THE

Issue 1 - February 13th, 2014

Topic Articles

editorialTHEPUZZLE

2

Puzzles have fascinated me from a very tender age. For me, the beauty of puzzles derives from the concept of different pieces that ultimately come together, to form and represent something complete. This idea and the help of ten talented contributors shaped the creation of The Puzzle media team.

Weilburg 2014 is only made possible by the dedicated work and co-operation of many different piec-es. Each one contributes individually and collectively to make this session happen. These pieces are not only represented by the president and head-organisers, for there are also the chairs, organisers, journalists and most importantly you, the delegates. By being here, you all have the opportunity to choose how you want to fit into the bigger puzzle that EYP constitutes. EYP itself is composed by a variety of different cultures, ideas and personal backgrounds. Consequently, you may receive tools to grow in many different aspects and people to accompany you along your way as EYPers.

The aim of this media team is to not only to compile and collect the different moments that will take place in the next three days. Throughout our product and EYP journalism, we moreover wish to spark on you, thoughts of self-questioning, critical vision and mutual development. Having said that, it’s now your turn to choose what you want to make out of this opportunity; which piece of Weilburg 2014 do you want to become? •

Juan Estheiman Amaya (ES)

contentTHEPUZZLE

SEDECULT

AFCO IIAFET

AFCO IECON

EMPL IEMPL II

INTA

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Peace versus Peaceby Seraina Petersen (CH)

Without Common Effort, the Crisis Will Turn into a Disaster by Caroline Widmer (CH)

Single Supervisory Mechanism - the next medicine for the Eurozone?by Iina Lappalainen (FI)

Silent Cry for Participationby Emilijo Jazxhi (AL)

Moral Justification, Trade Relations and the EU-China Cooperation Planby Veronika Datzer (DE)

Euroscepticism: death of the EU?by Barlas Türkyılmaz (TR)

What will be the future of European farmers?by Giulia Bandera (IT)

Looking for the Green Lightby Panagiotis Chatzistratis (GR)

Hard Times for the Youthby Can Elvanlıoğlu (TR)

3

•••••••••

topicTHEPUZZLE

three4

PEACE ver sus PEACEby Seraina Petersen (CH)“The number and complexity of serious internation-

al crises is growing and changing; their impact on many parts of the world is becoming more severe”, said Catherine Ashton (High Representative of the EU and Vice President of the European Com-mission) in Brussels last December, further high-lighting the importance of collaboration in fields like crisis response, conflict prevention and hence peacekeeping. She was talking to representatives from all over the world, but her words certainly carry a claim towards her own European Union.

In a time where the EU is struggling to uphold its legitimacy but is, dominated by the NATO –which is steered by the globally paternalist US; calls for a common military have increased. Yet the EU has remained inactive in the face of internation-al challenges of the last years, like the humani-tarian crises of Libya and Syria. It seems like the European institutions are clamped between their own willingness to demonstrate presence and national actions jeopardising exactly the union that should have been shown. In the case of the Libya conflict, for example, the European Council had approved a military operation, which howev-er never came into action; instead, separate inter-national coalitions intervened, predominantly of US, UK and France, while much of the operation was also under the helm of the NATO. A similar inertia seems to have gripped the EU concerning more recent crises, even though these have shift-ed closer towards the EU, like the events in Syria and Ukraine.

Not that necessary institutions were lacking in the EU – especially since the Treaty of Lisbon (2009), a number of organs and actions have been creat-ed. Said treaty explicitly states that “The common security and defence policy shall include the pro-gressive framing of the common defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the Eu-ropean Council, acting unanimously, so decides” (Art. 42).

The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) is the EU’s base for unifying certain external re-lations, merging member states’ actions into a common strategy of the bloc. The unified fields include a branch for a common Security and De-fence Policy (CSDP). The cooperation is limited however, and especially when it comes to com-mon defence strategies, member states are un-willing to let go of this part of their national sover-eignty – because still today, much of a countries’ autonomy is defined by its military institutions.

Since its birth, the European Union has sought to solidify its legitimacy as a power bloc by unifying its de-fence and security strategies. Like in many other policy areas, legislation and regulation has increased in recent years and a number of common institutions have been set up. However, while Europe’s armies are

far from unified, the question arises whether building up militaries and improving armament is a legitimate recipe for peace.

four5

PEACE ver sus PEACEby Seraina Petersen (CH)

Under the CSDP, civilian as well as military Head-line Goals were drawn up, and the European De-fence Agency (EDA) is destined to encourage cooperation and is indeed funded jointly by EU members. Then again, military operations are not covered by the EU budget either and need to be complexly co-financed by what is called the Athe-na mechanism. Hence, claiming that the EU is not taking steps towards a single army is incorrect, but what actually comes out of these institutions is indeed a fragile policy and only connected by a thin thread of collective action.

The most feasible and visible action to come out of joint EU legislation are the so-called “EU battle-groups”. These 1500 personnel strong stand-by army divisions are based on multi-nationality and could therefore be called an EU force. Aimed at crisis response, these troops however can only be conducted with approval of the UN’s Security Council and are hence not entirely “European”.In the end, one must come to the conclusion that so far, any efforts towards a common European army have been well-intentioned, but little suc-cessful. One obvious reason is the reluctance of member states to let go of the reins over their mil-itary and their power to intervene independently. What is more, the NATO as a cold-war institution is still dominating security and defence policy in Europe, even though the circumstances have fun-damentally changed since 1949. Today, “NATO” and “common European military” essentially are antonyms, because the latter has been proven to have no chance of existing as long as the former one still stays in place.

Would the abolition of the NATO alliances real-ly demand a new military institution in Europe? Protecting sovereignty and legitimacy of the EU bloc, spreading democratic and humanitarian values and ensuring respect of human rights are all well-intentioned. In this age, are these values not exactly representing the opposite of military interventions? Would it not be cynical to set up an army after being awarded the world’s most prestigious anti-war decoration? After all, what Europeans should have learned after forty years of cold war is that “peace” and “army” are another pair of antonyms. •

Since its birth, the European Union has sought to solidify its legitimacy as a power bloc by unifying its de-fence and security strategies. Like in many other policy areas, legislation and regulation has increased in recent years and a number of common institutions have been set up. However, while Europe’s armies are

far from unified, the question arises whether building up militaries and improving armament is a legitimate recipe for peace.

SEDE

three6

topicTHEPUZZLE

WITHOUTCOMMON

CRISISDISASTERWILL TURN INTO A

EFFORT THE

by Caroline Widmer (CH)

Europe is facing a dramatic economic crisis. Sev-eral measures have already been implemented which led to tensions and protests amongst the population. Up to now, the European Union did not get out of the crisis. This is why new strat-egies have to be introduced that rely on the soli-darity of European citizens.

Every European citizen tends to agree that the Eu-ropean Union is in an economic crisis and some-thing must be done against it. The widely-spread opinion is that the European Union as an insti-tution, or the national governments should find measures to get out of the crisis. These institu-tions have already put up fiscal reforms and aus-terity measures. Both were highly criticised. Citi-zens did not believe these policies to be the right way to react. The attitude of shifting responsibil-ity off to third persons, the European institutions or national governments, is among reasons for persisting economic crisis.

As a result, a new strategy needs to be adopted: The potential of solidarity and patriotism of every single citizen must be mobilised. European peo-ples have to feel responsible in order to solve the economic crisis. Without a change in attitude, it is unlikely that there is a solution to the crisis.

A problem that the European Union faces is tax evasion. For instance, in 2013, Germany lost 40 billion Euros because of frauds. This phenome-non is not only known in Germany, for it is spread around whole Europe. Consequently, the govern-ments is losing money, therefore has to increase taxation. This way, the whole population of a country is affected, which often leads to social

“ A problem that the Europe-an Union faces is tax eva-sion. For instance, in 2013, Germany lost 40 billion euro

because of fraud.

”

four7

tensions and conflicts. We need to rely on soli-darity and patriotism. People will realise that their offence harms the state and therefore, they will turn themselves in.

Unemployment has risen dramatically during the last years. For example in Spain, more than 55 per cent of the population, younger than 25, have no jobs. Nevertheless, companies prefer to em-ploy professional foreigners rather than people from their own country. The high unemployment rate is a huge challenge for the state as most of the jobless obtain unemployment benefits. This seems to weaken the state economy. However, companies prefer to work in an environment of a well working economy. By employing people of their own country instead of foreigners, firms can decrease the unemployment rate in their country and improve the economic situation of the state.

Not only rich people or company owners have to support their country, but in fact all citizens can contribute to changes. Organisations which are built up by community service should be estab-lished and give all Europeans the possibility to interact.These are only a few different prospects for how solidarity and patriotism will mobilise enormous powers, which can be the key to solving our cri-sis. Solidarity and patriotism include confidence between citizens, between different nations and between citizens and the European Union. These elements are going to be the real fundament of the correct attitude. Getting ourselves out of the crisis will build up even more confidence. With

CULTthe proposed strategy, we can talk about confi-dence together with solidarity and patriotism as the currency of the future. •

three8

topicTHEPUZZLE

EUROSCEPTICISMthe death of the EU?

Amongst the toughest issues faced by the EU is Euroscep-ticism. With this phenomenon spreading over Europe and raising questions in the minds of citizens, how can the eurosceptic thought be approached by the EU? Our very own Barlas Turkyilmaz gives a brief introduction to the topic and comments on the stance of European countries.

Critics claim that critical thoughts regarding governing agencies will ultimately improve the condition of our lives. Criticism is an el-ement of democracy and is necessary for a well-functioning government. Like any other political institution, the EU has received and continues to receive criticism for its policies. This criticism seems to be much more ag-gressive than before called “Euroscepticism”.

The foundation of Euroscepticism is that fur-ther integration weakens individual states. Others criticize the policies applied by the EU during the economic crisis, or the Eurozone. Some people believe that the EU is too bureau-cratic or undemocratic. Furthermore, they be-lieve their nation without the EU would benefit.

According to Aleks Szczerbiak and Paul Taggart (University of Sussex), there are two kinds of Euroscepticism: these are called hard and soft. Soft Euroscepticism can be defined as merely political opposition. The existence of a union is not criticised by soft eurosceptics - on the con-trary, they support the European Union and their states’ membership thereto. Some policies of the

EU are criticized, and the idea of a federal Europe is repudiated. In short, soft eurosceptics oppose further integration and some EU policies. Being more extreme, hard Euroscepticism opposes the idea of a union completely, and any action taken by it. They believe their state is better off without the EU and that the EU leads to a dem-ocratic deficit throughout the continent. Being a hard eurosceptic party, the UK Independence Party even wants their country to leave the union.

The recent Eurobarometer polls have shown a great decline in trust of citizens into the EU. Compared to 2007 data, there has been a

four9

AFCO IIsharp decline in every single major Member State. In Spain, the trust into the EU has fall-en from 40% trust to 50% distrust.The severe drops in trust were recorded in Greece and Spain, where the Euro crisis hit the hardest.

It is not a coincidence that the sharp fall in trust has occurred at the same time as the econom-ic crisis. In my point of view, the decline in trust has its roots in the crisis, and the approach taken by the EU may be criticised. However, the leaders of the EU opted to further integra-tion and cooperation. The European nations themselves went through hard times during the crisis, but it were the pan-European poli-cies that caught the spotlight and the criticism.

On the matter of integration, I am convinced that the European nations always needed and will need each other to be able to thrive and suc-ceed. Disagreements between European states have previously escalated very quickly whereas forming a stronger union would pave the way for mediation. Even though there are people and leaders criticising the EU, claiming that it should come to an end, Europe must continue on its way forward to economic growth and success.

These days are hard for many who are living in Europe and many are shook by the economic crisis. But it needs to be emphasised that the necessary steps are taken by the appropriate

European institutions, which is helping states to recover fully. Without a union, neither institu-tions nor countries could bail states and corpo-rations out of their debt. During the crisis, fur-ther cooperation was needed to keep the union alive, which was implemented at short notice.

There are steps to be taken by European lead-ers, too. The parliamentary system of the EU could be further strengthened, for example with measures for better voter turnout or easi-er voting procedures. Politicians have to gain the trust of their electorate. Without mutual trust between government and electorate, gov-ernance makes little sense in the first place.

Euroscepticism is truly dangerous to the exis-tence of a great union which is probably going through its hardest days right now. After this dry spell, the union will most probably return to its previous circumstances. But if Euroscepticism continues to stand, it could be the one thing which will lead to the dissolution of the EU. To prevent this, urgent steps need to be taken very quickly. •

three10

topicTHEPUZZLE

Moral Justification, Trade Relations and the EU-China Cooperation PlanThe European Union and China have signed the Cooperation Plan in Agri-culture and Rural Development, lead-ing to an increase and simplification of trade bonds. Yet, bearing in mind Chi-na’s working standards in contrast to EU’s it remains uncertain whether this Cooperation Plan constitutes bilateral benefits including all citizens.

by Veronika Datzer (DE)

By means of globalisation, advancing tech-nologies and facilitated mobility the world has come closer. Lately, international rela-tions and transnational problem solving have provided answers to the necessities and du-ties of the 21st century, hence further endors-ing interdependence amongst many nations. In 2012, the European Union, assembling 28 member states and more than 500 million cit-izens, signed the Cooperation Plan in Agricul-ture and Rural Development with the People’s Republic of China. This agreement, advanc-ing EU-China trade relations and their interde-pendence, raises issues regarding production standards, food safety and, majorly its effects

on the political stability of and the relation-ship amongst China and the EU. Would it be morally justified to neglect factual issues of human rights abuse for the sake of economic bonds?

The Cooperation Plan in Agriculture and Ru-ral Development purports the trade relations between China and the EU. It expresses both parties’ strong interest in deepening their bi-lateral cooperation in the fields of agriculture and rural development. It emphasises joint action concerning issues such as food safety, climate change and sustainability. Conclud-ing, the intensified trade relations amongst China and the EU may secure and facilitate al-ready established trade relations. In addition, the plan expands to further purposes such as the preservation of rural territories. Accepted justification for this cooperation is the rising trade interdependence, and a similar reliance on agricultural export by both parties. Indeed, action has been taken in the course of the cooperation plan, for instance with projects promoting food safety and animal health. The Cooperation Plan represents a new step with-in the bilateral approach of China and the EU.

four11

AFETWhat complicates the Chinese-European cooperation and thus a genuine implemen-tation of the cooperation plan is the diverg-ing perception of the working circumstances and production standards. “Made in China” is a stamp, whose rejection seems to have reinforced amongst Europeans due to the revealing instances of dehumanising work-ing standards. In fact, Chinese workers do have very few rights: extra hours are seldom paid, the working conditions expose to entail health-threatening potential and the wages only constitute a fraction of what is earned in-side EU borders. EU workers are legally relined by EU standards as these determine industri-al safety. Furthermore, extra hours are to be paid. By law, the European Union is a union of values and is therefore obliged to stick to its own ideals of equality and fairness. The co-operation plan tends to expose these working rights and ideals to be irrelevant within inter-national trade relations. Concluding, it is du-bitable whether the European Union can mor-ally justify the Cooperation Plan: Not only are the inhumane working conditions neglected, but as a matter of fact, the EU benefits from the misery of others.

Secondly, being a socialist country which seems to advocate socialism, China’s polit-ical stability raises severe questions. Euro-peans feel attached to human rights such as democracy, freedom and human dignity. To the contrary, the current conditions in the People’s Republic of China distinguish highly from what in Europe taken for granted. Free-dom of the press, unlimited access to Internet and the right to freely decide upon the children that one wants to have, are rights which are claimed to be natural and irrevocable. China however, does not offer these human rights and deteriorates the citizen’s conditions by means of constant surveillance and threats of death penalty.

In conclusion, the agreement’s explosive na-ture is not only based on Chinese working conditions or political factors. To negotiate with an undemocratic state could bear pos-sible hazards. Apart from the rather negative issues of working conditions and political sta-bility, it should be noted that the conditions of human rights implementation in China is advancing. In fact, by means of the Coopera-tion Plan this process can be maintained and fostered. Indeed, bilateral openness towards each other’s civilisation is an unknown terri-tory for both, the EU and China. Admittedly, the cooperation plan reveals to be a trilemma: Taking action may conflict with EU ideals. Contrarily rejecting cooperation might imply serious tensions to EU-China diplomatic rela-tions. However, to take no action at all will not solve current issues and necessity of intensi-fied sustainability and food supply. Therefore, the only solution is a precise and highly accu-rate cooperation plan which does not conflict with human rights. •

three12

topicTHEPUZZLE

SILENT CRY FOR PARTICIPATIONAmong the main aims of the European Union will always be the representation of its citizens. In fact, their voices shall be reflected in any decisions adopted by European institutions. Yet, the undisputed credibility of the European repre-sentative democracy, if it ever was existing, seems to be long put into question: The European citizens wish for more participation and are aware of the fact that the credibility of the European representative democracy has been dubita-ble ever since.

by Emilijo Jazxhi (AL)

Since the implementation of the Treaty of Lis-bon on the 1st of December 2009, EU citizens are directly represented through the Euro-pean Parliament (EP) and indirectly via their national governments through the Council of the EU. In the course of Lisbon 2009, nation-al parliaments have been provided with more acting space, and democratic transparency has enhanced. Especially the EP’s role is en-suring the EU to be accountable for its citi-zens. Nevertheless, many Europeans seem to believe neither the EU nor the Euro to be greatly benefitial.

In order to provide these benefits through-out a transparent representative democracy, Eurosceptics have suggested national refer-endums on the ratification of each Treaty to be held. Although they were rather popular in the past, opposition by many critics has aris-en. Actually, only citizens of some member states are approached and therefore, the ref-erendum appears to be rather undemocratic. Citizens of the other member states ought to be contented with the approval of their representatives. Furthermore, critics argue that international political treaties are rather complicated legal agreements that cannot be fully understood by ordinary citizens of each Member State. Having mentioned these argu-ments, referendums cannot easily solve the democracy issue.

National leaders, especially the Italian prime minister, fear the citziens’ disbelief in the EU which could possibly manifest itself in the 2014 EP elections. Throughout these, Euro-sceptics are believed to win up to one-third of the seats in parliament. The clear increase in scepticism towards the EU might be further based on the fact that most of the money for bailouts derives from national parliaments, not the EU. Specifically, the German Bunde-stag approved money for the Cypriot bailout, consequently raising disbelief amongst Ger-mans in EU’s financial structure.

four13

AFCO IThe democratic deficit has existed since the early days of European institutions. Further, with the approaching of the EP elections and the still existing euro crisis, this problem has increased by means of importance and media coverage. Despite of the research done and the multiple solutions suggested from EU an-alysts, there seems to be no clear way leading to the desired legitimacy. Given these facts, some have come up with the idea of creating and developing a truly novel art of suprana-tional art of democracy. This art of democra-cy has its origins from the new literature on democracy, which derives from the combina-tion of different sources of legitimacy in EU’s instutional setup. Whether a development of such art will take place in the near future is still a mystery.

What remains questionable is the actual im-plementation of a fulfilled legitimacy and a highly established democracy. As the Euro-pean citizens are having almost the same weight in shaping the European law indirectly as they have in shaping the national law, they tend to be neglected in their European rights. European citizens are not exactly informed about the mediums they can use to shape European politics, resulting in them believing in their lack of power when it comes to Euro-pean politics. Even though the decision-mak-ing process within the EU is a complex one, being shared amongst many institutions, one may, with good judgement, call for more inter-est from the European citizens in the institu-tions that are shaping their lives. EU believers sometimes represent the ‘democratic deficit’ as a myth propagated by Europsceptics.

The EP and the EC have also been trying to in-crease citizens’ involvement in policy-making through the implementation of different po-litical projects amongst the EU nations. Crit-ics have, however, casted high doubts on the effectiveness of these projects. It lies, in my view, upon European citizens to ask for more involvement, provide significant proof of the efficiency of such projects, decide upon the existence of a ‘democratic deficit and thus play a role in finding the long-awaited, up to now utopian, solution for this deficit. •

three14

topicTHEPUZZLE

SINGLE SUPERVISORY MECHANISM the next medicine for the Eurozone?

The Eurozone has been struggling with the fi-nancial crisis for several years. This crisis has revealed a number of unreasonable risks some banks have caused on the financial markets. Trust in the Eurozone has decreased day by day ever since the debt crisis started to affect the general public.

by Iina Lappalainen (FI)

Due to these negative developments, the Euro-pean Commission proposed the concept of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) which is a supervisory, possibly being implemented on a Eu-rozone level. The SSM is going to be controlled by the European Central Bank (ECB) which would then be responsible for controlling the financial stability of each nation’s most remarkable mone-tary institutions. These control mechanisms are to be accompanied by national officials which further endorse the SSM’s expansion. Joining the mechanism is compulsory for Eurozone coun-tries, but non-Eurozone countries may also join. The latter, however, will not have similar claims to participation as their voting rights are limited.

Despite its theoretical benefits, it remains dubita-ble whether the ECB is able to control over 6,000 banks. As supervising all European banks is un-likely to be feasible, the focus lies on the most significant credit institutions. In fact, if solely re-

garding every participating country’s three most remarkable banks, the figure of supervised banks could be reduced to 130 in total. Furthermore, the mechanism may still include supervision of smaller institutions in case these recognise a need for it.

Secondly, critics question whether these theoreti-cal plans are feasible on a practical level as gath-ering information about all the monetary institu-tions in the Eurozone in order to supervise them is highly difficult.

Admittedly, the structure of the Supervisory Board reminds of the lack of democratic accountability of the ECB, for it is independent from the EU. Re-garding the establishment of the SSM, the four members of the ECB attending the Supervisory Board could possibly originate from any Euro-zone country. Therefore, inequality between larg-er and smaller countries of the Eurozone might arise. Concluding, national bodies cannot fully identify with the values of the supervising mech-anism; however, it is beneficial for all members to have their own professionals participating in international supervision and thus being updated about the latest Eurozone issues.

The main goal of the Supervisory Mechanism is to secure a stable banking system in Europe and thus raise trust among European citizens. Fur-thermore, it aims to connect the financing mar-kets in Europe.

In addition to the SSM, the Single Resolution Mechanism is attempting to raise funds to cov-er all the actions needed to restore the financial situation.•

four15

ECON

The idea of the SSM has indeed been quite re-cent. As the mechanism is to be launched later this year, the ECB has had to work with a very tight preparation schedule. Due to the upbeat preparations and the large amount of people and monetary institutions involved, the ECB is facing enormous challenges. Some sources mention that the number of new professionals would be around 800. In fact, it is not just about the quan-tity of people, it is also about the quality of their work. It is vitally important for the ECB that all the supervisors are following a similar framework in their supervision.

The system has been criticised due to the already existing role of the ECB. Its main task has been to take care of the monetary policy in the Eurozone, for example by monitoring interest rates. What is more, it has been doubted how an institution han-dling two tasks, monetary policy and supervision, can still remain reliable. The potential conflict of interest is one of the key issues to be resolved while building the new supervising system.

As a conclusion, the year 2014 can turn out to be an interesting one for the Eurozone. The tight schedule has been a challenge for the ECB. What is more, the structure of the mechanism and its practical implementation remain a mystery until the day it is launched. Indeed, what the Eurozone needs is efficient collaboration during the transi-tion period and possible problem solvers like the SSM raise hope for a better future and more sta-ble markets. •

three16

topicTHEPUZZLE

H A R D TIMES FOR THE YOUTHFinding an appropriate job has become one of the hardest objectives of the Eu-ropean youth. Despite that, possible solutions are already becoming more concrete. Can creating a single labour market be a first step towards having more opportunities for our youth?

by Can Elvanlıoğlu (TR)For the first time in its history, the EU has been facing severely high youth unemployment rates. It is currently at a 58% in Greece, 56% in Spain and over 30 % in Italy and Portugal1. This proves that youth unemployment is not a distant and cata-strophic forecast anymore, but a reality for many young Europeans. Since 2008, youth unemploy-ment rates have skyrocketed in Member States. Many things have already been tried and some

are still in the process of solving this problem in many severely affected countries. On the other hand, however, there are countries with relative-ly lower unemployment rates such as Germany (7.4%) and Austria (8.9%2), where there is even a shortage of qualified workers in certain areas.

In the light of the abovementioned facts and the importance of the issue, there are many ongoing discussions that occupy the EU’s agenda when looking for solutions. When it comes to further discussion, it is said that geographical labour mobility can be a strong instrument to promote fast economic adjustment and growth with a common labour market. Hence, as it has already been tried with the enlargement policy of EU. In-creased labour mobility with an integrated labour market might fix the current youth employment problem in EU.

Regarding to the current situation, one can say that the crisis has triggered inequality in the EU labour markets. One of the only ways to re-estab-lish a balance to a regional level is to increase the labour mobility, thus creating a common labour market structure. Regarding employment, look-ing at a country’s development level only is not a valid indicator anymore. This is evident when seeing the 3 percent youth unemployment rate difference between Germany and France.

Labour market rigidity has a big part of respon-sibility on youth unemployment rates. Germany, despite having a very flexible labour market with no minimum wage and special rules to encour-age firms to hire young employees, has the low-est youth unemployment rate in EU-28. Thus, the youth unemployment rates in EU are not related

four17

EMPL Iwith development rates. In this same line, oth-er parameters also regard Germany’s excellent management of youth employment compared to other Member States.

In a hypothetical case with a high European inte-gration and a sense of belonging to a common identity, economic convergence would inevitably also take place. On the long term, this actually seems feasible, since from the 90s, we have ob-served a vigorous growth and strengthening of the EU. Thus, a common labour market is nec-essary to rebalance the employment situation in the MS, in order to get rid of problems such as skill mismatch and the creation of stable jobs. This will not necessarily, but most probably lead to more countries implementing flexible labour markets and therefore creating employment.

The migration issue definitely adds a certain complexity to the problem. The free movement of labour is one of the four basic pillars of the European Market. However, according to Euro-pean Commission (EC) there is still the need to overcome legal administrative and practical ob-stacles to exercise that right. It’s also counterpro-ductive that at a national level migration can be seen as a threat that needs to be controlled. As well, for some Member States the migration is-sue is more sensitive, especially for the ones who do not want to lose sovereignty in certain policy areas regarding border control. A well-structured labour market system with a similar flexibility could be a solution, if the previously mentioned obstacles were to be overcome.

Consequently, youth unemployment is not a problem that can be underestimated anymore. In addition it will get even worse unless an urgent action is taken. Right now it’s impossible to say what the best solution would be. Yet, encourag-ing mobility among citizens to create a common labour market within a more integrated EU defi-nitely seems like a first step. •

three18

topicTHEPUZZLE

Looking for the GREEN lightRegarding today’s generations by means of the outlines of their de-sired future jobs, only few would choose agriculture and farming. This is an alarming issue that we will be called upon to give an answer to. Yet before getting there, some things are worth to be mentioned.

by Panagiotis Chatzistratis (GR)

Since the very beginning of evolution, the most important thing for human beings was their own survival. In order to do so, there is only one way: Living in harmony with the principals of nature. Therefore, the peoples had to take advantage of anything that was available for them. Conse-quently, they cultivated the land, ate fruits or veg-etables and used the seeds. This constitutes a very early concept of farming: Humans saw what the earth can offer to his creed and thus, they gradually learned how to take advantage of it. This exemplifies the importance of farming and how much it has contributed to our survival.

However, not everybody considers farming as such. As the years have passed, humanity has rapidly and radically evolved. The industrial rev-olution and the technological boom of the 19th and 20th century have presented a world beyond any expectation and imagination. Yet, each revo-lution has its victims and its negative effects. And in this case, we see that this one had a serious effect on people’s lifestyle. The dominance of the machines and the new opportunities that were given in the big industries brought many people to urban cities which were thriving, taking them away from rural areas. For each kind of service, technology was responsible from now on. Au-tomatism, the industrialisation and capitalisation

of the economy and the big factories came up rising. A result, however, was a serious loss for small enterprises that could not easily compete with the big ones. Taking these into consider-ation, one can easily conclude that most people would not be willing to take on farming as they would consider it a lost case.

Getting back to the 21st century however, these beliefs reveal not fully be realistic. So, let’s get things started! Nowadays, when someone makes a search about farming, he comes across a sad realisation that the farmer society is ageing. Ac-cording to statistics, one can see that only 6% of farmers is younger than 35, whilst the one third is over 65. This situation presents the issue of the lack of generational renewal in the agricultural

four19

EMPL IIsector. In fact, there is a shortage of entrants in the agricultural sector, while the old farmers do not retire and continue their work and life in their farm, having, a lower production. At this point, one may quickly think that these two facts have com-pletely no connection to each other. In fact, it is until to understand that the one is a consequence of the other: Young farmers face many barriers in order to enter the agricultural business. It is quite difficult for a young person to have a stretch of land of its own and the necessary capital to sup-port his or her production.

Also, when a person chooses to become a farmer, this decision is accompanied by an entirely differ-ent lifestyle which highly distinguishes from the urban one. As the years pass, farmers begin to get accustomed with this way of living, few want to retire and abandon their farm-homes. Conse-quently, young farmers are confronted with the shortage of exits from the farming section, which makes it even more difficult for them to enter the business. This situation of the ageing farmers has been characterised as an age-related crisis in agriculture which leads to a dead-end as there are no new chances given to young farmers, while the elderly ones cannot live up to the mar-ket expectations.

The EU and many other constitutions have tak-en action in this direction in order to tackle this issue. In specific, the renewed Common Agricul-tural Policy (CAP) introduces the Measure 112: Setting up young farmers and in this way propos-es tactics to support young farmers by means such as subsidies. Also, the EU-wide campaign is currently implemented: Future Food Farmers are a clear demonstration of the fact that there are people in the EU, willing to take on farming. Furthermore, there are multiple ways to take part in the agricultural industry and support farming, such as agri-tourism which increases the sector’s appeal to younger cohort.

As seen, agriculture can be a sector of great inter-est for Europe’s youth as long as governmental action is taken for the enhancement of its infra-structures and that getting involved in agriculture is simplified for young farmers who may intro-duce their pioneering ideas. All in all, there must be a balance between the younger and the old-er generations so that the one can harmonically take the place of the other and modern perspec-tives are be given to agriculture. •

three20

topicTHEPUZZLE

What will be the future ofEuropean farmers?Countrysides more important than just for their nice views. In a con-tinent that receives most of its income out of the tertiary sector, agriculture’s economic value has been forgotten. Is a sustainable ag-riculture really possible in Europe? Is the Common Agricultural Poli-cy the solution or a problem itself?

by Giulia Bandera (IT)The Common Agricultural Policy (introduced in 1962 as the agricultural policy of the EU) was im-plemented both to improve agricultural produc-tivity and to ensure EU farmers a reasonable in-come for their labour. It is a partnership between agriculture and society and therefore amongst Europe and its farmers. The CAP entails trade re-strictions by means of custom and import quo-tas which are specifically designed to limit the entry of non-EU produced food into the EU. Sub-sequently, it constitutes an obstacle for foreign producers selling their goods on the European

market by imposing tariffs on them.

The CAP has been widely criticised for its tenden-cy to restrict the importation of foreign goods, which consequently eliminates an important source of income for some developing countries. In fact, many developing countries highly depend on their agriculture exportations. According to the FAO , the main source of income of 70% of the world’s poorest countries is agricultural la-bour. Due to the subsidies in the CAP, preventing the exportation of agricultural products to the EU, developing countries’ economies suffer.

Controversy about the CAP’s intervention policy further expands because of food prices being artificially raised within the EU. Import tariffs (18 - 28%) are in fact kept high by restricting compe-tition of the non-EU producers. Farmers respond to these rising prices, by increasing their produc-tion. Secondly, although the new payments fo-cus on environmental measures, many farmers found that without these payments their busi-nesses would not be able to survive.

Thirdly, critics claim that the CAP benefits large-scale producers instead of helping small ones. Subsidies rather tend to benefit large farms. In fact, before 2004, the CAP’s objective was to promote a large expansion of agricultural pro-duction. This led farmers to employ ecologically harmful ways of increasing production. Environ-mental the environmental consequences of the CAP then also became highly criticised. As a re-sult, agri-environmental projects are amongst the main aims of the current farming policies.

Importing food also has an impact on the en-vironment. Transporting food by plane, ship,

four21

INTAor land vehicles contributes to the emission of greenhouse gases. Also, the production of food may have negative effects on the environment. Some argue that increasing importations would not have enough positive benefits for the Europe-an agricultural sector. In the same argument line, others say that importations increase CO2 emis-sions due to expanding transportation. For these reasons, the EU provides farmers with financial assistance to adjust the farming methods and systems that help them cope with the effects of climate change and with the incentives to work in an environmentally friendly manner.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that farmers are of crucial economic importance to rural areas, many young people do not see farming as an attractive activity. This translates into a drastic change in the amount of occupied farmers in the last years. As an answer to the decreasing interest in agri-cultural labour, the CAP helps young people to get started in farming by granting funds to buy land, machinery and equipment. The aim of this is to encourage younger generations to get involved with farming and ensure continuity of this tradi-tion. In fact, farming is not only a very important economic activity in rural areas but a vital source of income for the whole continent.

Bearing in mind that the EU is the world’s biggest importer of food (importing close to 60 billion euro worth of agricultural products coming from developing countries) and that it is among the world’s most important producers of agricultural products, I think that particular attention should be drawn to its citizens. It must be taken into consideration that the EU is one of the important elective members of the World Trade Organiza-tion. Through the WTO, it helps to maintain a free, fair, and open trading system for all countries of the world. But as already mentioned before, the ultimate beneficiaries of the CAP are the citizens and they usually prefer local and regional prod-ucts due to the reasons said above. Generally speaking, citizens support this policy, consider-ing that everybody hopes for a fairer, greener, and more efficient future. •

Befördert von:

Kompetenz + Energie

StadtwerkeWeilburg