COP 30 in Belem was widely anticipated as the “implementation COP”. That is, the Parties bound by the Paris Agreement commitments were expected to deliver concrete updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and stimulate collective action. Most notably, Parties at COP 30 were expected to deliver on the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) – initially launched at COP 28 in UAE – which entails the guiding principles for designing pathways for just and equitable energy transitions. These principles pertain to the creation of new non-fossil-fuel-related jobs and Just Transition plans grounded on national/local social dialogues and public participation, ultimately prioritising inclusivity and poverty eradication concerns.
The wording matters
Although COP 28 laid the political grounds for just transitions, it was criticised for adopting weak language on fossil fuels. At COP28, the choice to use the phrase ‘transitioning away from fossil fuels’ – rather than stronger language like ‘phasing out fossil fuels’ – created an avoidable interpretation gap. The latter could have signaled a roadmap to terminate fossil fuels exploration, extraction, refinement, trading and burning, whilst the former alludes to a “transition away” without clear milestones and targets. It is thus no coincidence that the weak language on fossil fuels at COP28 corresponded with a record number of fossil fuel lobbyists attending COP30, especially when compared to the size of national delegations, a trend observed since 2021*. We therefore suspect that this disproportionate physical presence had an influence on the final text of the JTWP at COP 30, decision CMA/2025/L.14. In fact, we do not see “fossil fuels” referred to at all, posing a step back compared to COP 28 Decision. Colombian President’s address to delegates at COP 30 aptly confirms the case: “I cannot contradict science […] It is not clearly stated, as science says, that the cause of the climate crisis is the fossil fuels used by capital. If that is not said, everything else is hypocrisy.”
*Attendance data is available from 2021. Comparative data for the previous Conferences are not available.
A missed opportunity, and a big step for Just Transition at COP 30
COP30 saw over 80 states – including the EU bloc – push to include a ‘Transition Away from Fossil Fuels Roadmap’ in the final Belém Package. However, this effort failed after more than 100 states rejected the proposal.
We may have been declined a Roadmap agreement at UN level but we hail the joint decision of the Parties to establish the Just Transition Mechanism (also billed as “Belem Action Mechanism” – or “BAM”). This transforms the Just Transition Work Programme from objectives and methodologies to a more concrete framework of implementable components (e.g., international technical exchange and capacity building).
We also welcome the strong coalition of 24 UN states that stood firmly by the Belem Declaration on the Transition Away from Fossil Fuels (thereafter “Belem Declaration”), among them, 9 EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Spain and Slovenia).
What’s the EU doing about it?
As a European youth network, we are strategically drawing attention to Ireland and the Netherlands for two different – but potentially connected – reasons:
- The Netherlands demonstrated leadership by co-initiating, together with Colombia, the First International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels, planned for April 2026 in Colombia. Where COP negotiations fall short to deliver, it is crucial that the issue at stake does not remain stagnant but rather advances at least through bilateralism.
- We underline the initiative of the Netherlands as a representative EU member-state in this bilateral process, and we consider that the outcomes of the Conference can inform Ireland’s upcoming Presidency of the European Council, which begins on 1st July 2026.
Including and empowering young people in Just Transition efforts is paramount
As one of the largest European youth networks for environmental civil society organisations, we welcome the fact that youth were considered in the Just Transition realm of the Belem Package as indispensable stakeholders for the implementation of the agenda: “The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement […] recognizes […] [t]he importance of ensuring broad and meaningful participation involving all relevant stakeholders, including […] youth”.
We also welcome the strategic integration of the Plans to Accelerate Solutions (PAS), a new element in the COP framework that highlights ongoing and newly agreed initiatives driving climate action at all levels of society. This innovation underscores why COP 30 was billed as the ‘Implementation COP’.
Among these Plans, we set apart the “Plan to Accelerate Just and Inclusive Planning of the Energy Transition” and the “New Skills Development for the Future: Empowering Women and Youth for a Just Transition – A Global Multi-Stakeholder Partnership”. Together, these plans address the Just Transition from multiple angles, aligning climate objectives with social justice, especially by tackling gender and youth disparities in the context of fossil fuel phase-out.
The progress made on the Just Transition agenda at COP30 – including the discourses and practices adopted – should also shape the Belém Declaration. While the Declaration explicitly acknowledges the link between fossil fuels and global climate change (a step forward from the Belém Package), it fails to address the specific impacts on younger generations or outline a strategic approach to engage them. This omission is striking, given that youth will bear the brunt of escalating climate impacts. Youth demands were clearly articulated in the “Global Youth Statement,” and presented at the Youth-led Climate Forums during COP 30. We echo and endorse the Statement’s call for “a full, fast and fair fossil fuel phase-out […] rooted in human rights, intergenerational equity (adopting the NDC Youth Clause), gender justice and the protection of the rights of nature, while ensuring a just transition”.
Next steps for EU’s Just Transition post-COP 30
Preparedness disparities for just transitions between the EU and other UN Parties
We recognise the EU’s push for a Just Transition Roadmap at COP30, even though these negotiations ultimately failed. Nevertheless, just transition affairs are already more mature within the EU policymaking realm. In fact, since 2020-21 a Just Transition Mechanism (JTM) has been established and Territorial Just Transition Plans (TJTPs) have been developed across member states.
FAQ: But what are the EU Territorial Just Transition Plans (TJTPs) and the EU Just Transition Mechanism (JTM)?
The EU JTM is an overarching policy and resources (financing & knowledge resources) framework, aiming to help local communities, companies and industries whose operations are disproportionately dependent on fossil fuels -and primarily on coal-, in their pathways to decarbonisation, whilst ensuring that no societal stakeholder is left behind. It runs alongside the EU’s long-term budget, the “Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF)” 2021–2027. The JTM mobilises a total of €55 billion by 2027, with €19.32 billion directly allocated through the Just Transition Fund under the EU’s Cohesion Policy.
The EU TJTPs primarily earmark the geographical territories where there is the highest need for the EU JTM to be leveraged (see the beneficiary territories in the relevant map below). The Plans were drafted in a participatory manner, involving the affected stakeholders of each territory, outlining relevant challenges, as well as the development needs and objectives to be met by 2030. They identify the types of operations envisaged and specify governance mechanisms.
EU Just Transition Mechanism could be compromised in the next MFF
The current EU JTM, however, is set to be transformed and “absorbed” into the European Commission’s proposed “European Fund for Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion, Agriculture and Rural, Fisheries and Maritime, Prosperity and Security.” This new fund, with an estimated budget of €771.3 billion, will be part of the proposed MFF 2028–2034. Roughly 90% of this amount (€698.3 billion) is expected to be poured through a new structure, the “National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs)”. According to the European Parliamentary Research Service, the NRPPs allocate significantly less (€210.2 billion) to social cohesion objectives compared to the €392 billion earmarked in the current MFF 2021–2027.
On the other hand, the Commission’s proposal includes an additional €45.4 billion for NRPPs from the Social Climate Fund. It also mandates that at least 43% of the NRPPs budget (€300.269 billion) address climate and environmental goals, and at least 14% (€71 billion) support social objectives. At this point, we need to emphasise that just transition is inherently tied to interventions that integrate social, climate and environmental priorities simultaneously.
Yet, the proposed MFF budget does not explicitly include a just transition strategy. Alongside the broader simplification of EU legislation, the progress achieved in just transition territories risks being undermined, as just transition is now subsumed under the NRPPs. In practice, this means that the development of plans focusing on just transition processes and projects will depend on the discretion of individual member states.
Despite the reduction in funding specifically allocated to social cohesion, the overall mix of EU funds could still support just and equitable transitions – if member states choose to prioritise them. It is therefore crucial that younger generations are actively involved in drafting these plans, especially at the local level, drawing on the COP Plans to Accelerate Solutions (PAS) mentioned earlier. Social cohesion cannot be measured by quantitative indicators alone, such as employment and economic inequality. Meaningful intergenerational participation in planning is equally vital, fostering transparency, trust in public institutions and multi-level governance, thereby strengthening social cohesion at both local and national levels.
Finally, YEE has been a partner in the EUTeens4Green project (concluded in 2024), which empowered teens and young adults (ages 15–24) to become agents of change by proposing actions in their just transition territories, contributing to the governance of the Cohesion Policy. The project revealed both barriers to youth participation and concrete proposals that should inform the drafting and implementation of NRPPs. Key recommendations include financial and technical support for Youth and/or Intergenerational Climate Assemblies in Just Transition Territories; structured consultations with youth-led and youth-centered civil society organisations, with clear procedures for integrating their input into the plans; and dedicated funding for training, capacity building and awareness-raising programs (e.g., through Erasmus+).
Takeaways and Call to Action
Just Transition affairs span across multiple stakeholders, domains of interest, territories, and continents. On the premises of just transition developments at COP 30, and from the standpoint of a European youth network, we examine the position of the EU and its Member States both at the international and domestic (EU) level.
At the international level, we remind:
- The intention of the EU in favor of a Global Just Transition Roadmap
- The establishment of the “Belem Action Mechanism” at COP 30, with the younger generations being accounted for as relevant stakeholders
- The Belem Declaration, signed by 9 EU Member States (including Ireland and the Netherlands)
- The First International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels planned for April 2026, co-initiated by the Netherlands and Colombia
- That Ireland will take over the Presidency of the European Council in July 2026
- The Plans to Accelerate Solutions – particularly the ones concerning Fair and Equitable Transitions, through inclusive planning and reskilling.
Therefore, we urge Ireland – a signatory Party to the Belem Declaration and upcoming Presidency of the EU Council – to closely follow the developments in Colombia in April 2026, and to ensure the effective and continuous coordination of the implementation of the Just Transition agenda in the EU, alongside the Netherlands and other EU signatories to the Belem Declaration. This coordination should take account of Global Resource Justice considerations and domestic sufficiency of the bloc in critical raw materials, required to replace the energy generated through the burning of fossil fuels.
At the domestic (EU) level, we underline that the proposed National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs) can either impede or become an enabler for the continuation of Just Transition efforts in the EU. The lack of explicit designated funding in the MFF 2028-2034 for the just transition territories could undermine the Just Transition “acquis” in the EU.
Hence, we propose:
- The funding package within the NRPPs does not overlook just transition territories, but instead serves as a catalyst to support their secure and continuous progress toward achieving fair climate neutrality by 2050.
- That younger generations are actively involved in the drafting of NRPPs through a place-based approach, in line with the recommendations of the Plans to Accelerate Solutions at COP 30, for example by consulting youth-led and youth-focused civil society organisations, particularly those working on social and environmental rights.
- Funding allocated to capacity building and the development of green skills, including both upskilling and reskilling initiatives.
Help us spread the word! Share this statement
Learn more about our work on COP30
Position statement on COP 30 Just Transition outcomes
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/support.png 250 250 Erica Gentili https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png Erica Gentili2026-04-07 13:18:002026-05-18 11:58:55Position statement on COP 30 Just Transition outcomesAdvancing the rights of young environmental defenders under the Council of Europe framework
This position paper is directed at Council of Europe Member States and aimed at addressing protection gaps and eliminating the root causes of such protests through stronger environmental action.
The three proposals outlined include:
- the legal recognition of the Right to a Healthy Environment at the European level,
- the promotion of young people’s participation in the public space,
- the implementation of monitoring mechanisms related to the status of environmental defenders’ rights and their treatment in each Member State.
We invite young activists and youth organisations to support the position paper by promoting these measures to their elected officials and representatives in the Council of Europe. If you have any questions or would like to join forces to promote the position paper, do not hesitate to reach out to us!
Help us spread the word! Share this statement
Advancing the rights of young environmental defenders under the Council of Europe framework
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/position.png 250 250 Eva Kloudová https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png Eva Kloudová2025-11-26 10:25:172025-11-26 10:36:18Advancing the rights of young environmental defenders under the Council of Europe framework In February 2025, the European Commission launched a call for evidence for the evaluation of the Cosmetic Products Regulation to protect public health and ensure the safety of cosmetic products in the EU market.
Cosmetics and personal care products contain chemicals to which consumers are exposed daily, and may pose short, or long-term health risks. Given that adolescents and children are particularly vulnerable, as they experience prolonged developmental phases during which chemical exposures may have compounded health implications, the regulatory framework needs to ensure that it does not pose a health risk.
As a youth organisation we call for a strengthened Cosmetic Products Regulation that better protects the health of current and future generations, with particular attention to our recommendations outlined below.
Protecting Against Endocrine Disruptors through Restriction and Elimination
The use of cosmetics that contain Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) and serious hazards such as carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic chemicals (CMRs) has been associated with a variety of chronic diseases. These include cancer, respiratory conditions, neurological disorders, and endocrine disruption. Since the susceptibility to endocrine disruptors varies with the stage of life, mini-puberty and puberty are one of the sensitive periods during which a hormonal disorder can irreversibly alter certain functions of the body.
Therefore, young people’s developing hormonal systems are particularly vulnerable to endocrine-disrupting chemicals commonly found in cosmetics. Driven by social media influence and the propagation of unrealistic beauty standards, especially among younger demographics, many cosmetic products have become integral to contemporary society.
However, there is a significant lack of information and education regarding the substances that these products contain, leading to widespread consumer unawareness about their potential health and environmental impacts. This inevitable and growing phenomenon supports the need for legal strengthening for the most harmful substances, including those impacting the endocrine, immune and neurological systems in cosmetics.
Consequently, the EDCs should be restricted and eliminated to ensure the health of current and future generations.
Addressing Toxic Cocktail Effects
In our homes and daily lives, we are exposed to hundreds of chemicals from many sources, such as flame retardants in soft furnishings, phthalates in plastic food packaging, and Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in cosmetics.
However, most chemical safety regulations still ignore the fact that we are simultaneously exposed to a mixture of hundreds of substances from various sources. Risk assessments must include comprehensive exposure scenarios that consider chronic toxicity, cumulative daily exposure from multiple sources, and the increased sensitivity of sensitive groups.
The European Commission should require that cosmetic risk assessments explicitly consider cumulative exposure to chemical mixtures from multiple products used simultaneously, rather than assessing single substances, considering increased uncertainty factors for sensitive groups.
Banning PFAS To Ensure Healthy Drinking Water
Many chemicals, including PFAS, that are present in cosmetics (e.g. hair conditioner, foundation cream, sunscreen, etc.) are washed out, pass through the wastewater and end up in oceans, rivers, groundwater, and even drinking water. These substances hardly break down in the environment and can accumulate in water sources, complicating the purification of drinking water.
Given this, PFAS need to be fully banned from all cosmetic products to ensure healthy drinking water.
Help us spread the word! Share this statement
Learn more about our work on Public Health
Feedback on the Cosmetic Products Regulation
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/position.png 250 250 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2025-10-27 10:53:032025-11-07 11:22:06Feedback on the Cosmetic Products Regulation The struggle for a livable planet is inseparable from the struggle for human rights and dignity. While our work focuses on climate and environmental advocacy, we cannot remain silent in the face of the ongoing genocide in Palestine.
We demand an end to the violence, accountability for those responsible, and justice and peace for all. Environmental and climate justice must be rooted in the broader fight for liberation, equality, and the right of all people to live free from oppression. We stand in solidarity with the people of Palestine.
We have joined countless civil society organisations and millions of people around the world in urgently calling for an immediate end to the atrocities in Gaza. Thousands of lives have been lost (many of them children) in what is an unimaginable humanitarian catastrophe.
Some examples of the calls we have endorsed/signed and that reflect our position:
- Ceasing all Fire – 350 Pilipinas.
- European Environment Bureau’s ceasefire statement.
- Petition on Change.Org, demanding for a ceasefire.
- Unified call to confront famine in Gaza: Launch the diplomatic humanitarian convoy now.
- Youth Advocacy for Peace: A Human Rights Lens on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict motion from the European Youth Forum.
We also denounce the increasing censorship of Palestinian voices and its civil society supporters within international spaces, including the UNFCCC, where calls for justice and accountability at the SB62 Sessions have tried to be silenced under the guise of neutrality. We will not stand on the wrong side of history.
In parallel, we also condemn the coordinated attacks in the European Parliament during the European Youth Event (EYE) in June 2025, where the Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations (FEMYSO) faced coordinated attacks from right-wing MEPs and young right-wing groups. This included a demonstration outside the European Parliament by the youth wing of Identité Libertés and Rassemblement National Jeunes, actively supported by two sitting MEPs from the far-right Patriots alliance. YEE alongside the European Youth Forum (YFJ), FEMYSO and Federation of Young European Greens (FYEG) condemned these actions as part of a systematic campaign of intimidation and defamation, aiming to exclude and shrink the civic space of youth, in particular Muslim youth, from European spaces.
At this critical moment, we reaffirm our unwavering commitment to justice, peace, and solidarity. The climate and environmental movement must not be neutral in the face of systemic violence, racism, and the erosion of human rights. Silence enables oppression; our advocacy must be intersectional.
We call on our peers, institutions, and allies across Europe and beyond to take a principled stand to challenge all forms of injustice, to protect civic space, and to defend the right of all young people, especially those from oppressed and racialised communities, to be heard, represented, and safe in democratic spaces.
Another world is not only possible, it is necessary. And we will not stop working for it.
Help us spread the word! Share this statement.
YEE Statement in light of Genocide in Palestine and other human rights violations
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/position.png 250 250 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2025-07-24 10:04:522025-07-24 10:05:05YEE Statement in light of Genocide in Palestine and other human rights violations The European Commission launched the public consultation on 31 March 2025 for the upcoming EU Bioeconomy Strategy. The concept of bioeconomy encompasses biomass production, its conversion into food, bio-based materials, products, and bioenergy. This new strategy aims to advance innovation and maintain the EU’s leadership in the bioeconomy, while reinforcing circularity and sustainability and contributing to the decarbonisation of the EU economy. It will propose specific actions to unlock the potential of bioeconomy innovations, enabling them to reach the market and generate green jobs and growth. Stakeholders will be able to participate in the discussion and provide feedback until 23 June 2025 through the Have Your Say portal.
Bioeconomy Strategy (2018) – A sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment
Our feedback was published on the portal of the European Commission.
Subtopics to include:
1. Support for Scaling Bio-Based Production
Enable companies – particularly SMEs – to scale up economically viable bio-based production by improving access to financial instruments and awareness-raising campaigns. Special attention should be given to strengthening biomaterial startups that rely on manufacturing capabilities, as they face significant barriers due to limited access to pilot facilities and industrial scaling hubs. Currently, many EU programmes continue to prioritize digital and tech-based innovation, while nature-based solutions remain underfunded and under-supported.
2. Establish Harmonised Standards and Certification
Develop clear, EU-wide standards for biodegradable and bio-based products. The current patchwork of complex and divergent standards across Member States undermines market uptake. Introduce a national or EU-level certification mark for raw materials produced in alignment with circular economy principles. A recognisable, trusted label would empower consumers and purchasers to make informed choices, increasing confidence and demand for sustainable materials.
3. Create Market Incentives for Circular Bio-Based Materials
Introduce economic incentives – such as reduced VAT rates – for circular, nature-based, or regenerated materials. These products often struggle to compete due to higher production costs. Furthermore, embed procurement incentives for state and EU-funded projects that prioritise materials aligned with circular and sustainable principles.
4. Align Biomass Production with Environmental and Food Security Goals
Establish clear eligibility criteria for farmers producing biomass for industrial use. These criteria must ensure that biomass production does not interfere with primary food production and respects the integrity of natural ecosystems.
5. Embed Bioeconomy Education and Training
Integrate bioeconomy education into school curricula and vocational training programmes, with a particular focus on creating opportunities in rural areas. This is essential to ensure that all young people – regardless of geography – can participate in and contribute to the bioeconomy.
6. Strengthen University-Industry Collaboration
Provide funding for university-industry training programmes, internships, and activities organised by student associations in relevant fields. These experiences are crucial for developing the next generation of bioeconomy professionals and innovators.
7. Improve Access to Jobs and Career Opportunities
Enhance digital platforms such as the Knowledge Centre for Bioeconomy by integrating job-matching tools. A centralised, youth-friendly registry of job opportunities within the bioeconomy would make it easier for young people to enter and navigate this sector.
8. Promote Youth Participation and Leadership
Actively support youth engagement in bioeconomy innovation challenges, hackathons, and governance bodies. Young people should be recognised as key stakeholders whose ideas, energy, and leadership can help drive transformation.
9. Establish a Biomass Mass-Balancing Framework
Introduce a clear mass-balancing framework as part of the EU Bioeconomy Strategy. This would help industries transition toward more transparent and segregated biomass sourcing systems, ensuring traceability and sustainability.
10. Ensure Social Inclusion and Equity
To build a truly sustainable bioeconomy, social inclusion must be prioritised. Establish safeguards that define who is involved – such as workers, rural communities, and underrepresented groups – and how they are included in decision-making, benefit-sharing, and access to opportunities. Without this, the bioeconomy risks reinforcing existing inequalities.
11. Facilitate Youth Entrepreneurship in the Bioeconomy
Develop a clear and supportive regulatory framework that simplifies the process for young people to launch bioeconomy-related enterprises. Complement this with accessible mentorship programmes that offer hands-on guidance through each stage of business development, from idea to implementation.
Help us spread the word! Share this feedback.
Signatories
Feedback for the upcoming EU Bioeconomy Strategy
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/position.png 250 250 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2025-07-23 15:20:352025-07-25 14:05:30Feedback for the upcoming EU Bioeconomy StrategyEU Future Vision for Agriculture and Food
By Harveet Purewal and Ippokratis Tsevrenis, YEE Youth Scientific Advisory Board Members
Environmental conditionality: A risky trade-off
One theme identified by the European Commission in the Vision is the need to “cut red tape and simplify the current environmental conditionality system”, aiming to make environmental regulations more efficient and less burdensome. Although this approach may give farmers greater freedom to adapt their practices, this does not ensure that these practices will be sustainable.
Livestock farming: The missing commitment to reduction
Moreover, the Vision repeatedly mentions the need to strengthen the competitiveness and resilience of sensitive sectors such as livestock, stating that livestock is an essential part of EU agriculture. We as youth acknowledge the need to make vulnerable sectors such as livestock farming more resilient to ensure that no individual is left behind as part of a just transition. However, this perspective disregards the ever-growing body of scientific evidence highlighting the negative environmental impacts of livestock farming, as acknowledged at COP28 for the first time at the international level, as well as the potential for Europe to become a world leader in alternative proteins as an increasing proportion of individuals switch to more plant-based diets. Although the vision mentions a “new workstream on livestock” which provides an opportunity to create a framework that mediates consumer demand for meat products with the EU’s climate commitments, there remains no commitment to reduce livestock farming in Europe, even though direct livestock emissions account for two thirds of all reported agricultural GHG emissions.
Sustainability and Agroecology: Gaps in the Vision
Furthermore, the Vision itself provides a vague roadmap in terms of concrete steps the Commission have identified to create a more nature-friendly farming system. Within the document, there are no explicit strategic directions mentioned towards a more sustainable agriculture direction with agroecology as a practice that attracts young farmers, only mentioned once. Linked to this, there remains a strong emphasis on CAP within the Vision, however, CAP reforms are unlikely to be sufficient to address the scale of change needed. Plus, there was no mention of ending area-based payments, which are often not results-based and favour large landowners, putting a disadvantage on smaller farms, which may potentially achieve better environmental outcomes. For the Vision to create tangible impacts, it is crucial that the Commission targets the underlying factors that make it difficult for farmers to successfully implement environmentally friendly practices and incentivise practices that lead to actual benefits for nature, as opposed to payments for generic practices.
Failing to attract young people to agriculture
Specifically, as youth, we welcome the Commission’s use of dialogue to ensure that the Vision is inclusive. However, the vision lacks measures on how to attract young people into the agricultural sector. With only 12% of all farms in the EU being managed by farmers under 40, it is crucial that any Vision for the agricultural sector targets the ageing population of Europe’s farmers and effectively attracts young people into the agricultural sector.
Regional decentralisation and the right to stay
The Vision acknowledges and reiterates the “right to stay” in remote regions, yet it fails to quantify or plan research about the desirable approximate population target by region. This can be assigned to member states to come up with certain national decentralisation plans to assess the needs for reinhabiting remote areas, considering each region’s biocapacity and particularities.
Contradictions with the Mercosur Deal
Another conflictual point is the reference of the Vision to fostering locally sourced and seasonal food, matched with shortening supply chains for fairer farmers’ income. Although this ambition is in the right direction from a societal perspective of justice, it is concerning how it clashes with the Mercosur Deal. When it comes to agricultural affairs of the Deal, it foresees an extra 99.000 tonnes of imported beef to the EU with reduced or no tariffs, which can put European smallholder farms at stake, and jeopardise forest areas in Latin America. Besides this, there is well-established scientific evidence that animal farming is a major driver of climate change and its impacts. This is owed to the fact that animal farming contributes more than 50% of the total methane emissions in the EU, whilst significant landmass and water use are required for livestock breeding, compared to alternative sources of protein production. In light of this current reality, not everyone is equally responsible. In fact, according to Eurostat findings, smallholders (that is, farm properties smaller than 5 hectares) represent 40% of the total holdings, equivalent to just 6% of the total agricultural land. On the other hand, 52% of the agricultural land is controlled by large farms (i.e., properties equal or greater than 100 hectares), representing only 4% of the farming population. Having all that in mind, the Mercosur Deal contradicts the Vision both from a societal and environmental standpoint: it compromises smallholders both in the Mercosur and the EU blocs, ultimately disregarding the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) which mentions that “States shall formulate […] public policies […] to advance […] sustainable and equitable food systems” and shifts part of the environmental and climate footprint -associated with cattle farming- to Mercosur, without essentially reducing the net volume of red meat production.
Non-Formal Education: A catalyst for change
As young people, we benefit from lifelong learning and non-formal education opportunities through the EU-funded Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps (ESC) programs. We believe that these programs besides their contribution to the development of soft and transversal skills for youth, are also vital for promoting practical training and sector-specific hard skills, getting to know how food grows, which factors foster or impede a successful yield, as well as its nutritional value in an age where a growing number of young people loses touch with these natural processes, and concurrently health-related issues due to poor nutrition are on the rise. These programs can also act as ambassadors of EU policymaking, since they often raise awareness about EU legislation, via non-formal education and interactive approaches. Therefore, it is pivotal that young people get the chance to receive lived experiences on sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices through these programs. Lived experiences through engaging non-formal education programs can foster a transformative change and spark young people’s interest and curiosity in agriculture-related occupations, enabling a multidimensional set of solutions for the revitalisation of EU rural landscapes, with ecologically and socially innovative ventures that strengthen the EU’s food sovereignty and uplift employability.
Way forward: Strengthening competences and financial support
The European Commission has already published several competence frameworks (e.g., GreenComp and LifeComp), showcasing that we are heading towards a world where competences are gaining more prominence, alongside the traditional formal educational credentials. Non-formal education is critical for the promotion of these competences, and, in our case, competences related to the agricultural sector. The consultation on the post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) of the EU is underway. In line with the trends in budgetary increases between the MFF of 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 in the budget share for Erasmus+ and ESC projects, the EU needs to push forward for a further increase that covers both the current inflationary reality and the increased need for skills development that is targeted, accessible, and inclusive for everyone. Delving deeper, the Erasmus+ and ESC 2025 Programme Guides already refer more precisely to promoting chemical-free agriculture projects as enablers of rural revival, confirming what is already outlined in this statement. We hail this trajectory and look forward to its establishment, integrating a more diverse palette of projects, ranging from regenerative agriculture to agroforestry. These programs can further advance the Vision, not only by engaging youth but also by integrating nature-based solutions into agricultural practices.
Help us spread the word! Share this statement
EU Future Vision for Agriculture and Food
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/position.png 250 250 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2025-05-13 11:28:442025-07-23 15:31:49EU Future Vision for Agriculture and Food Summary
What are NRPs?
National Restoration Plans (NRPs) explain how each EU country will implement the Nature Restoration Law and how it achieves its targets for 2030, 2040, and 2050!
What is the problem?
- The proposed format fails to recognise youth participation.
- It does not offer countries the space to connect nature restoration with intergenerational equity.
What are our recommendations?
Youth Participation
- Add a “Youth Participation” section
- Ensure youth voices are documented
- Promote youth-led initiatives
Youth Contributions to Restoration Targets
- Recognise youth-led restoration projects
- Ensure youth have resources to contribute effectively
Intergenerational Equity
- New section: “Consideration of Future Generations”
- Make intergenerational equity a required principle in decision-making
Environmentally Harmful Subsidies
- Public funds shouldn’t support activities that harm biodiversity
- Concrete plans to phase out harmful subsidies
- Alignment with EU biodiversity commitment
The European Commission’s proposed uniform format for National Restoration Plans (NRPs) represents a thoughtful and comprehensive framework to support member states (MS) in achieving the ambitious targets set by the Nature Restoration Law (NRL). Nevertheless, reference to a core aspect that is key to the success of this Regulation is missing: youth. This omission is particularly significant, as young people will inherit the long-term consequences of environmental policies and have a crucial role to play in driving innovation, advocacy, and community engagement for successful restoration efforts. We therefore highly recommend the inclusion of the following:
Recognition of Youth Input in the Participation Process for NRPs
We propose adding a distinct priority under section 2.1, titled “Youth Participation,” within the “Public Participation” section. Young people’s lack of participation in environmental decision-making has been evident in the creation of National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs). However, the NRL, and in particular, the NRPs, offer a valuable opportunity to address this gap by ensuring clear and dedicated participation pathways for young people within the NRL framework.
Following this, and for the purposes of Article 15(3(w)), we recommend more specificities to be added under Public Participation, such as subsections categorising the involvement of different stakeholders and the inputs they put forward. This way, the NRPs could provide a detailed explanation of the views expressed per category of stakeholder. We further recommend the addition of a section detailing the participation methods that the states followed (such as public consultations, multi-stakeholder group meetings, deliberations, etc…) and a short summary of each.
Youth Contributions to Restoration Targets
In addition to youth involvement in public consultations, we recommend that the NRP format include specific sections that highlight youth contributions to project implementation, citizen science, and advocacy efforts for restoration. For example, we suggest adding a new point (e.g., 14.5.5) to the format: “Describe the role of young people in the implementation of this measure.” This inclusion would support the alignment of restoration activities with national environmental citizen service programs or youth environmental corps, ensuring that young people are actively contributing to these important efforts.
Intergenerational Equity
We propose requiring MS to explicitly document how their plans address the rights of future generations. Intergenerational solidarity is recognised as a fundamental principle within the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. To incorporate this in NRPs and contribute to intergenerational equity, we suggest the following:
- Section 4.1.4: Include “intergenerational equity” as an example under “Other potential co-benefits.” Additionally, we support making this section mandatory instead of optional.
- Section 2.4: Introduce a new section titled “Consideration of Future Generations” to emphasize the importance of long-term planning.
- Section 14.3.4: Add a new section titled “Intergenerational Benefits” to highlight the advantages of prioritizing sustainability for future generations.
Environmentally Harmful Subsidies
In addition to Section 4.3.2, which gives an indication of the harmful subsidies that may negatively impact the achievement of the goals set under the regulation, we would like MS to explicitly include what actions are being taken to phase out the subsidies in question. We recommend expanding the section to include Subsection 4.3.2.1 titled “Actions taken to phase out environmentally harmful subsidies not in line with meeting the goals of the regulation”. In a parenthesis, examples can be included, such as “…(e.g. market-based instruments and green budgeting and financing tools)”. A reference to the supportive actions a state takes to phase out the specific subsidies, in line with the NRL Article 15(3(v)), would also be a useful addition to the format. This would also contribute to fulfilling Decision (EU) 2022/591 Art 3(2(h)), according to which MS “shall identify other environmentally harmful subsidies and report them regularly to the Commission”. Incorporation of more information about environmentally harmful subsidies in the NRL would therefore have multiple positive effects. In support of the latter, we would also like to draw attention to Recommendation 9 of a joint CSO statement on the EU budget for biodiversity, which calls for the harmonisation of the identification of environmentally harmful subsidies, and of a reporting mechanism. Lastly, we would like to draw attention to point 3.2 of NAT/926 of the EESC’s own initiative opinion titled “A comprehensive strategy for biodiversity at COP16”, which highlights the urgency of phasing out environmentally harmful subsidies for the purposes of biodiversity governance.
Help us spread the word! Share this statement.
This feedback was jointly developed by
Learn more about the EU Nature Restoration Law
National Restoration Plans (NRPs) are a cornerstone of the Nature Restoration Law (NRL), outlining how Member States (MS) will implement the regulation
YEE and other youth organisations have sent this letter to European Parliament Members, ahead of the plenary vote on the Nature Restoration
Join us and over 200 NGOs and ask your decision-makers to adopt a solid and urgent implementation of the law that can
Feedback on National Restorations Plans’ format
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/position.png 250 250 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2025-02-07 15:23:032025-02-20 09:43:59Feedback on National Restorations Plans' format
As a youth-driven environmental NGO, our mission has always been rooted in transparency, accountability, and solidarity. After careful deliberation, we have made the decision to leave X (formerly Twitter). This choice reflects our commitment to aligning our actions with our values and taking a stand for ethical digital spaces.
X’s current environment no longer supports meaningful engagement or equitable advocacy and remaining in the space would only lend credibility to a platform that actively undermines principles of transparency and accountability—principles core to our mission. Staying would require us to divert valuable resources into a platform that is increasingly misaligned with our purpose.
We are leaving X as a political statement and an act of solidarity with others who are advocating for responsible and ethical alternatives. We remain steadfast in our mission and will continue to amplify our voice on other platforms where we can engage meaningfully.
We invite you to follow us on other platforms and subscribe to our newsletter to stay connected as we continue to fight for a just and sustainable future.
Why we left X
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Leaving-X-.png 417 417 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2025-01-20 06:03:292025-01-20 07:02:22Why we left X Green light to wolf hunting in Europe: youth, science and civil society go unheard.
As young people, we are beyond baffled to see that European countries support lowering the protection status of wolves in Europe, paving the way for increased wolf hunting in the 21st century. After almost a year since the Commission’s proposal to downgrade the wolf status in Europe, the final vote has been cast, flushing decades of conservation work, money and science down the drain. And, once again, it is us, young people, who will face the consequences of this unscientific and irresponsible decision.
On December 3rd, at the 44th Standing Committee Meeting of the Bern Convention in Strasbourg, the proposal to downlist the wolf was welcomed with a staggering 38 countries voting in favour. We must also acknowledge the following countries for opposing this proposal, voicing their concern regarding the evidence presented (or lack thereof), and noting the troubling precedent this decision sets: The United Kingdom, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Monaco, Albania and Montenegro. We urgently call upon these same countries to again voice their opposition before this decision comes into force in 3 months and for others to join them.
Fearmongering, hate and the spread of misinformation in Europe seem to have become common in narratives around conservation. Coexistence measures and modern technology, in which many young Europeans are now involved, are effective means of reducing human-wildlife conflict across the continent, and this is what European institutions should promote.
It is disconcerting how easily the European Union has ignored repeated calls to reason by citizens and scientists alike, in favour of political interests. Even today in Strasbourg, interventions made by multiple NGOs present as observers in the 44th Standing Committee Meeting went ignored (Pro Natura, Birdlife International, Born Free Foundation).
Full statement
The fact that wolves are now present in nearly all EU member states is in no small part thanks to conservation efforts and the legal protection provided by instruments like the Bern Convention. This proposal to lower the protection status of wolf populations can’t be justified based on current scientific evidence relating to the threats wolves still face. In addition, for wolves to effectively fulfil their ecological function, they must persist in ecologically sufficient numbers. Current data also indicates no notable increase in livestock damages or public safety risks caused by wolves since 2022. When a proposal to lower the protective status was brought to this committee.
The Swiss proposal in 2022 to downlist wolves I am referring to, was rejected by the Standing Committee, based on a report by the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE) highlighting the conservation status of European wolf populations at the time. The LCIE again released a statement on November 13th expressing their concern and highlighting what seems to be a cherry-picking of scientific evidence in the current proposal.
In justifying their decision to vote against the Swiss proposal the EU said the following, and I quote.
“Based on current data, lowering the protection status of all wolf populations is not justified from a scientific and conservation point of view. The conservation status of the species remains divergent across the continent, with a favourable conservation status assessment in only 18 out of 39 national parts of biogeographical regions in the Union. Continuing threats to the species, including emerging ones such as border fences and wolfdog hybridisation, also call for maintaining the strict protection status.”
This begs the question, what has changed 2 years since? The answer is virtually nothing. At least as far as the wolves are concerned. What has changed however is the political climate.
So, the European Union’s current decision to propose downlisting wolves appears inconsistent with its earlier stance. The same arguments that prompted the EU to oppose the Swiss proposal two years ago remain relevant today, raising concerns about the rationale behind the EU’s shift in position.
In light of ecological reasoning and prior political commitments, the proposed downlisting of wolves threatens to undermine the progress made in their conservation and sets a troubling precedent for future proposals for downgrading the protected status of other species in Appendix II. Given the fact that the convention does not set out specific science-based guidelines for such an action.
Downgrading the protective status of the wolf will make it easier to implement lethal control measures which are already being implemented with questionable reasoning. The science is clear on this, the decision to kill, legally or not, individuals of a protected species, such as wolves, risks diminishing their perceived value and undermining conservation efforts. As a young person from a country where most of my generation did not grow up with these amazing animals, this is not the right step toward coexistence with large carnivores, and nature as a whole, I want to see.
This move, which makes the wolves scapegoats and will not fix the struggles of rural areas finding it difficult to coexist with these animals, not only jeopardises the ecological functioning of European ecosystems but also sets a very dangerous precedent on how fragile European laws and democracy are in front of lobbying by few.
As European youth, we hold all relevant decision-makers accountable for this grave backsliding in European conservation law. We call for the return of scientific reason and intergenerational fairness on the decision-making table. We wish to see this decision not to be applied in EU law, and to be reversed as soon as possible.
Read the first youth position here.
Help us spread the word! Share this statement
Signatories
Statement on lowering the protection status of wolves
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/position.png 250 250 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2024-12-04 11:57:002025-02-07 15:27:26Statement on lowering the protection status of wolves This manifesto, created by young advocates, calls for transformative change in the textile industry by 2050. It envisions a future where textiles contribute positively to environmental and social wellbeing through new principles focused on culture, production, and communication.
Core Themes:
- Textile Cultures: Moving towards a model of ownership based on reciprocity and transparency, rooted in sustainable practices and mutual respect across cultures.
- Textile Production: Emphasising circular, non-toxic processes, fair labour practices, and extended product life cycles to reduce waste and promote high-quality, sustainable products.
- Textile Communication: Advocating for transparent, honest, and inclusive communication that eliminates greenwashing and empowers consumers.
Background:
This manifesto emerged from the Youth Forum on Sustainable Fashion Consumption, supported by the UN Environment Programme and EU policymakers, underlining young people’s role in reshaping the textile narrative. It’s a call to action for policymakers, industry, and consumers to collaborate on a just transition.
Help us spread the word! Share this manifesto:
Supported by:
Youth Manifesto for Systemic Transformation in Textiles
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/position.png 250 250 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2024-11-14 12:50:442025-07-23 15:31:52Youth Manifesto for Systemic Transformation in TextilesOur 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.
