Empowering Youth Participation Through the Bern Convention
Nature Protection and Biodiversity as Enablers of Rights, Participation and Well-Being
- October 30, 2026
Written by
Olivia Robertson
Contents
Share this article
The Study Session
The biodiversity space is currently feeling overwhelming. The Commission is pushing its simplification agenda, critical decisions are being made at the ongoing Convention of Biological Diversity’s Conference of the Parties (CBD COP 17), and the recent State of Biodiversity Action report has suggested its targets will not be achieved by 2030. However, Youth and Environment Europe’s (YEE) recent study session on the Bern Convention, held at the Council of Europe Youth Centre in Strasbourg in September 2026, was a welcome contrast.
YEE, European Young Rewilders (EYR), and Europarc Youth Council worked together with the Council of Europe (CoE) to develop a session which raised awareness of the Convention, built capacity among participants to engage in environmental governance and decision-making, and encouraged youth-led action. The week felt positive and proactive, and reminded everyone involved of our collective ability to face these challenges.
Why is it Important?
YEE is currently the only youth observer to the Bern Convention’s Standing Committee, but youth engagement with this treaty can go much further. One of the tipping points for the creation of this study session was the down-listing of the wolf from Appendix II to Appendix III of the Convention in 2024. The decision, strongly opposed and campaigned against by YEE, EYR and the Global Youth Biodiversity Network (GYBN), only highlighted the increasing importance of empowering young people to engage more confidently in environmental governance and ensure their voices are heard. Youth participation is essential to ensure that intergenerational justice is not compromised – especially now, as leaders take some of the most consequential decisions for nature to date.
What was Covered?
The session started off with discussions exploring the environmental and youth participation challenges that the participants – coming from over 17 countries around Europe – had experienced. Understanding the perspectives of others in the room was a valuable starting point, and the group embraced the variety of approaches to the activities and problems presented during the week.
A central part of the session was understanding how youth can engage with the Bern Convention. The participants spent time reviewing the text itself, and were even given a presentation on how the Convention works in practice from Marta Medlinska, the Programme Manager for the Secretariat of the Bern Convention.
Other activities explored everything from shifting baseline syndrome to conflicting attitudes towards nature. The rights of young people regarding nature were another key focus of the session, and underpinned several exercises. Participants built their understanding of how these rights can be exercised through participation – for example, through a mock session of the Bern Convention Standing Committee based on the 2016 Vjosa case. In this dispute, EcoAlbania submitted a complaint concerning the construction of hydropower plants on the Vjosa River, as well as an airport within the boundaries of the Vjosë-Nartë Protected Area. Small groups were given different roles (including YEE’s own observer position) and were tasked with presenting their case to the room.
The group also heard from Ashton Melfor, one of YEE representatives, about his experience as an observer at the Annual Standing Committee in 2025, and from Emilie Tamo, a member of the Youth Advisory Council to the Council of Europe. This fed into discussions on tokenistic versus meaningful youth inclusion, and how young people can ensure that their involvement is respected and acted upon.
The participants were also given the opportunity to develop advocacy skills and share strategies to engage others. They were tasked with creating advocacy plans for a hypothetical down-listing of the bear, allowing them to build on what they had learnt about the Bern Convention, YEE’s advocacy efforts on the downlisting of the wolf campaign, and their own position as rights-holders and directors of change.
To ensure that the week’s work did not end in the room, the group collated all their shared knowledge and efforts to create a zine – a collective guide to the Bern Convention for other young people. They were also guided through developing their own personal action plans, and had the opportunity to explore ways of connecting their own ideas with the work of others.
Who Participated?
Participants came from over 17 countries from around Europe, all with different experiences and motivations for joining the session. Although the mix of backgrounds in science, policy, law and advocacy meant there was plenty of scope for discussion and comparison, everyone was inspired to find how much their ambitions and priorities overlapped. The group went away with widened perspectives and new connections, but also a renewed realisation of the commitment and support there is to find among people working to protect the planet.
What Happens Next?
With new knowledge of their rights as young people and understanding of the Bern Convention and how to use it, the participants will be able to engage more effectively in conservation efforts and influence decision‑making processes around Europe. The importance of study sessions like this one can be seen in the effect the week had on the participants. The relationships built within the group, their drive to create change in their own communities and countries, and their collectively positive attitude towards difficult problems all show the potential young people have to address these challenges. Building the capacity of young people to participate in governance and decision-making is essential. Youth need a seat at the table when decisions are made, but also the confidence, knowledge, and support network to ensure our message is impactful and considered.
If you are part of a youth organisation focused on addressing environmental challenges, consider applying to be part of the YEE network, and get the opportunity to participate in projects such as this one! (Become a member | YEE).
More articles about biodiversity
Empowering Youth Participation Through the Bern Convention
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/IMG_6542-scaled.jpg 2560 1920 Erica Gentili https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png Erica Gentili2026-10-30 19:01:482026-10-30 19:03:39Empowering Youth Participation Through the Bern ConventionEnvironmental rights at risk?
Youth perspectives on the EU deregulation agenda
- October 30, 2026
Written by
Claire Leduc
Contents
Share this article
Can environmental protections be simplified without weakening environmental rights? The EU is presenting its forthcoming Environmental Omnibus package as a way to boost competitiveness and cut red tape. But speeding up project approvals could come at the expense of public participation and access to justice, while undermining environmental safeguards. For young people, the debate is ultimately about who gets to shape Europe’s environmental future.
The Environmental Omnibus package is set to include proposals to fast-track environmental permitting and expand the range of projects considered “strategic”. These deregulation measures are presented as administrative simplification, but they also weaken existing safeguards and reduce opportunities for public oversight. At stake is whether environmental rights can be protected in the face of growing corporate pressure.
Environmental assessments are not red tape
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) play a critical role in ensuring that public authorities understand the potential consequences of incoming projects before a decision is made. They help identify risks to biodiversity, climate, ecosystems, and human health. They are also a key opportunity for public participation.
The European Union now proposes to accelerate its timeline. This creates a key risk: reducing the quality of these evaluations. Faster procedures do not make environmental harms disappear; they make them harder to identify and prevent.
This strategy also hides the real bottleneck behind long procedures, which is often the lack of resources and staffing within public authorities in charge of EIAs. The current proposal should not come as a substitute for adequately funding the relevant institutions.
A dangerous expansion of “strategic projects”
Another concerning element currently under discussion is the creation of a broad category of “strategic projects” or “strategic sectors”. Projects falling under this category could be automatically presumed to “serve the public interest” and benefit from a fast-tracked permitting procedure. If adopted, there are only a few guarantees that such projects would then need to meet sustainability or decarbonisation criteria to be approved.
Importantly, some Member States have advocated for an extensive list of eligible sectors, including ports, airports, factories, data centres, AI infrastructure, and military mobility projects, which would de facto dilute the exceptional nature of the mechanism and make it quite mainstream.
Access to justice under threat
Discussions at both the Commission and Member State levels have explored introducing new procedural rules. Under these proposals, communities and civil society organisations would not be able to raise legal arguments in court if they failed to present them during the earlier permitting process.
This is an issue because, in many cases, environmental impacts only become visible late in the process. Restricting the ability to raise new arguments during judicial review could make it harder for affected communities and NGOs to challenge permits.
These proposals also conflict with the Aarhus Convention, an international treaty ratified by both the EU and its Member States, which guarantees access to justice as a core environmental right. Courts and compliance bodies have consistently interpreted the rights from the Convention as requiring broad and effective access to judicial review in environmental matters.
Civil society is mobilising
A broad coalition of environmental organisations of which Youth and Environment Europe (YEE) is part, and including the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), BirdLife Europe, WWF, and ClientEarth, has warned against the latest deregulation developments. The campaign Hands Off Nature is calling on decision-makers to reject proposals that undermine environmental law and public participation.
Europe needs faster solutions to the climate and biodiversity crises, but not at the cost of public participation and access to justice.
Young people will live the longest with the consequences of today’s decisions. Yet proposals that weaken environmental scrutiny reduce the ability of future generations to influence decisions that will shape their future.
To learn more about the EU Omnibus Simplification Package, read our report on the topic: Understanding the EU Omnibus Simplification Packages | YEE
To engage with the campaign, you can visit the website: https://handsoffnature.eu/
More articles about environmental law
Environmental rights at risk?
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/law-dark.png 500 500 Erica Gentili https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png Erica Gentili2026-10-30 18:38:592026-10-30 18:41:00Environmental rights at risk?Inheriting a broken system
Why the EU Livestock Strategy fails a generation of farmers
- August 21, 2026
Written by
Alexander Birkle
With the contribution of Patrizia Russo, Silvia Barla, Duarte R. Costa, Nora Eliassen.
Contents
Share this article
In early July 2026, the European Commission published the EU Livestock Strategy and Protein Action Plan, which aim to strengthen Europe’s food system by reducing its dependence on imported protein feed. While having presented somewhat meaningful and important general ideas, YEE argues that the EU needs to take bolder action to ensure sustainable food systems for future generations.
In a system where nearly two-thirds of the protein consumed by EU citizens comes from animal sources, the problem isn’t simply that livestock farming is environmentally harmful, but that the EU is trying to preserve a model already failing to provide viable futures for many young farmers.
The EU has recognised the protein problem, but livestock still dominates
Of the 80 million tonnes of plant-based protein consumed in the EU each year, around 74 million tonnes are fed to livestock (farm animals raised for food production such as cattle, pigs, sheep and poultry[1]). As a result, livestock accounts for around 92.5% of all plant-based protein use (as in legumes, cereals and oil-based products[2]), even though the conversion rate of feed protein to animal protein varies widely. For example, even poultry and eggs, considered the most efficient sector, require 3.6 kg of feed protein for every kilo of animal protein produced. Cattle meat instead requires 15.9 kg of feed protein[3] – over four times as much! At the same time, the EU imports around 16.25% of the plant-based protein it consumes, leaving its food system exposed to global market fluctuations and supply chain disruptions[4].
Figure 1: The allocation gap of plant-based protein
The EU Livestock Strategy and the Protein Action Plan both recognise this challenge and seek to reduce Europe’s dependence on imported protein while strengthening food security.
The former focuses on making livestock production more efficient, sustainable and resilient. It aims to improve animal welfare, prevent and manage animal diseases, reduce environmental impacts and support the role of livestock farming in maintaining rural communities and ensuring food security across the EU.
The latter complements these efforts by increasing the production and use of protein crops grown within Europe. It promotes crops such as peas, beans, lupins and soybeans, while supporting innovation and more sustainable approaches to protein production and consumption. The plan also seeks to make the agri-food system more resilient to geopolitical tensions, market volatility and climate-related disruptions that can affect global supply chains.
Together, these two initiatives aim to strengthen Europe’s protein self-sufficiency, reduce import-related vulnerabilities, and improve the long-term sustainability and resilience of the agricultural sector, while also claiming to support farmers in adapting to future challenges.
Let’s dive deeper and see what was done well and what could be improved.
Taking steps in the right direction
Global agri-food systems face increasing pressures from droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events driven by climate change. As expected, these phenomena cause disruptions to global supply chains, emphasizing the need for the EU to decrease its reliance on protein imports and support the development of a sustainable internal production of plant-based protein.
Permanent grasslands and fodder, the main source of protein for EU livestock, represent 44% of utilised agricultural area[5], while livestock production accounts for more than 65% of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in the EU[6]. This could represent an opportunity to tackle the EU’s dependency on protein imports while decreasing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and land use. The answer relies on decreasing animal protein consumption within the EU and increasing internally produced plant-based protein consumption, valorising the EU’s plant-based food chains.
The EU Livestock Strategy and the Protein Action Plan do recognise the scope of the problem and seem to try to find solutions. The focus on promoting pulse consumption and awareness of its benefits, while improving the competitiveness of EU protein crops and alternative proteins, is where the Protein Action Plan most shines. Furthermore, the intention to advance research and innovation to strengthen protein systems’ resilience and production through the improvement of Europe’s crop strains is another strong virtue of the Plan.
A point in favor of the Livestock Strategy is the intention to increase animal welfare within the European Union, as well as the goal to promote products of EU origin. We should also note the recognition of rural areas of important livestock production and their dependency on the sector for their livelihood, as this is crucial to account for in a sustainable just transition to less animal-dependent diets.
A strategy that protects the status quo
At its core, however, the strategy avoids addressing the structural problems facing European agriculture, and ultimately the marketisation of the food that should instead sustain our social and ecological systems[7]. While the Commission’s documents seem to acknowledge some of the core concepts that agroecological movements have long been advocating for – such as territoriality, support of rural livelihoods, circularity and diversification of food systems – the model they reproduce is, in practice, still the same exploitative and profit-centered one that is inherently irreconcilable with the mentioned objectives.
A first core paradox: the documents acknowledge widespread land abandonment, and the failing generational renewal as retiring farmers struggle to find young successors. Yet, they do not address these issues directly. The strategy proposed, formulated through the language of competitiveness and securitisation[8], largely relies on technocentric fixes in support of corporate food production. That is the exact same model that puts increasing pressure on those farmers who cannot compete with the resources and power held by the large industrial farms which drive biodiversity loss and landscape degradation. Just a month after the killing of four agricultural workers as a consequence of the caporalato system in Southern Italy[9], the Commission’s golden ticket for a better food system is “ensuring the sector’s profitability[10]”, while it is exactly this framing of food as a profit-making commodity that enables such exploitation.
Figure 2: Extremely strong predominance of farmers aged 45 and above
In terms of animal welfare, the documents remain vague, without presenting concrete, legally binding provisions and timelines, and do not include all animals affected by industrial livestock production; they fail, overall, to demonstrate a political willingness to commit to the much-needed radical transformation of the sector. For example, promised revisions on cage-free housing and pig welfare remain delayed and surface-level without any guarantee that they will match the citizens’ demands for animal welfare.
Regarding the transition towards more plant-based consumption, the trend in EU citizens’ diets is headed in the wrong direction, with the increase in animal-based protein consumption and the gap between animal and plant-based protein consumption widening. In light of this, the Livestock Strategy and Protein Action Plan do not offer enough solutions to this worrying trend.
In addition, the EU Strategy on Livestock leans on the disputed ‘biogenic methane’ narrative and voluntary monitoring tools instead of firm, science-based reduction targets, which is especially concerning as livestock constitutes the EU’s largest source of agricultural emissions[11] and a major driver of ground-level ozone pollution[12].
Figure 3: Consumption Trends: no visible projection of reduction in animal protein
To quote Slow Food on the topic, “If we do not question the starting and ending point, making things more efficient changes nothing of substance. If anything, it will entrench the system we need to move away from”[13]. To seriously help build more just and resilient rural futures, while supporting the rural youth in the process, it is necessary to rethink the role that factory farming holds in our food systems and center instead the livelihoods and experiences of those actively working towards food sovereignty, bringing food production back into balance with the ecosystems we depend on.
All in all, instead of proposing a solution that will serve animals, rural communities, and the environment in a sustainable way, this Strategy reinforces the industrial model of livestock farming that aggravates the sector’s crisis. Even if the Protein Action Plan aims toward plant-rich diets and domestic protein crops, the Livestock Strategy pulls in the opposite direction, as the expressed commitments are vague and lack quantifiable targets that would allow the plant-based transition to occur.
A just transition must put young farmers at the centre
There is a clear generational equity crisis in the EU’s agricultural sector, as young and new entrants are being priced out of a system where land, capital and market power are concentrated in the hands of large industrial actors. Without binding targets, earmarked funding and a genuine redistribution of power away from industrial agribusiness, these commitments risk remaining too abstract to bring environmental justice for young people. As a youth network, YEE stands with other non-governmental organisations, such as the European Environmental Bureau, in pushing for more decisive and measurable actions within the EU’s agriculture.
The EU now has an opportunity to turn its recognition of the food system’s vulnerabilities into meaningful change. That means setting measurable targets for reducing livestock-related emissions, supporting the shift towards plant-rich diets, improving animal welfare, and ensuring young farmers can access land, finance and decent livelihoods. For YEE, a just agricultural transition must put young people and rural communities at the centre, not ask them to inherit a broken system.
NOTES
[1] Reducing the plant protein deficit of the EU – Agriculture and rural development
[2] Plant-based protein as animal feed – ScienceDirect
[3] eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52026DC0355
[4] Reducing the plant protein deficit of the EU – Agriculture and rural development
[6] Protein diversification — strategic risks and opportunities for sustainable food systems
[7] EU’s New Livestock Strategy and Protein Plan Lack Concrete Commitments
[8] The EU’s paradigm shift on cows – POLITICO
[9] From Calabria to Brussels: the system is working as intended • Agroecology Europe
[10] Questions and answers on the Livestock Strategy and Protein Action Plan
More articles about agrifood systems & sustainability
Inheriting a broken system
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/article.png 250 250 Erica Gentili https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png Erica Gentili2026-08-21 14:12:262026-08-27 18:15:24Inheriting a broken systemPushing for accountability: Youth voices at the Aarhus Convention
YEE's experience advocating for youth in Geneva
- July 18, 2026
Written by
Olatz Bulson-Roman
Contents
Share this article
In the final week of June, the 30th meeting of the Working Group of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention was held at the United Nations in Geneva. Conversations and negotiations in the corridors of the Palais were cut short as the mounting heat became increasingly stifling. Against the backdrop of a sweltering heatwave, the meeting room became a cool refuge. For many of the NGOs and civil society representatives in the Aarhus ECO Forum, the temperature added an undeniable urgency and frustration to discussions which still seemed to lack ambitious commitment.
YEE and the Compliance Committee
As the only youth observer to the Aarhus Convention, Youth and Environment Europe (YEE) intervened on topics throughout discussions to ensure that youth perspectives were accounted for during the meeting. For example, we took the floor to highlight youth experiences engaging with the Compliance Committee, the treaty’s independent body that reviews public complaints on environmental rights, and to express concerns on the funding crisis of the convention as well as intergenerational fairness. While a contact group has been set up as a result of this meeting, faced with a piling workload and reduced staff capacity, the invaluable work of the Compliance Committee is undermined if parties continue not to fulfil their financial commitments.
Added to this, a survey to compile experiences of those engaging with the Compliance Committee is going to be published. Over the days, it became clear that parties (namely the UK and the EU and its member states) were pushing for the outcomes of this unwritten survey to have the power to revisit Meeting of the Parties’ decisions and revise core mechanism documents. This is a worrying move as it raises questions as to the intentions behind these powers, which can be easily co-opted and undermine the democratic principles underlying the convention.
Raising environmental defenders’ voices
Despite these concerns, there were nonetheless hopeful breakthroughs during the week. For example, the intervention of YEE representative Xabier Gomez raised the challenges and insights gathered from the first-ever Environmental Human Rights Defenders (EHRD) Forum in Strasbourg, which took place at the beginning of June this year. By amplifying the testimonies of youth defenders and reiterating the need for the explicit protection of young environmental defenders, parties agreed to recognise the importance of ensuring the safety of environmental defenders for effective implementation of the Convention in the outcomes of the meeting.
Consolidating support for the Right to a Healthy Environment
The Campaign for the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment in the Council of Europe is also continuing to build momentum. Gathering outside the Palais des Nations, a lunchtime protest reminded the 46 Council of Europe member States that we still demand political leadership to start negotiations on a binding treaty. States were invited to a roundtable breakfast where representatives from countries, institutions and civil society were able to bring questions and share ideas on the Campaign. At this event, we were able to brief States on youth perspectives taken from the EHRD Forum in Strasbourg to demonstrate how the Right to a Healthy Environment underpins the enjoyment of all other human rights. From these conversations, it is clear that we are at a hopeful tipping point to progressing this topic within the Council of Europe, momentum which provided a glimmer of hope across an otherwise sobering week.
Civil society, institutions and all other parties to the Convention must continue to advance Aarhus rights: the right to environmental information, the right to public participation and the right to access justice in environmental governance. It is of utter importance, especially during this intersessional period, if we are to safeguard our right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.
More articles about Environmental Defenders
Pushing for accountability: Youth voices at the Aarhus Convention
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/law-light.png 500 500 Erica Gentili https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png Erica Gentili2026-07-18 17:48:322026-07-18 18:01:05Pushing for accountability: Youth voices at the Aarhus ConventionDefending the Environmental Defenders
Key takeaways from the first-ever forum for Environmental Human Rights Defenders
- July 17, 2026
Written by
Olatz Bulson-Roman
Contents
Share this article
Claire Leduc
On the 3rd and 4th June 2026, the Council of Europe hosted the first-ever Forum for Environmental Human Rights Defenders (EHRDs) in Strasbourg, France. More than 280 defenders from across Europe came together alongside NGOs, EU institutions, and state representatives to exchange experiences, strengthen connections, and advance environmental rights.
As one of the forum’s co-organisers, Youth and Environment Europe (YEE) attended and supported several sessions and initiatives throughout the event. This included the establishment of a Youth Taskforce, bringing together youth representatives from civil society organisations, UN and EU institutions to support the active participation of youth EHRDs and ensure that their perspectives were visible and reflected in discussions.
YEE’s contribution to the Forum and support to young EHRDs
The ability to bring, for example, youth EHRDs together is critical to empowering defenders. It is through gathering that defenders are better able to share ideas, advocacy and testimonies. This coming-together is essential to creating vital solidarities in the face of the ongoing persecution of EHRDs.
It is an opportunity for those actively risking their own wellbeing to safeguard our shared Environmental Human Rights and futures to have their voices and stories not only heard, but also amplified and acted on.
Within the organisational structure of the Forum, YEE were proud to be working within the Youth Task Force sub-committee. We aimed to promote and safeguard youth engagement throughout the event.
From ice-breakers and energisers to logistics and raising concerns, we were the port of call for youth EHRDs navigating both the institutional and emotional landscape of the Council of Europe hosting the Forum.
Seeing how youth defenders came together so enthusiastically, empathetically and tirelessly was truly inspiring. Their courage to attend, share their stories and wholeheartedly engage in debates must be met by the momentum to protect all of our shared environmental human rights.
Formalising the right to a healthy environment
A core message which arose from the Forum was the need for a legally binding additional protocol for the Right to a Healthy Environment in the Council of Europe.
Testimonies of repression, persecution and the impacts of undertaking environmental human rights activism on mental and physical health clearly laid out the contemporary hostility for defenders in Europe.
Without this explicit recognition of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, the critical advocacy of defenders can be dismissed and weaponised due to the lack of a legal instrument which can support both those advocating for our shared future, and thus European rightsholders more generally.
Protection, accountability and democratic action are central to mitigating the environmental and climate crisis. As a result, the Right to a Healthy Environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of all other human rights.
Holding companies accountable for environmental harm
Legal cases holding companies accountable for environmental damage are beginning to emerge across Europe, building good precedents for further legal action. At the same time, while the 2024 EU Environmental Crime Directive has been an important step forward, its transposition across Member States remains slow, demonstrating little appetite to address the issue.
Participants called for greater recognition of, and stronger responses to, corporate harms affecting environmental protection. They also suggested adopting more preventive approaches, such as the active participation of affected communities in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs).
Recognising and Protecting Defenders
The recognition of EHRDs and the essential role they play for democracies to be considered healthy was at the core of the discussions. Through organising peaceful protests, acting as watchdogs, and building connections with communities, EHRDs contribute to building a sustainable future.
Across their different contexts, defenders shared concerns about Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) and foreign agent laws that continue to restrict civic space. For young people in particular, this often translates into even fewer opportunities to participate in civic life, as limited resources make it harder to respond to legal and administrative pressures.
The 2024 EU Anti-SLAPP directive is a step in the right direction, and should be transposed by Member States widely. Aarhus Convention review mechanisms are also in place to allow for international pressure. In addition, though, participants highlighted that countering this trend requires reclaiming the narrative around environmental activism and increasing the visibility of the contribution that EHRDs make to environmental rights.
A call for action
It is important not to lose the momentum generated by this Forum. This is supported by the legally binding Additional Protocol to the Right to a Healthy Environment in the Council of Europe, as this right is a precondition to enjoy all other human rights. We hope that the testimonies and common advocacy messages shared during the forum will inspire defenders, CSOs, as well as the EU and its Member States to continue building a strong commitment to creating an enabling environment for defenders across Europe. Therefore, as we look ahead, we must continue to defend the defenders who not only safeguard our shared environment, but also our democratic futures.
More articles about Environmental Defenders
Defending the Environmental Defenders
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/law-light.png 500 500 Erica Gentili https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png Erica Gentili2026-07-17 16:31:322026-08-07 16:33:48Defending the Environmental DefendersFrom Bonn to COP31: realising a Just Transition
A reaction to the outcomes of the SB64 negotiations
- June 24, 2026
Written by
Maria Cianciuolo
Contents
Share this article
YEE’s take on SB64
In early June, the YEE team participated as observers in the Just Transition negotiating rooms at the 64th session of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB64). This event gathers the UNFCCC delegates in Bonn to drive preliminary negotiations in preparation for COP31.
As YEE, we believe that a Just Transition is the cornerstone of climate action, because it ensures that the shift to a sustainable economy is fast and fair, while protecting workers, vulnerable communities, and future generations from the socio-economic shocks of a changing energy landscape.
However, our observations revealed that this effort has really struggled to take off. Negotiations were frequently stalled by procedural delays and technical loops, which pulled the focus away from the need to address governance and funding.
The outcomes
By the final contact group on 17 June, negotiators had a package on the table: a revised Terms of Reference (ToR) for the review of the Just Transition Work Programme, and an informal note capturing emerging ideas on the long-awaited Just Transition Mechanism (aka. Belem-Antalaya Mechanism, aka. BAM). As there was resistance to the text on “complementarity and coherence” with other instruments, the session ultimately reached a standstill.
Notably, among the delegations that stood up to call for the ToR to be saved were Burkina Faso, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), the African Group, the Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC), the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG), the Least Developed Countries (LDC), and Brazil. Eventually, the co-chair narrowed the divide, and the text lived.
While the talks in Bonn were often slow and frustrating, they did indeed set the crucial foundation for a serious and meaningful agreement at COP31 (the 31st Conference of the Parties), making the BAM more attainable.
Demanding Intergenerational Equity
Inside this delicate process, the Official Youth Constituency of the UNFCCC (YOUNGO)—of which YEE is a member—made a clear structural request. They proposed a Joint Advisory Body for governance modeled after the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) Advisory Board, which would include permanent seats for all nine UNFCCC observer constituencies and an operational entity for continuity.
YOUNGO suggested that meaningful engagement in the governance of this mechanism is what transforms intergenerational equity from a concept into a practice, reminding negotiators that children and youth will inherit the results of the transitions being designed today.
YEE’s response statement
What these observations confirm is that Just Transition was the one track in Bonn that kept moving despite the room’s working methods. A mechanism this important should not depend on whether a handful of words survive a midday break. We maintain that the BAM must progress beyond discussion to help make a Just Transition a reality. YEE explicitly calls for the creation of a new constituted body to oversee the Just Transition Mechanism, ensuring we avoid a hollow void outcome at COP31.
Heading into COP31, YEE urges Parties to endorse governance for the Just Transition Mechanism with formal voting seats for youth and other observer constituencies; it is important for it to be funded so that assistance reaches communities directly instead of circulating through further dialogues. The next few months are critical, and YEE will conduct strategic outreach and coalition-building to guarantee that these governance structures are finalised.
Bonn showed us the vulnerability and resilience of the multilateral process, and we hope COP31 in Antalya, Turkey, will transfer the resilience into action.
More articles about a Just Transition
From Bonn to COP31: realising a Just Transition
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/IMG_5393-scaled.jpg 2560 1920 Erica Gentili https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png Erica Gentili2026-06-24 15:49:472026-06-24 17:14:52From Bonn to COP31: realising a Just TransitionYEE’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 MeasuresOur 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.
