Author: Joris Dietz

  • TRAN

    TRAN

    Committee on Transport and Tourism

    Chaired by Berre Wiels (BE)

    The story of Junta

    Junta was born in a little village in Thailand till on a sudden day a flood destroyed her house. Junta is only one of millions of little kids whose lives are affected by climate change. 

    On the other side of the world you have Finn, a Danish boy living his best life. Finn has been an official member of EYP Denmark for years and thus has travelled a lot. Because trains are too expensive and time consuming, he always goes by plane. Every session, multiple sessions a year. What Finn does not know is that by doing this he was part of the destruction of Junta’s house. Because he did not know any better, he kept living his best life, not realising the impact he was having. This year Finn had to cancel the regional session in Wageningen as he wanted to change his way of travelling. His search for an alternative has not been easy since he does not own a car and train travel is too time-consuming and expensive.

    Introduction

    The European Commission set out the goal to cut 90% of its emissions by 2050 as a part of the Green deal, making the transition to rail traffic inevitable. With rail traffic only contributing to  1%  of transport-related pollution (compared to 71% for cars and 12% for planes), it is a valuable contribution to reaching this goal. A return journey from London to Paris via Eurostar would produce 22kg CO2 per passenger, 91% less than an equivalent flight’s 244kg of CO2. But to actually reach this goal, more people will  have to travel using trains, as they account for only 5,4% of all transportation, while cars account for 87.2%.
    With transport contributing around 5% to the European Union’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employing more than 10 million people in Europe, the transport system is critical to European businesses and global supply chains.
    Multiple institutions operate cross-continental railway travel, such as the Gronau-Enschede line between Germany and the Netherlands, which operates on a local signalling system and other trains that have vehicles which are specifically equipped to run on multiple networks, such as the Saarbahn between Germany and France. However, rail networks across Europe remain underdeveloped. This emphasises the need of a clear integrated European railway network to avoid chaos between borders and to also reduce the general costs, developed by for example the constant change of electrification in each country. Due to the fact that different national networks have been designed with different voltages, this issue arises: international trains must be able to adjust to a wide range of currents, including 750 volts, 1.5 volts, 3 volts, 15 volts, and 25 volts, as well as the difference in gauges, which creates a tremendous problem when travelling across country. 
    Furthermore the amount of subsidisation varies in each member state as the local train companies are under control of the national government, which leads to a variation in railway quality throughout the whole Union.

    Keywords 

    • Rail traffic is the vehicles, passengers, or freight that are moving from place to place by railway. 
    • Rail freight are all goods transported by train.
    • The European Green Deal is the EU’s main new growth strategy to transition the EU economy to a sustainable economic model.
    • Track gauge is the distance between the inside faces of the rails
    • The Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) policy addresses the implementation and development of a Europe-wide network of railway lines, roads, inland waterways, maritime shipping routes, ports, airports and railroad terminals.

    Key Actors and Stakeholders 

    • Consumers/travellers are the people that we need to convince to travel by train. It is they who select among the different options, prices, and travel times.
    • National:
      • Companies like Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen (NMBS)/ Société Nationale des Chemins de fer Belges (SNCB), Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS) and Deutsche Bahn (DB) are private national railway companies who work under control of their local government.
      • Member States design policies to be implemented on the national level. They develop and maintain infrastructures such as roads, railways and ports; promote destinations to tourists, and ensure their safety.
    • International:
      • The European Railway Agency Database of Interoperability and Safety (ERADIS) ensures that the information relevant to the safety and interoperability of the railways in the Member States is accessible and transparent to all interested parties and stakeholders in the railway
      • The European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) is a single European signalling and speed control system that ensures coöperation of the national railway systems, reducing the general costs of the signalling systems, but also increasing the speed of trains, the capacity of infrastructure and the level of safety in rail transport.
      • The European Union Agency For Railways (ERA) divides the technical and legal framework for creating a railway area as mandated under European law.
      • The Directorate-General on Mobility and Transport, one of the offices of the European Commission, develops the EU-policy regarding transport and mobility and is responsible for the programmes that financially support trans-European networks, technological development and innovation

    What has already been done? 

    The European commission has already implemented an action plan on sustainable and smart rail transport, which builds upon the experience from the 2021 Year Of The Rail. The action plan itself focuses on two main pillars: 

    • The full and correct implementation of the existing European Union’s regulatory framework for railways, including the removal of any redundant national rules
    • The removal of obstacles to long-distance and cross-border passenger rail services.

    Regarding the  second pillar, the European Union has announced they will mandate a ticketing system that is accessible for everyone with the same app. Here the example made by Germany, implementing the Deutschlandticket, is crucial in reaching this goal. With the Trans-European Transport Network’s (TEN-T) primary objective to close gaps, remove technical barriers and strengthen social, economic, and territorial cohesion in the EU, their influence will be crucial.  Furthermore the European Union  Agency for Railways (ERA) has established a multi-annual programme, covering the period from 2022-2024. With the main focus being the creation of a single European railway area this is a program that will alter the future of the European railway industry.
    In the longer term, Poland’s Nevomo and Spain’s Zeleros are developing maglev rail systems and scalable Hyperloops. Despite Nevomo’s plans to develop a Hyperloop prototype in the future, they are currently developing a “magrail” system, which could be operational by 2025. With magnetic levitation technology, a train will be lifted off the track and propelled along by magnets.

    What are the key challenges? 

    The key challenges of transitioning to a community where rail traffic is a common medium of transportation will be the modification of the fragmented train network in Europe and the fight against road traffic, but also to raise awareness on the option of night trains as they often give a sustainable alternative for long flights.
    Since freight trains are specifically designed to carry high cargo volumes over a great distance, rail traffic is the preferred method of long distance transportation for businesses. For short distance transportation, road traffic is the preferred method. It also comes with the benefit of door-to-door services. But also the fight against aviation and more specifically passenger flights will be crucial.
    While it takes one and a half hours to fly from Brussels to Milan, it takes the full fourteen hours and a half  to take the train. But what most people don’t know is that the plane isn’t always the cheapest in terms of money. Classic families (two parents, two children) travel cheapest by car. But for someone who travels alone those costs may vary. Travelling from Amsterdam to Berlin by train will cost you between €50-€75, by car it will be around €75. But if you would travel to a closer destination, like from Amsterdam to Bruges, travelling by car (€37) will be cheaper than by train (€44). Even though the prices are almost the same, the time of travelling often determines this decision. Not to say that train travel is the most sustainable way of travelling, therefore we need to change people’s  behaviour.
    Aside from this, the liberalisation of rail companies allowed different private monopolies to emerge for cross-country railway connections. Those monopolies raised the price, which led to less frequent train travelling like back in the eighties. Although the liberalisation of the train companies had a lot of downsides, the liberalisation of the aviation sector made the tickets way cheaper than they were before, this because air tickets are not subjected to VAT or paraffin taxes.

    What now? 

    1. By 2025, how can the European Union (EU) achieve its goals regarding train travel, set out in the European Green Deal?
    2. How can national train companies work together to create an integrated, cross-country network?
    3. How should the European Union (EU) tackle the liberalisation of rail companies?
    4. How can the European Union (EU) take an example of Germany’s ‘Deutschlandticket’ and make train tickets affordable and attractive?

    Further Research

    Articles

    Video’s

    Introductory Clauses to the resolution

    1. Noting with deep concern that only 5,4% of all transportation is done using railways,
    2. Stressing the problem of variety in railways throughout the European Union (EU), by:
      1. having three main types of track gauges,
      2. using different voltages for each member state,
    3. Referring to the difference of subsidisation in each member state,
    4. Aiming to reach a positive effect through alternative approaches to rail liberalisation as in the aviation sector,
    5. Taking into account that the European Commission on mobility and transport have already set out a step-by-step strategy in the European Green deal to cut its emissions,
    6. Further noting the action plan set out by the European Union  Agency for Railways (ERA) with the goal to make long-distance cross-border rail travel more attractive,
    7. Taking note of Germany’s successful implementation of the Deutschlandticket;

  • TRAN

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND TOURISM

    All aboard!: With fuel prices on the rise, trains have become a more viable and sustainable mode of travel. However, due to longer travel times, high ticket prices and a lack of last-mile infrastructure, many Europeans still favour the plane or car over the train. What steps can the EU take to improve and facilitate European-wide railway transportation?

    Submitted by: Naut Bordewijk (NL), Sem de Bruijn (NL), Féline Mac Donald (NL), Natascha Martinez (NL), Tess Tang (NL), Tommie Steenwinkel (Chairperson, NL)

    The European Youth Parliament,

    1. Noting with deep concern that people travelling through Europe tend to choose more polluting transportation options such as travelling by plane or car due to a lack of certain customer inconveniences like inadequate luggage space, facilities,  hygiene, and train capacity;
    2. Alarmed by the fact that European train travel is not always accessible for citizens with physical disabilities,
    3. Aware that the existence of national monopolies on rail travel lead to:
      1. deficiencies in technical and functional improvements,
      2. high ticket prices;
    4. Noting with deep concern that a lack of interoperability hinders the aim of a single European railway area because of:
      1. international train operators needing additional certificates for every Member State they operate in,
      2. Member States mostly focus on their own railway infrastructure instead of cross-border railway infrastructure,
      3. technical differences in infrastructure between every Member State;
    5. Taking into consideration that travelling by train is still relatively slow compared to other transportation options as a result of:
      1. long transfer times,
      2. certain destinations in Europe not being easily accessible or not being accessible at all when travelling by train;
    1. Calls upon the European Commision to create an advisory organ consisting of industry experts and lawmakers advising on:
      1. the drafting of guidelines for and checks on European train companies regarding luggage space, facilities, hygiene, and passenger capacity,
      2. the most efficient timetables for international trains travelling through Europe,
      3. the maintenance and upgrading of railway networks,
      4. create a singular international certificate for conductors operating cross-border trains;
    2. Calls upon Member States to invest in high-speed underground railway networks that focuses on improving last-mile infrastructure;
    3. Calls upon Member States to increase funding for the single European railway area financed through the reallocation of a yet-to-introduce distance-based tax on flights happening within the EU;
    4. Calls upon the European Regional Development Fund to increase funding for research projects on more accessible high-speed trains;
    5. Calls upon the European Commission to increase funding for the accessibility of railway stations in order to:
      1. fit every train platform with at least one customer lift,
      2. equip every train station with luggage drop-off systems;
    6. Calls upon the European Commission to facilitate the creation of a European railway deal between all European train and railway infrastructure companies that aims to:
      1. encourage all prospective railway infrastructure to use the same railway width, and electrical voltage, and implement the railway operating system ERTMS,
      2. encourage companies to reform their existing railway infrastructure to common standards,
      3. encourage railway infrastructure companies to collectively invest in new international railway infrastructure projects.

  • PECH

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES

    Under the sea: Marine biodiversity and habitat loss is an ongoing challenge for Europe’s seas. EU actions have not restored its waters to good environmental status nor fishing to sustainable levels in all seas. What more can the EU do to protect marine life in EU waters?

    Submitted by: Isthea Amoilafoa (NL), Jean-Paul Steinbusch (NL), Jet van der Wilden (NL), Larissa Peters (NL), Peter Schalke (NL), Alice Comoglio (Chairperson, IT)

    The European Youth Parliament,

    1. Taking into account that there are now around 5.25 trillion macro- and microplastics in the ocean which are having a detrimental effect on EU marine populations,
    2. Noting with concern that there are still 3,000 bilge water dumpings a year occurring in Europe’s waters,
    3. Conscious of the destruction of European coral reefs due to various pollutants entering the water,
    4. Acknowledging the existence of aquaculture such as fishing farms, due to the excessive demand for seafood,
    5. Pointing out the existence of projects and laws like Natura 2030, the EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy, and the Nature Restoration Law that strive for the conservation and restoration of marine habitats,
    6. Profoundly concerned that there are fishing practices such as bottom trawling that result in a substantial amount of bycatch and the destruction of large swaths of marine habitats;
    7. Appreciating the creation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs);
    1. Instructs all Member States to limit the use and dumping of plastic products by:
      1. introducing returnable deposits on recyclable plastic items which can be collected at supermarkets or other collection centres,
      2. increasing fines for illegally dumping plastic,
      3. including the clean-up of plastic waste dumped in cities and nature in court-ordered community service;
    2. Calls upon the European Commission to subsidise companies which:
    3. have found technological solutions to clean up the oceans from macro- and microplastics, such as The Ocean Cleanup,
      1. study new plastic materials and their recyclability,
      2. research clean-up methods for oil spills;
    4. Requests Member States to take action against companies which make use of the environmentally harmful practice of bilge-dumping by:
      1. collecting evidence in cooperation with companies such as Skytruth,
      2. prosecuting companies guilty of bilge dumping;
    5. Demands all Member States to follow the guidelines of agreements such as Natura 2030, EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy, Nature Restoration Law, and the 14th Sustainable Development Goal;
    6. Encourages the European Commission to prohibit the use of environmentally harmful fishing techniques such as bottom trawling by 2030;
    7. Invites the European Commission to transition to the acquisition of seafood in fishing farms, cellular-pisciculture, and plant-based seafood;
    8. Urges all Member States to improve the state of marine life in EU waters by creating more MPAs in threatened areas to let marine organisms recover by having an expert team define the areas in need of being protected;
    9. Further urges Member States to limit or ban recreational activity in all MPAs;
    10. Asks the Member States to help people who are directly disadvantaged by the newly created MPAs through:
      1. providing financial assistance,
      2. offering retraining courses.

  • LIBE I

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY COMMITTEE  ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS I

    Journalism under pressure: In recent years, freedom of the press has come under pressure in the EU. With journalists facing threats or even coming under attack, what can the EU do to ensure journalists can work safely and freely?

    Submitted by: Dan Nguyen (NL), Famke van den Dungen (NL), Rahim Hammani (NL), Wies de Ridder (NL), Sofia Giani (Chairperson, IT)

    The European Youth Parliament,

    1. Alarmed by the large number of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs)1,
    2. Aware of the rise in government censorship in some Member States,
    3. Deeply concerned by the growing number of homicides of journalists in the EU,
    4. Disturbed by the increasing harassment and violence journalists in the EU are facing,
    5. Fully believing in freedom of the press as a pillar of liberal democracy in the EU;
    1. Calls upon the European Commission to create an intergovernmental task-force of lawyers aimed at providing legal advice to legal persons2 being sued with SLAPPs; 
    2. Encourages the European Commission to further support the work of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) like the European Federation of Journalists to ensure the safety and health of journalists, increase the trust in and quality of journalism, and counter political interference in the media;
    3. Urges the European Commission to direct funds to NGOs that safeguard journalists such as Reporters Without Borders; 
    4. Requests the Council of Europe to further develop and expand their Europe Platform to Promote the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists with additional guidelines for journalists reporting from ‘dangerous’ environments;
    5. Recommends the Directorate-General for Communication (DG COMM) to spread awareness about the principles stated in the International Federation of Journalists’ Global Charter of Ethics for Journalists through media campaigns;
    6. Reminds Member States to align their actions to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights;
    7. Invites Member States to further fund NGOs that support or help independent media outlets and journalists.

  • AGRI

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

    While current intensive agriculture and farming techniques cause damage to the
    environment, they also provide a livelihood to millions of farmers across Europe. What can the EU do to ensure a green transition and the safeguarding of nature while taking into account the livelihood of agricultural producers?

    Submitted by: Yonis Ali (NL), Anouschka Graaf (NL), Noor Laros (NL), Madelief Oosterveld (NL), Nicolas Vardon (Chairperson, SE)

    The European Youth Parliament,

    1. Conscious that the agricultural industry is one of the largest emitters of nitrogen and methane which are harmful greenhouse gases,
    2. Aware that the agricultural industry represents a significant share of the European economy, consisting of 44 million jobs and 10.5 million farms,
    3. Noting with regret that the maximisation of crop yields1 clashes with the environmental goals set in the European Common Agricultural Policy,
    4. Alarmed by the perpetual decrease in the quality of topsoil, biodiversity, and crops due to intensive farming practises2, 
    5. Seriously concerned by the mismanagement of subsidies towards intensive farming while environmentally friendly and lower income farms are severely underfunded;
    1. Encourages Member States to provide farmers with further education on topsoil-friendly and environmentally-sustainable farming practices;
    2. Urges the Member States to subsidise environmentally-friendly products financed through the reallocation of taxes on environmentally harmful products;
    3. Invites Member States to create financially attractive programmes aimed at incentivising farmers to transition to more sustainable production methods;
    4. Further encourages the European Commission to open a dialogue with representatives of farmers assisted by third-party mediators to provide increased job security;
    5. Calls upon the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) to create a European wide index disclosing whether agricultural products follow environmentally friendly and healthy production standards;
    6. Requests the European Commission to foster transparency on the allocation of agricultural funds through:
      1. the enhancement of the financial transparency system by making it more accessible to the general public,
      2. ensuring farmers utilise their funds appropriately.

  • SEDE

    Committee on Security and Defence

    A European Army: With NATO and the transatlantic partnership having been unstable, calls for more European strategic sovereignty in foreign policy and military matters have arisen. Seeing how Member States like Germany and Poland have already upscaled their military expenditures, how should the EU follow in potentially mutualising its defence ambitions?

    Submitted by: Bobby Blaauw (NL), Tim Hazebroek (NL), Tayma El Yalte (NL), Misha Zwietink (NL), Nikola Pantelić (Chairperson, RS)

    The European Youth Parliament,

    1. Noting the lack of military unity in the EU,
    2. Aware of the high degree of dependence of some EU Member States on non-EU countries or defence alliances, such as NATO,
    3. Conscious of the rising threat of China and Russia,
    4. Taking into account the growing concern amongst EU citizens regarding safety and security,
    5. Keeping in mind that many EU Member States lag behind in military spending when compared to the great powers1,
    6. Draws attention to the vast amount of resources misspent by Member States on a yearly basis on duplicate or incompatible military equipment,
    7. Regrets the lack of a permanent military command structure2 for the EU,
    8. Concerned by the fact that some Member States may resist efforts to unify European militaries due to differing national interests;
    1. Proposes the creation of a unified European military consisting of all 27 EU Member States;
    2. Recommends all EU Member States to implement the agreement made by NATO defence ministers in 2006 regarding an increase of European countries’ military spending to a minimum of 2% of their annual GDP;
    3. Urges the European Commission to decrease duplicate military spending by initiating a common budgeting policy for all EU Member States;
    4. Calls upon the Member States to create a unified governing body in charge of managing the European military proposed in OC 1 which includes all Member States’ interests in its decision making process.

  • ECON

    Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs

    Money, money, money: With the ECB recently increasing interest rates to counter inflation, many Europeans are seeing their savings dwindle while the threat of stagflation looms large over the Eurozone. What steps can the EU take to ensure economic growth and combat inflation while protecting European consumers?

    Submitted by: Ebe Lubecht (NL), Kik Maassen (NL), Madelief van Poelvoorde (NL), Mirte van der Worp (NL), Laura Simón (Chairperson, ES) 

    The European Youth Parliament,

    1. Noting how inflation causes  financial hardship for citizens of the EU, 
    2. Taking into account that current market tendencies are leading to a wage-price spiral1,
    3. Concerned about the decreasing availability of loans for consumers in the EU caused by potentially rising interest rates,
    4. Aware that the European Central Bank (ECB) has been consistently raising interest rates2,
    5. Fully alarmed by the rise of Member States’ national debts,
    6. Recognising the burden that low employment rates inflict on Member States’ economies; 
    1. Calls  upon the European Commission to introduce  a fund for the European Food Banks Federation; 
    2. Urges the Member States to set a price cap for necessity goods;
    3. Further urges Member States to compensate industries’ rising cost of production;
    4. Suggests Member States to introduce a luxury goods tax to finance the costs emerging from OC 2 and OC 3;
    5. Authorises the European Commission to demand  businesses to justify the rise of product prices based on the respective increase in production costs;
    6. Ask the Member States to increase understanding of household finances and economics through:  
      • their national secondary education curricula,
      • additional courses for adults;
    7. Encourages Member States to increase corporate income tax for large corporations;
    8. Seeks the European Commission to start a second temporary support to mitigate unemployment risks in an emergency focussed on countering inflation-inflicted hardship.

  • LIBE II

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY COMMITTEE  ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS II

    Rule by the people: With the European Parliament recently declaring that Hungary is no longer a full democracy, as well as the pressure the judiciary is facing in Poland, what can the EU do to uphold the democratic functioning of its Member States?

    Submitted by:  Pjotr van Aalst (NL), Lina Assalhi (NL), Ciana Kokos (NL), Marc Weenk (NL), Marieke de Weerd (Chairperson, NL)

    The European Youth Parliament,

    1. Emphasising the decline of adherence to the EU’s core values within certain Member States, opening up the possibility of a deterioration of fundamental rights in the future,
    2. Noting with concern the current shortcomings of Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) due to the necessity of a unanimous vote by all Member States,
    3. Deeply disturbed by the violation of human rights in Hungary through:
      1. governmental rule by decree1 powers, which disempower democratic institutions, endanger the rule of law2, and place fundamental rights at risk,
      2. the rise of hate speech against certain minority populations, such as migrants and foreigners;
    4.  Alarmed by the violation of human rights in Poland through, the undermining of the independence of the judiciary, the restriction of the freedom of expression, and the unlawful or arbitrary killings by police forces;
    1. Calls upon the European Commission to initiate a change to the voting system of article 7.2 TEU termed “serious and persistent breach of EU values” from a unanimous vote to a four-fifths majority;
    2. Calls upon the European Commission to initiate the legislation of a “yellow-card-red-card-system” which means that:
      • Member States will receive a yellow card for a maximum of ten years if they undermine a core value resulting in:
        1. the loss of access to financial aid until they have restored their adherence to the core values,
        2. the implementation of economic sanctions amounting to one percent of the Member State’s GDP, being issued three months after the distribution of the yellow card;
      • Member States will receive a red card if they have violated multiple not-coinciding core values leading them to be expelled from the EU for twenty years; 
    1. Encourages the European Commission to guide sanctioned Member States in rebuilding EU core values in order to halt the process of democratic backsliding;  
    2. Appeals to NGOs such as Freedom House and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee to assist the EU’s effort to enforce the adherence to core values in the Member States at risk of breaching them. 

  • DEVE

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE  ON DEVELOPMENT

    Rebuilding Ukraine: Current estimates predict the rebuilding of Ukraine will cost upwards of 350 billion Euros as of September 2022. Meanwhile, EU officials have spoken out for Ukrainian admission into the EU. In what way should the EU support the rebuilding process and shape future relations with Ukraine after the war?

    Submitted by: Isabelle van Hillegersberg (NL), Leah Israel (NL), David Pham (NL), Felix Crawford (Chairperson, NL)

    The European Youth Parliament,

    1. Aware of the necessity to rebuild Ukraine through consistent financial support, both during and after the war,
    2. Gravely concerned about the Ukrainian peoples’ wellbeing, specifically regarding mental health issues and risks,
    3. Further concerned about the displacement of the population, and consequent distress or family separation,
    4. Realising that corruption in Ukraine limits the effectiveness of:
      1. financial support programs,
      2. proper, just and effective governance,
      3. general short and long term recovery;
    5. Regretting the challenges Ukrainian civilians face when trying to leave warzones,
    6. Acknowledging the insufficient housing and care for Ukrainian refugees in the EU,
    7. Conscious of the traumatic consequences of the Russo-Ukrainian war, leaving (mental) healthcare facilities understaffed and underequipped,
    8. Recognising the many different and sometimes conflicting beliefs Ukrainian communities hold, 
    9. Stressing the need for a long-term solution for the destruction caused by the Russo- Ukrainian war;
    1. Demands that Member States ban the spreading of any disinformation about the Russo-Ukrainian war on their state-sponsored media outlets;
    2. Suggests all Member States to further inform their citizens through relevant media outlets about the need for shelter and housing for Ukrainians, the real-time situation in Ukraine, the necessity to create a welcoming space for refugees of war, opportunities to financially support Ukraine and its people;
    3. Invites the Council of Europe to establish a Ukraine Recovery Concept (URC), consisting of both short-term and long-term solutions such as:
      1. easing entry restrictions into the EU for Ukrainians fleeing the war,
      2. more accessible and safer housing in the EU for refugees of war,
      3. governmental support for Mental Health Europe to assist in reducing the risks and effects of mental health problems for Ukrainians,
      4. clear and simple national legislation regarding citizenship and residence permits for Ukrainian refugees,
      5. the provision of long-term schooling opportunities for Ukrainian children;
    4. Calls for the establishment of a council to provide a centralised way of giving structural and monetary support to Ukraine, consisting of representatives from the NATO, the European Bank for Development and Reconstruction, the European External Action Service (EEAS), the Security Council of the United Nations, the G-7, and the European Commission;
    5. Hopes that the Ukrainian government will further work on:
      1. promoting democracy,
      2. the deradicalisation of pro-Russian separatists and other extremists,
      3. the fight against corruption through further investments in their National Anti-Corruption Bureau,
      4. legislation that prevents democratic backsliding or corruption,
      5. meeting the other requirements necessary to join the EU;
    6. Underlines the importance of the reconstruction of Ukraine, specifically focussing on the infrastructure and transportation in Ukraine;
    7. Expresses its hope that Member States will work together with, and utilise the support of the Council established in OC 4;
    8. Encourages all European countries to discuss the possibility for more humanitarian corridors, utilising the Red Cross, EEAS and RescEU.

  • DEVE

    Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Development

    Cities of the future: European cities have increasingly accommodated cars and personal transport. Ideas like a 15-minute city have gained traction in being the future  of the modern city, but high emissions, lack of funding and lack of infrastructure have limited such ideas. How could the EU rethink its urban planning policies while keeping sustainability in mind?

    Submitted by: Cameron Berg (NL), Andreas Carter (NL), Ricardo Fajardo (NL), Felix Gabriel (NL), Yara den Haan (NL), Alice Rossi (IT), Selim Yusuf Urfali (NL) and Simon Hoch (Chairperson, DE)

    The European Youth Parliament,

    1. Aware that cities are responsible for more than 70% of global carbon emissions,
    2. Bearing in mind the rising level of urbanisation, with Europe’s level expected to rise from 75% to 83% by 2050, 
    3. Noting with concern the lack of targeted funds for urban development, as the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) only has a mandatory use of 5%  for integrated urban development,
    4. Deeply disturbed by the lack of targeted Cohesion policy funds for urban development, 
    5. Deploring the lack of common guidelines for urban development in the EU, 
    6. Regretting the difficulty of incorporating every city’s individuality into general guidelines for urban development, 
    7. Acknowledging the importance of involving citizens and local businesses in the transformation;    
    1. Urges Member States to create targeted social media campaigns regarding reduced carbon emissions;
    2. Invites Horizon Europe to increase financial support to start-up companies which promote sustainability;
    3. Encourages Member States to reduce carbon emissions in expanding urban areas by supporting sustainable infrastructure and housing;
    4. Calls upon the Directorate-General for Environment to propose new targets within the European Green Deal to increase sustainability in urban planning of the Member States and oversee their completion;
    5. Suggests Member States to make living in small cities more attractive by: 
      1. investing in improvement of facilities, 
      2. increasing the accessibility to public transport,
      3. making working remotely more accessible;
    6. Calls upon the European Commission to raise the percentage of the minimum mandatory use of the European Regional Development Fund for integrated urban development;
    7. Directs the European Commission to adjust their Urban Agenda for the EU by creating and maintaining general guidelines of urban development for cities to follow;
    8. Supports local urban authorities to still receive funds for fitting individual sustainable initiatives even if deviating from the aforementioned guidelines; 
    9. Suggests municipalities to involve local businesses and active citizens in urban planning initiatives.