning of the concept of just climate adaptation measures varies depending on the context. It can be applied to different scales (local, regional and global), and relate to different types of inequalities (racial, religious, socio-economic and more).

Case Study of the Baltic Sea Region

Why is the Baltic Sea Region relevant to be examined?

Most importantly, it is a very unique space with one of the most vulnerable and climate-impacted marine systems in the world. The Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM) is one of the main intergovernmental organisations in the region, which has focused on environmental issues since 1974. According to their reports, the Baltic Sea is already facing many climate-related challenges connected to the rise in water temperature, increasing sea levels, and the occurrence of less intense winters.

As a consequence of these changes, many areas in the region will become high-risk to live in due to, for instance, predicted high precipitation. These types of disasters have already increased in occurrence, as can be exemplified by the flooding in Poland in Autumn 2024. Therefore, with the increasing risks and need for resilience building, it is also key that policymakers think about making those measures equitable and targeted at vulnerable groups.

Climate Justice in National Adaptation Plans

Taking into account the knowledge about these high risks of climate change-related disasters and the importance of coordinated, just adaptation policies, what does the research show about the reality in the Baltic Sea Region?

My analysis was based on the Adaptation Justice Index framework, which allows us to look at climate justice in adaptation strategies from four perspectives: distributive, procedural, recognition and restorative. Per each dimension, there are several indicators provided, and depending on the extent of how just were the actions taken by the countries, a score from 0 to 3 is provided per indicator.

Distributive justice

Distributive justice refers to whether citizens have equal access to opportunities that would allow them to avoid climate hazards. For example, one indicator from this category could be whether or not a risk assessment was performed. There were 4 indicators in this category, meaning that countries could score from 0 to 12 points overall. The main findings were as follows:

Graph of scoring per country for the distributive justice category in the Adaptation Justice Index
Scoring per country for the distributive justice category in the Adaptation Justice Index, based on data collected by the author of this article.

In the context of distributive justice, the Western/Nordic countries have significantly differentiated themselves from the Eastern/Post-Communist neighbours. The former have scored between 67% and 100%. On the other hand, the latter group have scored between 25% to 42% of all the possible points. Many of the national adaptation strategies lacked risk assessment, scarcely identified vulnerable groups, and did not take the distribution of negative impacts or benefits of adaptation measures into account.

Procedural justice

Procedural justice refers to the extent to which the planning process of the adaptation strategies is inclusive and allows for fair participation of various stakeholders. For instance, one of the indicators in this category was concerned with whether the Adaptation strategy details who participates in the planning process. There were 5 indicators in this category, resulting in countries being able to score a maximum of 15 points.

Scoring per country for procedural justice category in Adaptation Justice Index, based on data collected by the author of this article.

When it comes to procedural justice, there was no division as in the previous category, and the results were slightly higher, with the majority of the countries scoring over 60%. The analysis has shown that a lot of countries attempted to facilitate open, continuous consultations; however, the vulnerable groups (as defined by each country in their NAPs) were only invited in one case. Similarly, most of the governments highlighted that citizens will also be taking part in the process of implementation, while it was not the case regarding evaluation and updates.

Recognition justice

Recognition justice can be understood as ensuring that each of the societal groups, especially minorities, is recognised and their adaptation needs are taken into account. One example of the indicator in this category was whether the strategy acknowledges adaptation as a way to secure basic rights. There were 3 indicators in this dimension, thus the maximum score possible to obtain was 9 points.

Scoring per country for the recognition justice category in the Adaptation Justice Index, based on data collected by the author of this article.

The lowest scores were visible in the recognition justice category, with only one country, Sweden, scoring over 50%. Unfortunately, the examined adaptation plans did not acknowledge that there are varying adaptation needs in society, depending on vulnerability level, nor that it is affected by socio-economic power structures. Additionally, most Baltic countries do not recognise that the right to adaptation is a basic human right.

Overall scoring of the Baltic Sea Region

Overall, none of the Baltic Sea Region countries has scored over 70% as calculated per the Adaptation Justice Index. Even though the majority of the analysed NAPs were very comprehensive and complex, including opinions of experts on the topic, they nevertheless do not account for vulnerable groups and differences among the citizens of the countries. 

Scoring per country for all categories in the Adaptation Justice Index, based on data collected by the author of this article.

While it is possible that the differentiated adaptation needs are more recognised on the regional and local level in many of these cases, the national strategies should stand as examples of effective resilience-building measures, building strong fundamentals based on theories of climate justice. 

Therefore, the most important conclusion drawn from this article is that the national governments around the Baltic Sea Region, and Europe in general, should increase their efforts to create comprehensive NAPs that correctly identify the needs of the citizens and strategies to implement those measures. 

At the current moment, similarly to other UNFCCC processes, the lack of binding mechanisms and requirements disincentivises Parties from making efforts to submit the NAPs on time and consult relevant communities in the process.

How to change the current situation?

The analysis has proven that factors such as international debates, political ideologies of the ruling government and prominence of public discourse on climate all shape the extent to which climate justice is applied in adaptation measures. So how can young people get engaged and make an impact?

Firstly, the topic of (just) adaptation needs to be prioritised internationally and get the attention of global leaders. The finance gap between adaptation needs around the world and actual investments has been estimated at around US$187-359 billion per year. As this year’s COP finished with the commitment to triple adaptation finance and the adoption of a set of indicators measuring the adaptation progress, now is the perfect time for youth to advocate for the implementation and delivery of those promises. You can join panel discussions, campaign online and advocate to politicians, on a local, regional or global level.

Secondly, with the rise of far-right governments in Europe, it’s clear that the topic of climate change is becoming increasingly neglected. In addition to that, what comes with this new wave in politics is also discrimination against different vulnerable groups, such as migrants or LGBT communities. This can also strongly affect the implementation of the just adaptation measures. Therefore, it is essential that young people engage in advocacy networks, meet with their local representatives and participate in national elections.

Finally, connecting the two above-mentioned points, is the need to increase the importance of discourses on climate change in society. The engagement with international and national politicians will not bring any change until the majority of the population starts caring not only for the environment, but also for each other. With the increasing polarisation of society, we begin to treat each other with hostility and suspicion, losing the ability to feel empathy for each other.  

Therefore, what young people can do is to engage with their local community and spread awareness about the importance of climate justice and climate adaptation. In this way, you can contribute towards creating a powerful bottom-up movement whose demands will not be ignored by the state leaders.

Recent articles
, , ,

Climate Justice and Adaptation Measures

Read more

Personal experience from the symposium on the Right to a Healthy Environment

Written by

Understanding the Triple Planetary Crisis

This text is an outcome of the project Understanding the Triple Planetary Crisis through the Lens of the Right to a Healthy Environment, supported by the European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe.

Share this article

In the weekend of 18 and 19 October the YEE advocacy project on the Triple Planetary Crisis was concluded during a two-day symposium in Utrecht, the Netherlands.

During this weekend, I joined nine other students from the field of environmental law, eighteen young environmental advocates and the YEE team to work on a draft protocol for the Right to a Healthy Environment (RtHE) which we hope will be included in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The Right to a Healthy Environment (RtHE) includes ‘the right to enjoy clean air, safe and sufficient water, healthy and sustainably produced food, a safe climate, healthy biodiversity and ecosystems, and non-toxic environments where people can live, work, learn and play’.

As such, it can be said that the RtHE lies at the root of most human rights and – if protected – will be central to addressing our triple planetary crisis. This gives me cause for hope, especially since it has already found recognition in the domestic legislation of 164 UN Member States. Not only that, it has also been recognised inter alia by the United Nations General Assembly with a wide consensus of 161 votes in favour and none against. Other notable recognitions of the RtHE were made by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2024 and the International Court of Justice in July 2025. All these developments are grounds for quiet optimism, and a feeling that our work over this weekend, and the weeks leading up to it, will not be in vain.

In preparation for the symposium, as LLM students we prepared a legal publication exploring the implications of the RtHE for the regional legal order. Each chapter was drafted by a team of two, with each team providing peer feedback to the others.

During the seminar, we presented our chapters in short form and received feedback from the audience.

While I thought all the presentations were illuminating, this is not the place to discuss them in depth. To give an idea nonetheless, I will highlight just one (of the many) interesting points that were made. The team working on the legal impacts of the RtHE examined the margin of appreciation as the ECHR’s means of giving States discretion in implementing of human rights. They explained that, while this flexibility helps maintain cooperation and respect for sovereignty, it also limits the Court’s ability to address cross-border and global challenges, especially environmental ones such as climate change and pollution. Because these crises do not stop at national borders, too wide a margin can undermine collective protection.

I thought this was particularly strong because, when a clear European consensus exists, the Court can narrow the margin and strengthen common standards. I felt that this presentation clearly showed that Europe’s caution in this regard has become outdated, and that a new and explicit recognition of environmental rights could make human rights law and environmental protection both more preventive and more effective.

To us law students, in turn, it was inspiring to see the work done in the twenty-three local advocacy campaigns, which were displayed in a ‘science-fair’ style during one part of the symposium. Fighting food waste, cleaning up beaches and making flower bombs. Simply put, it was impossible to turn my back without facing another inspiring project, always proudly showcased by its beaming propagators.

While this is still not the place for a deep dive – which can be found in the accompanying documents – all projects combined a mixture of research and awareness-raising with education of the public and real action. One example of such action that stirred me most came from a campaign that put the spotlight on bees as an indicator species of the world’s welfare, spreading bee-friendly flower bombs that sowed not destruction, but life.

With the symposium wrapped up and the project a great success with new friends and connections, what’s next? For one thing, we finalised the legal publication I mentioned. In addition, we prepared a Youth Perspectives document during the symposium, reflecting on the experiences gathered during both the campaigns and the legal research. Both documents have informed a final pièce de résistance in the form of an additional protocol to the ECHR, which was produced collaboratively by all participants at the symposium. All documents will be considered by the Council of Europe and forwarded to relevant decision-making bodies.

In this way, our symposium has created its very own verbal flower bomb – we can’t wait to see it take root!

More resources on the Right to a Healthy Environment

, ,

Personal experience from the symposium on the Right to a Healthy Environment

Read more

From Armenia to the Netherlands: A Journey of Climate Advocacy, Youth Participation and Connection

Written by

Contents

Understanding the Triple Planetary Crisis

This text in the context of the project Understanding the Triple Planetary Crisis through the Lens of the Right to a Healthy Environment, supported by the European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe.

Presentation of a local campaign

Share this article

How It All Began

One day, while scrolling through LinkedIn, I came across a post from Youth & Environment Europe (YEE) for a fully funded training programme on the Rights to a Healthy Environment (RtHE) in Armenia. It immediately caught my attention.

I’ve always wanted to contribute to climate and social justice, youth empowerment, and storytelling through impactful communication. I love discovering new cultures and broadening my horizons. Without hesitation, I applied and was selected along with 25 other young people. 

Learning and connecting in Armenia

The training in Armenia immersed us in the global environmental challenges: rising temperatures, pollution, biodiversity loss, and the way these issues affect daily life. We explored how environmental rights connect to human rights & social justice, and how frameworks like the Aarhus Convention can empower communities. We also met inspiring local organisations, such as Armenian Progressive Youth in Yerevan, who showed us how education and grassroots action can transform and inspire a community.

But what made Armenia unforgettable was the atmosphere we built together: open, kind, and collaborative. Between interactive workshops, cultural visits, and meaningful conversations, I found myself surrounded by people who share the same passion for environmental justice. 

Building Our Advocacy Campaign – Rights to a Healthy Environment 

Once the training ended, our work continued. We stayed in touch and developed our local advocacy campaigns. With Nadia Waclawiak, I worked on the coal mine challenge in Silesia, Poland, the country’s most coal-dependent region. Coal still shapes the local economy, yet its environmental and health impacts are undeniable. Water contamination, natural radioactivity, mercury exposure, and lung and larynx cancers affect the lives of many communities.

Together, we created a campaign on Instagram (@silesian_project_rthe) to share relevant, accessible educational content and raise awareness about the RtHE. This was paired with a petition to local authorities calling for a fair transition to renewable energy.

Reuniting in Utrecht

Months later, we met again in Utrecht for the final Youth Symposium on the Right to a Healthy Environment. 

The symposium sessions were eye-opening and diverse, but two moments in particular stayed with me. The keynote by Dr. Julie Fraser shed light on the role of young people in shaping global climate decisions. It is also essential to raise the voice of small island states and developing countries in the Global South – some of the most vulnerable and affected communities in the world.

Another highlight was the presentation by Utrecht University law students. This session gave me valuable insights into legal frameworks, protocols, treaties, and conventions. One of the most remarkable presentations for me was Chapter 2: The Right to a Healthy Environment in an international and regional context, by Mathilde & Manrique from Utrecht University. I loved the comparative and global approach: we got to learn about the protection of the RTHE in the Americas, Africa, Asia, the Middle East and of course, Europe.

The symposium also allowed us to discover each other’s campaigns. I was blown away by the creativity and commitment of my peers – from projects on water preservation in the Netherlands to food waste in Albania, bee protection in Georgia, and heatwaves in Portugal. 

What I Learned

Looking back, this experience reinforced something I’ve always believed: environmental justice and social justice are inextricably connected. Protecting ecosystems means protecting vulnerable communities, livelihoods, and public health. And real change always begins with education and awareness. 

My personal reflections after the journey

Beyond everything I learned, the heart of this journey was the group itself. This cohort became more than participants – they became friends I truly admire. Thoughtful, motivated, curious, generous, and sincere, they made this experience unforgettable. I felt constantly inspired by their work and also their kindness.

Looking Forward: more adventures, connection and engagement for our planet

This journey has deepened my commitment to environmental protection, social justice, and youth participation – the causes closest to my heart. It reminded me of the power that emerges when young people come together with purpose, compassion, and curiosity, no matter where they come from. It also showed me that our engagement doesn’t end here – it lives on in every campaign, every conversation, every work we do and every choice we make in our everyday lives.

And so, the story doesn’t end in this chapter. It simply opens new doors, inviting me into new adventures ahead. For the planet, and for its people.

More resources on the Right to a Healthy Environment

, ,

From Armenia to the Netherlands: A Journey of Climate Advocacy, Youth Participation and Connection

Read more

Advancing the rights of young environmental defenders under the Council of Europe framework

This position paper is directed at Council of Europe Member States and aimed at addressing protection gaps and eliminating the root causes of such protests through stronger environmental action.

The three proposals outlined include:

  • the legal recognition of the Right to a Healthy Environment at the European level,
  • the promotion of young people’s participation in the public space,
  • the implementation of monitoring mechanisms related to the status of environmental defenders’ rights and their treatment in each Member State.

We invite young activists and youth organisations to support the position paper by promoting these measures to their elected officials and representatives in the Council of Europe. If you have any questions or would like to join forces to promote the position paper, do not hesitate to reach out to us!

Download

Help us spread the word! Share this statement

, ,

Advancing the rights of young environmental defenders under the Council of Europe framework

Read more

Feedback on the Cosmetic Products Regulation

YEE calls for a stronger regulation to better protect the health of current and future generations, and address our main concerns and recommendations for a revision of the Cosmetic Products Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009).

In February 2025, the European Commission launched a call for evidence for the evaluation of the Cosmetic Products Regulation to protect public health and ensure the safety of cosmetic products in the EU market.

Cosmetics and personal care products contain chemicals to which consumers are exposed daily, and may pose short, or long-term health risks. Given that adolescents and children are particularly vulnerable, as they experience prolonged developmental phases during which chemical exposures may have compounded health implications, the regulatory framework needs to ensure that it does not pose a health risk.

As a youth organisation we call for a strengthened Cosmetic Products Regulation that better protects the health of current and future generations, with particular attention to our recommendations outlined below.

Protecting Against Endocrine Disruptors through Restriction and Elimination

The use of cosmetics that contain Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) and serious hazards such as carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic chemicals (CMRs) has been associated with a variety of chronic diseases. These include cancer, respiratory conditions, neurological disorders, and endocrine disruption. Since the susceptibility to endocrine disruptors varies with the stage of life, mini-puberty and puberty are one of the sensitive periods during which a hormonal disorder can irreversibly alter certain functions of the body.

Therefore, young people’s developing hormonal systems are particularly vulnerable to endocrine-disrupting chemicals commonly found in cosmetics. Driven by social media influence and the propagation of unrealistic beauty standards, especially among younger demographics, many cosmetic products have become integral to contemporary society.

However, there is a significant lack of information and education regarding the substances that these products contain, leading to widespread consumer unawareness about their potential health and environmental impacts. This inevitable and growing phenomenon supports the need for legal strengthening for the most harmful substances, including those impacting the endocrine, immune and neurological systems in cosmetics.

Consequently, the EDCs should be restricted and eliminated to ensure the health of current and future generations.

Addressing Toxic Cocktail Effects

In our homes and daily lives, we are exposed to hundreds of chemicals from many sources, such as flame retardants in soft furnishings, phthalates in plastic food packaging, and Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in cosmetics.

However, most chemical safety regulations still ignore the fact that we are simultaneously exposed to a mixture of hundreds of substances from various sources. Risk assessments must include comprehensive exposure scenarios that consider chronic toxicity, cumulative daily exposure from multiple sources, and the increased sensitivity of sensitive groups.

The European Commission should require that cosmetic risk assessments explicitly consider cumulative exposure to chemical mixtures from multiple products used simultaneously, rather than assessing single substances, considering increased uncertainty factors for sensitive groups.

Banning PFAS To Ensure Healthy Drinking Water 

Many chemicals, including PFAS, that are present in cosmetics (e.g. hair conditioner, foundation cream, sunscreen, etc.) are washed out, pass through the wastewater and end up in oceans, rivers, groundwater, and even drinking water. These substances hardly break down in the environment and can accumulate in water sources, complicating the purification of drinking water.

Given this, PFAS need to be fully banned from all cosmetic products to ensure healthy drinking water.

Help us spread the word! Share this statement

Learn more about our work on Public Health

,

Feedback on the Cosmetic Products Regulation

Read more

SB62 Unpacked

YEE’s experience on the international climate negotiations

Contents

Stephanny Ulivieri, Project Lead and COP30 Coordinator and Samira Ben Ali, Oceans Project Assistant in the New York Plenary Room in Bonn

Want to know more about the Global Just Transition Mechanism? Check out this short BAM explainer.

Picture from the intervention done by the Environmental NGOs (ENGO), one of the 9 official constituencies, during one of the JTWP negotiations
Picture of the meeting with Denise Dora in Bonn.
Meeting with Swiss Youth for Climate members, one of YEE’s member organisations!

Share this article

YEE’s first official delegation to SB62

Earlier this summer, Youth and Environment Europe (YEE) took an important step towards its COP30 preparation by joining the 62nd session of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB62) of the UNFCCC in Bonn with its first official in-person and online delegation to the international climate gathering. This marked a significant milestone in YEE’s advocacy journey this year, further cementing our presence in formal international climate negotiations.

Overview of the negotiations

While this was the first time YEE had attended the international climate gathering in person, it was also the first time we had a virtual delegation, which was both challenging and inspiring. As is often the case in the UNFCCC process, access to real negotiations remains limited for observers, and virtual participation was no exception. Most key negotiating sessions were closed to online observers, and even for the few that were open, technical issues such as platform lag made it difficult to join on time or follow them fully.

Still, following workshops and informal consultations gave more understanding into the process of upcoming COP negotiations and some hope for more productive and action-oriented discussions at Belém. The YEE online team closely followed discussions on gender and inclusion of Local Peoples and Indigenous Communities in the UNFCCC framework. A new Gender Action Plan (GAP) was being discussed, and the term intersectionality came up more frequently, signalling a positive shift in negotiation language. 

Gender and inclusion in climate policy

One of the notable developments was care work and gender-based violence being recognised, but Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) and inclusive language are still contested, with some countries restricting gender to biological sex. While constructive engagement continues, more work is needed before COP30 to secure an ambitious, actionable GAP with funding. Gender mainstreaming showcased uneven progress, while some adaptation references were made, a notable step back was observed in the agreed language. Overall, cautious optimism is warranted alongside ongoing advocacy to set gender justice in climate action.

Key issues raised included the recognition of people of African descent, the need for gender-disaggregated data, and broader calls for intersectional approaches. YOUNGO’s intervention emphasised that age must also be considered, especially when it comes to children, who remain largely invisible in climate finance frameworks.

It was encouraging to see these issues raised by multiple parties, reflecting growing awareness. At the same time, heated debates around the definition of gender showed that more work is needed, including from civil society, to keep challenging the stigma and push for broader acceptance of non-binary and inclusive gender identities in climate policy spaces. 

Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) highlights

The on-the-ground delegation also closely followed the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) negotiations, which stood out as one of the silver lining elements of SB62. Despite limited progress across other negotiation streams, discussions under the JTWP signalled a growing openness to more rights-based, inclusive approaches that prioritise workers, frontline communities, and youth.

For YEE, this space offered meaningful entry points to push for climate justice through structured and ongoing engagement. But the fight is not yet over. Having left Bonn with a strong chairs’ note draft was just the beginning in order for us to obtain an ambitious decision later this year at COP30. Before that, in early September, the Fourth Dialogue under the United Arab Emirates just transition work programme will take place in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and it will focus on “Just energy transition pathways and holistic approaches to just transitions including socioeconomic, workforce, social protection and other dimensions, based on nationally defined development priorities“.

The messages and summaries arising out of the dialogue will be integrated into the existing draft text, thus essentially shaping what negotiators will be focusing on in Belém. And that is where our role will matter – holding the lines for negotiators to know that civil society needs a strong text to come out of it. For example, one of the main cross-constituency proposals is about the BAM (Belém Action Mechanism) for a Global Just Transition, concrete ideas on how to operationalise the JTWP and discuss actionable outcomes. 

Adaptation negotiations and global resilience

Negotiations on adaptation measures showed the balance between urgency and capacity, with parties emphasising that adaptation guidance to be based on practical experiences and lessons learned by implementing nations. There was also a call for better coherence among review processes like the Global Stocktake and the Methodology Panel. Persistent capacity constraints, especially among smaller delegations, were mentioned regarding the conduct of comprehensive reviews as early as 2027 or postponing them to 2028.

The discussions showcased the intention of pursuing a balanced approach to build collaboration, inclusivity, and actionable climate resilience strategies globally. Yet, there were missed opportunities, like no concrete agreement on further advancing National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and some issues being postponed to SBI 63. Overall, while negotiations set foundations, NGOs and civil society expect faster, clearer commitments, stronger financial support, and implementation of more inclusive, ambitious adaptation to meet the urgency of climate impacts worldwide.

Beyond negotiations – youth-led advocacy and solidarity

Right at the beginning of the SBs, alongside partners from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and the World’s Youth for Climate Justice (WYCJ), the delegation co-hosted a side event on the right to a healthy environment. The discussion unpacked the international legal basis of this fundamental right, recent developments at the Council of Europe, and how youth can leverage these tools in their advocacy and litigation work.

The YEE delegation also attended and supported the second edition of the Bonn Climate Camp, a dynamic and inclusive space co-created by youth and civil society. It provided a much needed alternative to the often too sterile halls of conferences, with it becoming a space for dialogue, creativity, resistance, and deep connection, a reminder that our fights are not just about policy—they’re essentially about people.

On top of that, Bonn was a moment to meet some of our member organisations in person and to connect with other friends and allies, such as those part of the CAN-I Just Transition Working Group, and the members of the Human Rights and Climate Change Working Group, through which we had the chance to have bilaterals and meet with people such as Elisa Morguera, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Climate Change and Denise Dora, COP30 Special Envoy for Human Rights and Just Transition.

Looking ahead to COP30

Bonn was also a moment for solidarity and resistance. The YEE delegation joined protests in support of Palestine and stood by civil society against the censorship being imposed by the UNFCCC Secretariat. 

SB62 marked just the beginning of YEE’s presence in international climate negotiations in 2025, with COP30 on the horizon. Building on this experience, YEE managed to expand its policy engagement, strengthen partnerships, and support young people across its network to access and influence global climate spaces.

Showing up matters—and this first official presence at SB62 was a clear signal that YEE is ready to contribute with purpose, solidarity, and a deep commitment to youth-led climate action.

More articles about environmental decision-making
, , ,

SB62 Unpacked

Read more