YEE’s reflections on the Santa Marta Conference
A reaction to the outcomes of the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels
- May 7, 2026
Written by
Maria Cianciuolo
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
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/image-1.png 804 804 Erica Gentili https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png Erica Gentili2026-05-07 15:42:542026-05-18 12:30:21YEE’s reflections on the Santa Marta ConferenceClimate-induced displacement
The cost of reparations and who is to pay
- March 30, 2026
Written by
Aghgul Mehdiyeva
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
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Climate-induced-displacement.png 300 300 Eva Kloudová https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png Eva Kloudová2026-03-30 13:28:532026-03-31 13:59:32Climate-induced displacementCan 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.
- December 18, 2025
Written by
Nuno Barracha Gaspar
Contents
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?
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/electrification.png 540 540 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2025-12-18 17:04:522025-12-18 17:35:01Can the EU energy goals guarantee a safe and solid electrification of our cities?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.
- December 10, 2025
Written by
Pola Zabuska
Contents
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:
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.
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.
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.
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
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Climate-Justice-and-Adaptation-Measures.png 540 540 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2025-12-10 09:50:322025-12-10 12:16:15Climate Justice and Adaptation MeasuresPersonal experience from the symposium on the Right to a Healthy Environment
- December 9, 2025
Written by
Splinther van Everdingen
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
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png 0 0 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2025-12-09 13:16:012025-12-10 09:00:37Personal experience from the symposium on the Right to a Healthy EnvironmentFrom Armenia to the Netherlands: A Journey of Climate Advocacy, Youth Participation and Connection
- December 1, 2025
Written by
Quynh-Anh To
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.
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
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png 0 0 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2025-12-01 12:57:482025-12-09 13:43:28From Armenia to the Netherlands: A Journey of Climate Advocacy, Youth Participation and ConnectionSB62 Unpacked
YEE’s experience on the international climate negotiations
- August 11, 2025
Contents
Want to know more about the Global Just Transition Mechanism? Check out this short BAM explainer.
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
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/SB62.png 540 540 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2025-08-11 16:17:372025-11-07 11:22:08SB62 UnpackedDelving into the Bioeconomy and the Power of Youth
The bioeconomy represents a unique chance to shift towards a more sustainable and less harmful way of living and doing business, while also reconciling with nature. Young people have a key role to play.
- July 21, 2025
Written by
Laura Gonzáles Gámez
Contents
Explainers
Bioeconomy refers to all economic activities that rely on renewable biological resources.
Share this article
Many of you have probably heard the word bioeconomy before. But what does it really mean? These days, people are talking about it more and more, especially since the European Commission has announced its intention to update the EU Bioeconomy Strategy by the end of this year. The goal? to make the EU’s bioeconomy more sustainable, more circular, and more competitive. To get there, Europe must invest in innovation, create green jobs, and bring new bio-based solutions to the market — all while keeping its long-term goals in focus: decarbonising the economy and protecting the environment.
Yet despite this political and social momentum, the concept of the bioeconomy — and why it matters — remains unfamiliar to many. So let’s break it down: What is the bioeconomy? And more importantly, how can young people help shape its future and seize the opportunities it offers?
What Is the Bioeconomy?
In simple terms, the bioeconomy refers to all economic activities that rely on renewable biological resources. These bio-based resources include plants, forests, fish, animals, and micro-organisms — anything that comes from nature and can be renewed. They are used to produce food, feed, bio-based products, energy, and services.
But what does this look like in real life? Below are some examples that illustrate how this transformation is taking place in the fashion and plastics industries:
From Fruit Waste to Fashion
Let’s start with fashion, a major industry that puts immense pressure on natural ecosystems, as most clothing today is made from fossil-based materials like polyester, which causes pollution and carbon emissions. But even in this gloomy context, alternatives are emerging. One example is the Italian company Orange Fiber, which transforms citrus waste from the juice industry into textile fabrics. That’s right — fabric made from orange peels! Their approach reduces industrial waste and preserves natural resources, as nothing new needs to be cultivated or extracted from nature.
Turning Waste Into Bioplastics
Similarly, the Spanish company Venvirotech uses food and agricultural waste as raw material to produce bioplastics. How? By using bacteria that naturally generate biopolymers, which are then turned into biodegradable plastics. These bioplastics break down in the environment without leaving behind toxins or microplastics, ensuring human and ecosystem health.
Another inspiring initiative is the Plastisea project, which develops bioplastics from seaweed, providing another bio-based solution to the global plastic crisis.
Why does the Bioeconomy Matter?
All in all, bio-based feedstocks can be transformed into a wide range of products, offering alternatives to fossil-based resources. But why do we want and need these alternatives? Because transitioning from fossil-based to bio-based is critical to protecting our planet and combating climate change.
At the same time, we must not forget that these resources originate from nature, and their use must respect our planetary boundaries; in other words, we cannot extract resources in ways that harm the planet’s ability to recover and stay healthy. Unfortunately, this is already happening in many parts of the world, which is why this transformation must come hand in hand with strong sustainability and circularity principles.
Lastly, since this shift toward a bio-based economy will impact all sectors of society, it is important that everyone is involved, including young people.
Youth and Bioeconomy
So, how can young people shape the future of the bioeconomy and seize the opportunities it offers? First, by becoming key drivers of innovation. Our generation will bring new ideas and solutions that can potentially transform a wide range of sectors. This transformation opens up exciting opportunities, from research and innovation to entrepreneurship and new job opportunities. To unlock this potential, education is essential. Knowledge must be shared and be accessible at all levels, ensuring that rural communities are active participants in this transformation. Empowering the young through education and mentoring will be critical, but equally important is their inclusion in shaping bioeconomy policies at different levels.
At the same time, young people can influence the bioeconomy as conscious consumers. By choosing bio-based and sustainably sourced products, we can send strong market signals that encourage more responsible production. However, the burden of sustainability should not rest solely on individual choices. Companies must ensure that their claims about bio-based products are credible, transparent, and traceable. Information campaigns are also crucial to help young consumers make informed decisions.
Empowering Youth to Shape a Sustainable Bioeconomy
The bioeconomy represents a unique chance to shift towards a more sustainable and less harmful way of living and doing business, while also reconciling with nature. Young people have a key role to play – from actively shaping policies, driving innovation and research to consuming bio-based products, among other important contributions.
We hope this article offers young people a clearer glimpse into what the bioeconomy is and inspires you to engage in shaping its future. As a youth-led organisation, we are providing comments for the future EU Bioeconomy Strategy, ensuring that youth perspectives are heard and considered in future policies.
Delving into the Bioeconomy and the Power of Youth
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Delving-into-the-Bioeconomy-and-the-Power-of-Youth.png 540 540 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2025-07-21 14:54:392025-07-25 14:08:29Delving into the Bioeconomy and the Power of YouthNext Gen EU Parliament: Interviews with young MEPs
720 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) were elected in June 2024; among these, 36 were young MEPs under 35 years old after the election. We focused specifically on communicating about the newly elected members of Parliament for the coming cycle.
As a pan-European youth organisation, we work to amplify youth voices in decision-making. We therefore wanted to hear from the young European parliamentarians and ask them about key topics that are relevant for young people around the continent.
We therefore listed all MEPs under 35 and contacted all to ask to join for an interview on topics of environment and climate change, youth participation, green jobs and education. Out of 36 MEPs contacted, 8 of them responded to the request for an interview and were all provided with the same set of questions they could answer. Below you will find the answers to the interview questions by the 8 young MEPs who chose to participate and their short bio.
Environmental protection and climate action
MEP Peter-Hansen prioritises achieving an ambitious 2040 climate goal and ensuring all EU climate legislation aligns with the Paris Agreement. She calls for increased investments in renewable energy and measures to phase out fossil fuels as part of Europe’s clean energy transition.
Another key focus is banning harmful chemicals in everyday products to protect human health and the environment. She also advocates for stronger risk and hazard assessments to address the long-term effects of chemical use.
Her overarching aim is to align the EU’s climate policies with international agreements while addressing harmful substances that threaten human health and biodiversity.
Climate protection and sustainable regional development are central to MEP Repp’s work, particularly in rural regions like Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Saxony-Anhalt, and the Baltic Sea. She focuses on combining climate protection with regional development, ensuring that investments in renewable energy, sustainable technologies, and modern infrastructure strengthen rural areas while creating jobs and securing their future.
A strong advocate for sustainable agriculture and fisheries, she supports scientifically based catch quotas, expanded marine protection areas, and reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy to reduce pesticide use and promote organic farming. These efforts align with her goal of creating a green transformation that benefits the environment and local communities.
She backs ambitious EU climate targets, including a 2040 emissions reduction target, and highlights the importance of socially just transition through tools like the Just Transition Fund and Social Climate Fund. MEP Repp works to ensure rural areas contribute to and benefit from the EU’s climate neutrality goals.
As a member of the ENVI Committee, MEP Ridel views Europe as the ideal place to address climate change, which she believes is spiralling out of control. She places significant emphasis on protecting biodiversity, warns against the ongoing sixth mass extinction, and highlights the role of nature in combating the climate crisis.
MEP Ridel is committed to fighting environmental disinformation, which threatens public debate, especially on social media. She stresses the importance of protecting scientists from fake news and online violence and recommends exploring Quota Climat’s work for insights.
Her efforts extend to opposing the criminalisation of environmental activists, such as Paul Watson. She considers protecting activists vital for maintaining momentum in preserving a habitable planet.
MEP Schilling is focused on protecting the European Green Deal, particularly against efforts by conservative forces to undermine it. They advocate for ambitious climate targets, calling for a 90–95% reduction in emissions by 2040, as recommended by the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change.
She emphasises that politics happens beyond parliaments, advocating for greater grassroots engagement and bridging the gap between politics and citizens. Protecting the Green Deal and implementing ambitious climate laws are top priorities.
MEP Schilling also stresses the importance of ensuring the green transition is socially just. To meet the EU’s Fit for 55 goals, transformative changes across the transport, industry, and energy sectors are needed.
MEP Scuderi emphasises the need for a holistic industrial policy that goes beyond decarbonisation to address biodiversity loss, deforestation, and soil degradation. She argues that focusing narrowly on emissions risks perpetuating superficial solutions while ignoring systemic environmental crises.
Her vision includes integrating biodiversity and natural resource conservation into industrial strategies to prevent past mistakes and create sustainable change. She prioritises re-industrialising nations to produce tools for the energy transition, ensuring clean energy access and job creation.
Scuderi also advocates for community involvement in renewable energy projects through energy citizenship and shared governance. By fostering local support, she aims to accelerate the adoption of renewables and ensure equitable benefits from the transition.
MEP Strolenberg’s primary focus within the Agriculture Committee is transitioning toward more plant-based agriculture to reduce reliance on animal-based products. This transition has multiple benefits, including lower greenhouse gas emissions, healthier diets for Europeans, reduced soil degradation caused by livestock waste, and improved resilience to climate-related challenges such as floods and droughts. She strongly advocates for crop diversification, viewing it as essential to building a more climate-resilient agricultural sector.
In practical terms, MEP Strolenberg has questioned the Agriculture Commissioner about crop diversification targets for 2026. Although the response was disappointing, she welcomed the promise to update the EU protein strategy. She is now collaborating with NGOs, scientists, and parliamentary colleagues to build a coalition and develop a detailed plan for advancing this transition.
She emphasises the lack of specific greenhouse gas reduction targets for the agricultural sector, which she considers essential for achieving the EU’s climate neutrality goals. MEP Strolenberg plans to advocate for such targets, potentially through a future reform of the Emissions Trading System.
Environmental protection is a core priority for MEP Sieper, a member of the TRAN Committee. He is committed to green mobility and promotes electric vehicles, improves public transport, and advances green freight solutions. His vision includes a unified European public transport system with integrated ticketing across borders, which he views as one of the most impactful and easily implemented climate solutions.
He also champions the energy transition, with a strong focus on scaling renewable energy sources such as water, wind, and solar power. A particular priority is the renewal and expansion of Europe’s solar industry, which he believes is crucial for a sustainable future.
MEP Sieper is deeply committed to environmental protection. He emphasises the importance of reforestation and establishing animal protection zones free from human interference. He believes harming ecosystems directly harms biodiversity and creates wider-reaching environmental impacts.
MEP Vieira sees environmental protection as inseparable from her work on the Trade and Human Rights Committees. She prioritises ensuring that partnerships with third countries provide mutual benefits in sustainable development, focusing on resources needed for Europe’s energy and climate transition. MEP Vieira highlights the importance of redirecting trade investments to support climate action and the energy transition while protecting environmental defenders from harm. Her integrated approach links trade, human rights, and environmental priorities.
She also emphasises the interconnection between human rights and environmental protection and advocates for the rights of environmental defenders. Many NGOs approach her about addressing human rights issues outside the EU, and she is committed to bringing environmental concerns into these discussions.
Youth participation
MEP Peter-Hansen fosters youth participation through social media channels, where she collects input and ideas from young people. She also conducts workshops and lectures with Danish school groups visiting the Parliament. Open to new approaches, she actively seeks ways to further engage youth voices.
MEP Repp is dedicated to ensuring youth voices shape EU policymaking. She champions initiatives like youth parliaments and mentorship programs to empower young people and supports a Youth Check to ensure EU policies reflect their concerns.
Repp actively connects with young people through school tours, political education programs, and digital platforms, making the EU accessible and relatable. She collaborates with youth organisations to gather input and promote opportunities for active engagement. Her goal is to create a Europe where young people feel represented and involved in shaping their future.
MEP Ridel created a group of young MEPs within the Socialists & Democrats group, a first in the European Parliament. This group focuses on representing the expectations of younger generations and influencing the political faction’s positions.
She strongly advocates for lowering the voting age to 16, citing its success in Belgium and expressing a desire to expand this measure across the EU. She views this reform as essential to empowering young people and amplifying their voices in public debate.
MEP Schilling prioritises amplifying youth perspectives, which are often overlooked in policymaking. As a young MEP, she emphasises the importance of directly engaging with young people to ensure their concerns are represented.
Her primary focus is climate justice. She advocates for protecting ecosystems and biodiversity to secure a sustainable future for young generations. Schilling connects environmental priorities with broader social concerns, such as affordable transport, housing, and food, stressing the need for an equitable green transition.
By participating in panels and discussions, she strives to include young voices in negotiations and policy processes, ensuring meaningful participation rather than token representation.
MEP Strolenberg integrates youth perspectives into her policymaking by engaging directly with young people, including young farmers, to understand their concerns. She believes in the importance of involving women in the green and just transition, emphasising that education is the starting point. Her party applies a youth test to all policies, assessing their impact on future generations to ensure inclusivity and long-term thinking.
MEP Sieper has outlined four key priorities to enhance youth participation:
- Improving Education: He emphasises the need for better education systems, particularly in Germany, where 16 state-level variations complicate the unified system. MEP Sieper is advocating through his European office to address these challenges and promote new courses on democracy and political systems, as well as digital competencies.
- Erasmus+: He strongly supports Erasmus+, which he considers the best program for fostering diversity. Concerned about potential budget cuts proposed by the Council, he is determined to advocate for increased funding through his committee.
- Promoting Transparency: MEP Sieper is committed to transparency by uploading all his interactions on YouTube. He requires that any lobbyist requesting a meeting with him agrees to a transparency clause he has established, namely being filmed and uploaded on YouTube during the interaction.
- Democratic Participation: He actively engages his community in decision-making processes, such as using Instagram to gather opinions on whether Ursula von der Leyen should serve a second term. He also involves German citizens in drafting his priorities and strategy to ensure their voices shape his program.
MEP Vieira gave four priorities for youth participation
- Diversity: MEP Vieira values diversity and is pleased to see greater representation of different age groups within the Green Party and across the Parliament.
- Climate: She is committed to advancing climate policies that protect current and future generations. MEP Vieira will fight in the Parliament to maintain and expand its ambition on climate matters.
- Fighting for rights and freedoms: She ensures young people are active in the fight for human rights, decent living conditions, standing against racism and sexism, and protecting the rights of LGBTQIA+ people.
Green jobs
MEP Peter-Hansen highlights the importance of involving schools and preparing training programs to equip young people with the new skills needed for the green transition. She stresses that education systems must align with the demands of a greener economy to ensure the workforce is future-ready.
MEP Repp focuses on expanding access to vocational training, higher education, and lifelong learning to enable young people to participate in the green transformation. She emphasises the development of green and digital skills while advocating for linking the European Education Area, Higher Education Area, and Research and Innovation Area to provide quality education and lifelong learning opportunities.
She champions initiatives like Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps, working to make them more inclusive and accessible, especially for young people in rural areas. In regional development, she advocates for the “right to stay” concept by investing in local job opportunities, sustainable infrastructure, and high-quality education in less-developed areas. Repp believes that fostering regional growth will empower young people to contribute to the green and digital transitions, strengthening social cohesion and equal opportunities across Europe.
MEP Scuderi prioritises creating quality jobs for young people, emphasising that reindustrialisation can drive stable and better-paid employment. She calls for banning unpaid internships to ensure equitable access to the job market, which aligns with their work as shadow rapporteurs on related initiatives.
She focuses on addressing the skills transition, supporting both workers already in the workforce and marginalised groups, such as young people, women, racialised individuals, and people with disabilities. By taking an intersectional approach, she aims to ensure opportunities reach all groups, fostering equity in the green economy.
Scuderi also links tackling climate challenges with creating a better future for youth. On housing, she advocates for affordable and sustainable housing solutions, including building more social housing, renovating vulnerable homes for energy efficiency, and reducing financial speculation in the housing market. For young people, access to sustainable housing is integral to a fair and just transition.
MEP Strolenberg emphasises the importance of equipping young people with the skills and tools needed to actively participate in the Just Transition through education. She advocates for organising youth citizens’ assemblies to involve young people more directly in policymaking and ensure their input shapes the green transition.
Environmental education
MEP Peter-Hansen engages with citizens, especially young people, through social media, lectures, and talks. She prioritises educating young visitors to the Parliament and sharing insights about the EU’s environmental goals and policies. Her work focuses on achieving climate neutrality by 2050, with renewable energy as a top priority. She emphasises creating an economy that works for people and nature over corporate interests, using her leadership role in the Greens/EFA group to drive these efforts.
As part of her commitment to supporting young people, MEP Repp integrates environmental education into broader youth initiatives. She focuses on making education and mobility more accessible, with plans to expand Erasmus+ and increase its budget to €56 billion by 2028. She also aims to strengthen the European Solidarity Corps, which fosters social cohesion and supports environmental and social projects.
Repp highlights the importance of engaging young people politically through youth parliaments and youth organisations, which provide positive perspectives to counter right-wing ideologies. She sees education and environmental awareness as integral to equipping a generation to tackle future challenges.
MEP Schilling views politics as a societal activity and emphasises the urgency of addressing the climate crisis through education and communication. She stresses that the transition must be socially just and that desirable and meaningful green jobs must be created.
Schilling highlights the importance of communicating the positive outcomes of climate action, such as improved public transport and affordable travel options, which not only combat climate change but also enhance quality of life. By focusing on these benefits, she aims to make the transition more relatable and widely supported.
MEP Scuderi reflects on key victories in the climate fight, including securing ambitious emission reduction targets, but stresses that implementation and education are critical next steps. She highlights the need for substantial investment in the energy transition and advocates for framing arguments around competitiveness and convenience to counter opposition.
Scuderi also emphasises the importance of engaging citizens through accessible narratives, arguing that environmental education and awareness are essential for achieving sustainability and global competitiveness.
MEP Strolenberg promotes environmental awareness and education by engaging with young people and NGOs within and outside the Parliament. She prioritises including youth voices in policymaking and actively uses social media to amplify her advocacy efforts, ensuring broad engagement and visibility.
MEP Sieper acknowledges that climate awareness already exists but emphasises the importance of bringing all generations on board. He values strong partnerships with civil society organisations and focuses on educating people about local opportunities to foster engagement. While global problems require global solutions, he highlights the importance of local perspectives to inspire fresh approaches. MEP Sieper remains committed to advocating his convictions at the Commission to achieve concrete progress.
MEP Vieira believes that effective communication is key to fostering environmental education. To stay informed about developments outside the Parliament, she dedicates 35% of her time to meeting with knowledgeable individuals, including representatives from civil society organisations. Her approach centres on amplifying the voices of those who voted for her and ensuring their perspectives are reflected in her work.
European Degree
MEP Repp fully supports the EU Council’s goal of establishing a European Degree to ensure the uniform recognition of higher education qualifications across Europe. She views this initiative as vital for enhancing student mobility and creating equal opportunities for young people to study and work throughout the EU.
Repp advocates for strengthening initiatives like the European Universities Initiative, which fosters collaboration between universities and businesses to align curricula and qualifications. She also supports the full implementation of the European Education Area, which promotes the recognition of qualifications, skills, and learning periods across borders, ensuring equal access for students from diverse educational backgrounds.
To make the European Degree more inclusive, Repp highlights the importance of integrating non-formal and informal learning into the recognition system. This approach would ensure that all types of education and training are acknowledged, further advancing accessibility and inclusivity for students across Europe.
Erasmus+
MEP Peter-Hansen sees Erasmus+ as an important tool for cultural exchange and friendship. In her view, it helps young people learn about European culture and build lasting relationships. She strongly supports the program’s mission and its potential to connect young Europeans.
MEP Repp is deeply committed to Erasmus+, which she recognizes as a crucial tool for mobility, intercultural understanding, and equal education opportunities across Europe. As part of the S&D group, she advocates for doubling the program’s funding to €56 billion for the 2028-2034 period.
Inclusivity is a key focus for Repp, as she works to make Erasmus+ more accessible to disadvantaged and rural youth while reducing administrative barriers. She also aims to integrate sustainability and digital skills into the program, ensuring it prepares young Europeans for future challenges. By strengthening Erasmus+, Repp seeks to foster a more connected, resilient, and united EU.
MEP Ridel expresses concern over potential cuts to the Erasmus+ budget and calls such developments regrettable. In response, the French delegation in the European Parliament launched a communication campaign and petition to protect the program’s funding. Ridel pledges to fight to preserve and support Erasmus+ throughout the next five years to ensure it remains a pillar of European education and cultural exchange.
MEP Scuderi emphasises the need to strengthen and restructure Erasmus+ to enhance youth participation across Europe. She advocates for increased funding and direct support to national and local organizations, particularly in countries where youth participation is undervalued or underfunded.
Scuderi highlights the political challenges faced by youth organisations, particularly in countries where far-right governments interfere with funding. To address this, she proposes direct EU funding for youth councils to prevent political bias and ensure consistent support across member states. Her ultimate goal is to tackle systemic inequities and ensure that Erasmus+ provides equitable opportunities for young people, enabling them to actively shape their future regardless of their background or country of origin.
MEP Sieper strongly supports Erasmus+, which he views as the best program for fostering diversity and intercultural understanding. Concerned about potential budget cuts proposed by the Council, he is committed to advocating for increased funding through his committee to ensure the program continues to meet its goals.
Future Generations
MEP Repp emphasises the importance of appointing a Commissioner for Intergenerational Justice to address challenges different generations face. She strongly supports Commissioner Glenn Micallef, highlighting his shared vision as a Social Democrat and his unique perspective as the youngest member of the Commission. MEP Repp praises his commitment to including young people in decision-making processes and developing policies with their input, particularly in areas such as intergenerational justice, education, skills development, mental health, youth employment, and mobility programs like Erasmus+ and the European Voluntary Service.
Repp stresses the need for collective action between young and older generations to tackle pressing challenges like climate change, social inequality, and digital transformation. She advocates for mutual understanding and cooperation across age groups to achieve solutions that benefit all and foster a more inclusive Europe.
Regarding Micallef’s mission, Repp identifies his focus on centralising youth issues in EU policy-making as essential. She suggests he engage closely with youth organisations, promote cooperation on topics such as youth employment and mental health, and strengthen the EU youth strategy. She underscores the importance of providing Micallef with the tools and resources necessary to succeed in his role, emphasising his competence, passion, and commitment to youth well-being and intergenerational fairness.
MEP Peter-Hansen strongly supports the concept of intergenerational fairness, emphasising the need to ensure that future generations inherit a planet in better condition than the one we received. She views the role of a Commissioner for Intergenerational Fairness as a valuable initiative, provided it is equipped with the right tools and responsibilities.
However, Peter-Hansen cautions that this role must not become a symbolic title with an empty portfolio or act as a substitute for a green Commissioner. During the confirmation hearings, she plans to use her platform to ask critical questions about the Commissioner’s focus, such as whether their priority will be safeguarding the interests of future generations or addressing the concerns of older people.
Profiles
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
Sabrina Repp
Chloé Ridel
Lena Schilling
Benedetta Scuderi
Anna Strolenberg
Lukas Sieper
Catarina Viera
Next Gen EU Parliament: Interviews with young MEPs
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Untitled-design26.png 500 500 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2025-05-01 13:50:062025-05-01 19:15:28Next Gen EU Parliament: Interviews with young MEPsReflections on INC-5: A Delayed Milestone, not a Failure
This session was supposed to be the “end of the beginning,” when the world would step out with the first-ever global plastic treaty.
- February 3, 2025
Written by
Shellan Saling
Contents
Explainers
In treaty negotiations, brackets indicate text that is still under discussion and might be added, deleted or revised. They help show areas where agreement has not been found yet. This allows negotiators to know which part of the text needs more debate.
A non-paper is an informal document used in diplomatic negotiations to propose ideas, outline potential solutions, or highlight issues without a formal position.
Share this article
Expectations ran high as delegates convened in Busan, South Korea, from 25 November to 1 December 2024. They met for the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to develop a legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment.
This session was supposed to be the “end of the beginning,” when the world would step out with the first-ever global plastic treaty, which did not happen. However, calling INC-5 a failure would overlook the complexities of negotiating and treaty-making and the leap forward that took place at INC-5.
Laying the Foundation for INC-5
The intersessional period between INC-4 and INC-5 was busier than ever, marked by the agreed-upon intersessional work of two working groups. With the revised zero text widely declared unworkable due to the text mostly being bracketed, INC Chair Luis Vayada technically went beyond his mandate with good intention by issuing informal drafts called non-papers which aimed to bring member states to an agreement. The final one, non-paper three, outlined a treaty with proposed ways forward to INC-5 and COP-1. As a result, there was a lot of uncertainty over which paper would be used as a starting point for negotiations.
Familiarity with the past at the beginning of INC-5
As the plenary opened in Busan, familiar obstacles emerged. Low-ambition countries applied delay tactics, resurrecting the ever-prolonged debate over the still-in-draft form rules of procedure. Hours of discussion yielded few breakthroughs, but eventually, the chair and most member states agreed to continue with the draft rules of procedures, meaning all decisions would still require consensus. There was also a debate about whether negotiations should start from the revised zero draft or non-paper three. The consensus ruled in favour of starting at non-paper three as the negotiating text with the caveat the Member States could propose additional text. This allowed delegates to break into contact groups earlier than in previous sessions, a small but important step to keep discussions focused on substantive issues. Two new drafts of the treaty (non-papers) were produced throughout INC-5 with an agreement to resume session 5 with the “Chair’s Text” agreed by member states.
From an outsider’s perspective, the negotiations may have appeared to spin in circles. This was further reinforced by major news reporting INC-5 as a failure with headlines such as, “U.N. treaty talks collapse”, “Countries fail to reach agreement in the UN plastic talks”, or “Negotiators fail to reach an agreement on a plastic pollution treaty”, painting a picture of deadlock and disappointment. Such characterisations, however, miss a critical nuance: incremental progress often defines the rhythm of international treaties. Expectations to finalise the first-ever global plastic treaty within two and a half years of UNEA Resolution 5/14 at UNEA 5.2 in March 2022 were always ambitious, as they should be to address the urgency of this crisis. Naturally, there was disappointment. Many people who had been working on this process for a long time knew in the back of their minds that INC-5 was going to be a steep uphill battle to finalise a treaty and that additional INCs were likely.
Despite these challenges, INC-5 marked a subtle, yet significant turning point. For the first time, we saw a clear majority emerge with more than 100+ countries uniting in wanting a treaty that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics that includes production limits. This is in addition to many stakeholders and observers including youth, children, scientists, businesses, indigenous, frontline communities and rights holders having voiced this from the very beginning of negotiations, if not long before the treaty negotiations began. This emerging consensus on reduction-oriented measures contrasts sharply with the minority of member states wanting strictly a waste-management treaty, an approach that has been long favoured and known by less ambitious member states and industry stakeholders. Had negotiators settled for a weaker, waste management-focused deal in Busan, the world might have walked away with a quick agreement, but at the cost of ignoring scientists and jeopardising lasting solutions to protect vulnerable groups from the impacts of plastic pollution. Growing voices argue that no treaty is better than a weak one.
Lessons from History
It is critical to look at these negotiations in the history of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). Building on decades of advocacy and awareness around plastic pollution, these negotiations are moving at a pace that reflects both urgency and complexity. While addressing the plastic crisis with this treaty is extremely urgent with current predictions seeing plastic production triple by 2060 without intervention negotiations are still going at a swift pace compared to other MEAs. Notably, the Paris Agreement took 6 years to negotiate, building from the momentum of decades of climate talks. The most recent High Seas Treaty, finalised in 2023, took nearly two decades of discussions and five years of formal negotiations. Countless other MEAs have taken more than two years to be negotiated. Even though the plastic treaty negotiations are being extended to 2025, if countries can agree, it would remain one of the fastest global environmental agreements ever forged. Based on INC-5 and the unity that has converged it is possible for countries to agree by the end of 2025, if not sooner.
Challenges and looking ahead
Negotiations are still expected to overcome plenty of challenges before reaching a conclusion. Observers were locked out for nearly half of the negotiations and must be included in all negotiations going forward. Youth delegates (35 and younger) continue to lack power and decision-making authority over their own future. Whether part of government delegations or observers, young people and future generations are set to be the most impacted by the plastic crisis. Some of the most contentious sections of the treaty include those addressing hazardous chemicals in plastics (Article 3), sustainable production (Article 6), and funding mechanisms (Article 11)., yet are some of the most important articles in the treaty. They must be ambitious with bold targets and robust funding mechanisms. Ultimately, this treaty will have a significant impact on our generation and those to come. It is up to us to decide how we want to change history.
While we await when and where session 5 will reconvene, it is evident the debate is no longer confined to the technicalities. It is a fundamental question of whether the treaty will embrace meaningful reductions in plastic production, supply, and demand and provide strong protection for vulnerable communities and ecosystems. Resisting compromise on ambitious goals and ensuring active engagement from all stakeholders, including youth, will determine the treaty’s trajectory. History suggests it will take time, and INC-5, far from failure, may be remembered as another critical stepping stone toward a strong, science-based, ambitious global plastics treaty.
There are still many unresolved questions and concerns, including procedural matters and the critical issue of determining which document will serve as the basis for negotiations in section 5.2. Options include using the Chair’s text, combining different drafts, or allowing countries to make further changes to the text. A final critical question remaining from INC-5: Is multilateralism the right path forward for this treaty? While consensus has been foundational for treaty-making, the urgency of addressing the plastic crisis is a reason to look at alternative approaches such as voting on unresolved issues. Although untraditional in the treaty-making process, it could speed up the progress towards reaching an agreement.
The path forward requires bold and daring action to keep up the momentum by reconvening as soon as possible for session 5.2 because our generation and those to come are on the line if we do not get an ambitious treaty as soon as possible.
More articles about marine pollution
Reflections on INC-5: A Delayed Milestone, not a Failure
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/INC5.png 540 540 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2025-02-03 09:40:182025-02-03 13:15:04Reflections on INC-5: A Delayed Milestone, not a FailureOur mission
YEE aims to unite environmental youth non-profit organisations in Europe in order to enhance international cooperation, increase knowledge about the climate crisis, raise awareness of environmental problems and to strengthen participation of youth in environmental decision-making.
Financially supported by the European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Council of Europe.
