1

2

EditorialAnastasia Lvova (EE)

Rebecca Kiiski (FI)

Jaan Kristjan Utno (EE)

EYP is inspiring.

You will find out.

3

Anthony Fedorov (FI)

Jade C. Jimenez Salgado (FI)

Solja Harjusalmi (FI)

Tuuli Toivonen (FI)

Juuli Salonen (FI)

Nelli Vanninen (FI)

Drawings done by Anastasia Lvova

4

The 2030 Climate and Energy Framework

by Juuli Salonen

What is the 2030 climate and energy framework?

The 2030 climate and energy framework is an energy policy document proposed by the European Commission in January 2014. This framework builds on the experience and les-sons learnt from the 2020 climate and energy framework. It does not only have specified short-term goals but also takes into account the long-term perspective of the EU’s 2050 roadmap: reducing greenhouse gas emis-sions by 80-95% below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

Why do we need this framework?

The world will eventually run out of fossil fu-els so we have to have a look at alternative options. Fossil fuels alongside bio and wood-based energy sources also produce emis-sions, which increase the greenhouse effect.

Therefore, renewable energy could play a key role in a greener and safer energy market, but currently only 11% of all energy used in the EU comes from renewable sources.

What are the aims of this framework?

The framework aims towards building a com-petitive and secure energy system, which en-sures affordable energy for all consumers. It also increases the security of the EU’s energy supplies by reducing our dependency on en-ergy imports. This also creates new opportuni-ties for growth and jobs in the field of research and construction. Renewable energy is an op-portunity for new businesses.

What are the main targets of this frame-work?

Cutting greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40%

A centrepiece of the 2030 framework is to reduce the EU’s domestic greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% below the 1990 level by the year 2030. With this target the EU is reaching towards its objective of cut-ting emissions by at least 80% by the year 2050.

To reach the 40% goal, the sectors covered by the EU emissions trading system (EU ETS) would have to reduce their emissions by 43%. The sectors outside of EU ETS area would need to cut their emissions by 30% compared to 2005. The European Council has created principles on how to translate these into Member State targets.

5

The 2030 Climate and Energy Framework

Increasing the share of renewable energy to at least 27%

Renewable energy will be one of the key factors in the transition towards a sustainable, competitive and more independent energy system. The target proposed by the Commission aims to increase the share of renewable energy to at least 27% of the EU’s energy consumption by 2030.

Increasing energy efficiency by at least 27%

The European Commission proposed a 30% en-ergy saving target for 2030 based on the Energy Efficiency Directive. The proposed target builds on the achievements already reached: industry con-sumes almost 20 % less energy compared to 2001 and new buildings use half the energy they did 30 years ago. The European Council, however, has en-dorsed an indicative target of 27% to be evaluated in 2020.

Reform of the EU emissions trading system

By following the 2030 climate and energy frame-work, the EU emissions trading system will be re-formed and strengthened alongside the other targets. The European Commission has proposed to set up a market stability reserve from 2021 on-wards. This could work as an instrument for reduc-ing greenhouse gas emissions by making the sys-tem more flexible and ready for major shocks.

6

Sovereign Debt Crisis What is it

by Jade C. Jimenez Salgado

These three words form a concept that may be quite difficult to fully understand. To grasp the meaning it is important to com-prehend what each word stands for individually. The noun sov-ereign refers to a monarch, queen, king or person who has su-preme power. As an adjective it describes a nation or its affairs acting independently and without outside interference. Debt usually stands for something that is owed and has to be paid back. Finally, crisis denotes a condition of instability or danger, which usually leads to a decisive change.

As such, the term sovereign debt was previously used to refer to the possessions of a queen or king. However, today it indicates the debt of a central government, the debt of a country. Shortly, the national debt will tell how much more does a government spend in comparison to what it receives in revenues over a peri-od of time, often measured annually. Normally, a country’s debt

is controlled through bonds and loans from banks, private busi-nesses or foreign countries. This type of debt can have either a positive or negative effect, meaning that national debt may lead either to economic growth or to crisis, depending on the way in which it is managed.

Comparing a country’s national debt to its annual Gross Domes-tic Product (GDP) could be an effective way of knowing whether a country is managing its debt in a good, or on the other hand, in-efficient manner. However, this cannot be applied to all countries. An exception to this is, for example, Japan whose debt is 227.2% compared to its GDP (2014). In order to prevent crisis, countries tend to set debt limits to maintain their debt to GDP ratio at a lowest possible point without impairing economic growth. For instance, the European Union (EU) has a debt-to-GDP limit of 60% for its Member States.

7

The real problem arises when a country owes much more than what it can generate and pay back. At that point extreme measures of austerity have to be taken. This may lead to social discontent and protest against the government may arise. Such situations hinder gov-ernments’ actions, which are meant to improve the crit-ical economic conditions. Moreover, economic crises tend to worsen due to increasing distrust from inves-tors who cannot be guaranteed to receiv their money. The lack of trust in the government and in banks inter-feres with the economic recovery. Thus, governments frequently find themselves in need of borrowing money from third parties, such as international organisations.

To sum up, a sovereign debt crisis is the result of inef-fective management of national debt or possible reces-sions. Hence, a sovereign debt crisis can be described as “economic difficulties caused by the inability of a state to pay its national debt”. The annual debt-to-GDP of a country gives an idea of how good or bad the econom-ic situation of a country is. Additionally, it is important to recognize that national debt can both benefit and harm the state’s economy. Due to the significant role that national debt plays in a country’s economy, limits regarding debt-to-GDP are usually established. This is much more important in an international organisation, such as the EU since the economic situation of a single Member State will affect the Union as a whole.

8

The Regional Policy of the EU - Benefitting Everyone or Anyone?

by Tuuli Toivonen

The Regional Policy of the European Union is the biggest single expenditure of the EU budget with 351.8 billion eu-ros planned to be distributed during 2014-2020. This money goes to support competitiveness, improve quality of life, sustainable development and economic growth. It also contributes to the aims of Europe 2020. Essentially, it is an invest-ment policy that extends to regions that need the most help, allowing the EU itself to function more efficiently. In practice, it is the European Union’s way of supporting its less developed countries and regions. It is beneficiary to all the Member States seen as part of the aid also goes to the more developed countries. This makes the EU more cohesive and equal. Howev-er, it puts at risk the economic growth of the countries contributing the most.

From artistic chairs in Portugal to a trolley bus network in Poland, the regional policy fund-ing has financed tens of thousands of proj-ects. The funds are split into different cate-gories depending on their usage and goals. The Cohesion Fund, for example, invests in infrastructure and environmental projects, while the EU Solidarity Fund is set to help catastrophe-stricken areas in Europe. The European Parliament and European Council jointly agree on the funding and the proj-ects attributed to different Member States. The European Commission also monitors the projects. To help achieve better transparen-cy, both the Commission and the countries themselves submit reports from the period the programme has been implemented.

While taking a look at the achievements of the regional policy, it’s note-worthy that the GDP per capita in EU’s ctransition re-gions grew nearly three per cent between 2007 and 2010. Between 2000 and 2006 the Cohesion Funds helped modernize in-frastructure with 4700 kilometres of motor-ways and 1200 kilometres of high velocity railroads. Taking those numbers into ac-count, we can conclude that this policy is important for the countries receiving the aid and completing the projects. On the other hand, it is questionable if these are the kinds of achievements that have ac-tually benefited the European Union as a whole.

9

The Regional Policy of the EU - Benefitting Everyone or Anyone?

The goals of the regional policy are clear:

- to extend solidarity to all of the regions of the Eu-ropean Union

- to achieve cohesion in the EU without harming the growth of metropolitan areas

- to benefit all of the regions individually and the European Union as a whole.

In a globalized world however, there are those who argue that cohesion isn’t exactly necessary for the EU to function and its resources should be concen-trated in the countries that keep it running.

The regional policy aims to achieve important goals. However, although progress has been made, the need for funding remains. Since the European Union has grown rapidly to include new areas within the last few years, the need for cohesion is bigger than ever. With the finance crisis upon us, the large amount of recourses spent as a part of the regional policy has been subject to intense debate. What is the future of the regional policy as a whole? Can the funds be allocated more efficiently, or should the funding be taken from somewhere else?

10

A World of Opinions:

RussiansSupporting and Opposing Putin

by Anthony Fedorov

11

For the past year tensions between Russia, Ukraine and the rest of the world have grown exponentially, but so have the approval rat-ings of Putin. The president of the Russian Federation has been criticised for his actions concerning the ‘annexation’ of Crimea and Russia’s involvement in the East of Ukraine. The situation in Ukraine has turned the world into a debating ground over how this situation should be tackled and resolved.

Many westerners are of the opinion that Rus-sian government’s actions are ethically wrong and illegal. In the East, however, people have been torn between siding with Vladimir Pu-tin and calling him ‘an insane dictator’. Those who have sided with the president come not only from the Russian Federation but can also be found in the ex-Soviet States.

To fully understand the opinions about the whole conflict you have to dig deep and place yourself in the shoes of the people who back Putin and believe Russia’s involvement in mili-tary action in Ukraine. Statistics are our friends in this case - the majority of the residents of Crimea are ethnically Russian and a strong presence of Russian speakers live in the east-ern parts of Ukraine.

Putin’s response to why Russia invaded Crimea is to protect the ethnically Russian population. He stated in a press confer-ence that ‘If we would have wanted to in-vade Ukraine we would have done it with-in two weeks’. The assumption is that the president implied having no future plans on invading the ex-Soviet states. The Rus-sians feel the need to protect their kin in Ukraine hence the overwhelming support of the state’s action on the peninsula in Russia.

Russians believe that the recent events in Ukraine have been caused by the countries increasing orientation towards the Western world. They blame the US and say that it is a conspiracy created by American politicians to undermine Russia and put the president personally at a disadvantage. This alleged conspiracy, however, is seen as the reason for growing unity among Russian citizens in supporting the government and Vladimir Putin’s ratings went up from 63% to over 80%.

Russian national media along with politicians say that Russian troops have not crossed the border after Crimea was taken over by Russia. The people fighting alongside the pro-Rus-sian militia are civilians and volunteers. They claim that Russian Federation has stopped advancing further into Ukraine, but it still sup-ports the pro-Russian fighters with humanitari-an aid convoys. The aid is said to be delivered regularly via departing convoys from Russia into Donetsk and other major hotspots where intense fighting continues.

On the other hand, there are Russians who dis-approve of Putin’s tactics and think he is letting Russia down. As of late there was a protest in Estonia where ethnically Russian citizens of the country protested with the slogan that read ‘Pu-tin stop destroying our country’. Keep in mind that not all Russians side with Putin’s policies. When considering the current geopolitical landscape you need to take into account both sides of the story - as mentioned not all Rus-sians agree with Putin’s decisions but the ma-jority have his back. To find the true solution you have to understand both sides of the sto-ry and take into account as many opinions as possible.

12

13

Undermining Democracyby Nelli Vanninen

Democratic deficit describes a situation where there is a lack of democracy at some point of the decision making process. Taking into account that a fair democratic procedure is the foundation of the European Union (EU), United Nations (UN) and western countries, the described situation is obviously a prob-lem. Before 1979 the European Economic Community (EEC), the EU’s predecessor, had no body of representatives directly elected by the citizens of its Member States – it was the national parliaments that decided on the candidates. The Union seemed remote to its citizens even though it started having a big-ger impact on peoples’ lives.

However, in 1979 this structural problem was fixed by establishing elections to the Eu-ropean Parliament. This aimed to give the citizens an opportunity to vote and thereby have more impact on the functioning of the EU. However, the EU still suffers from dem-ocratic deficit but in different form – people are not voting for one reason or another. Since the first direct elections to the Euro-pean Parliament, the voter turnout has de-creased steadily. In the first elections, well over half of the EU’s population participat-ed, but now over thirty years and eight elec-tions later, we have reached an all time low of 42,54 per cent this year.

The European Parliament is the only institu-tion within the EU, which is selected direct-ly by its citizens. It has a significant impact on the EU’s democratic legitimacy since it remains the only institution that represents the people of Europe. This is why it is im-portant Europeans use their vote. The Euro-pean Council, which consists of every Mem-ber State’s leaders, indirectly supports what people think since every head of state has been elected in their own country. However, the European Council doesn’t have any leg-islative power within the EU, so the Europe-an Parliament plays a major role.

Nelli Vanninen clarifies the meaning of democratic deficit: Why has it been a grow-ing problem in recent years and why does it even matter?

14

The underlying problem behind this worrying issue is the growing mistrust towards the EU. In light of the recent economic crisis and the growing concern towards Europe’s safety, the amount of euro-sceptic parties has risen dramatically with-in the EU Member States. Newly woken nationalism and populism has started gaining support from citizens. These are all clear signs that people aren’t satisfied with the EU’s actions anymore. Econo-my wise, the Eurozone’s struggles have affected the citizens’ trust to-wards the EU as well, even though that is a whole different story.

Another major reason for low voter turn-outs is simply the lack of interest and un-derstanding. People feel the EU is distant from them and does not affect their every-day lives the same way their own nation-al government does. For some, the EU procedure seems to involve an enormous amount of bureaucracy without it produc-ing any proper solutions. This might be due to the lack of education and information about the EU. Finnish secondary school provides an optional course about the EU – the history, institutions, decision-making process and pretty much everything essen-tial. The course is available in every single upper secondary school in Finland. Howev-er, the situation isn’t the same throughout Europe. Many Member States do not have any education about the EU and their un-derstanding of the Union might be depen-dant entirely their personal interest. This is quite alarming given that the EU is the big-gest actor in our own legislation after the national government.

If the decision-making process is no lon-ger democratic, it can lead to increased inequality within the EU. It might start creating a vast gap between northern and southern Europe, since the econom-ic situation and the level of education varies between these two regions. This all would happen indirectly and would have more than one reason behind it. However, we don’t want the lack of de-mocracy to be the end of the EU.

That is why something must be done.

15

Refugee Camps: Safe Haven or Immigrant Hell?

by Solja Harjusalmi

Due to a number of conflicts hap-pening all over the world, for exam-ple in the Middle East, more and more asylum seekers and illegal im-migrants have fled to Europe. Over the past year, more than 3000 peo-ple have died crossing the Mediter-ranean. Countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy and Bulgaria, have been hit the hardest by the refugees due to their front-line location. The Dublin Regulation declares that im-migrants must stay in the country they have first entered and this has caused numerous overcrowded ref-ugee camps.

Bulgaria holds over 11 000 asylum seekers and 300-400 refugees arrive in Greece daily. In 2013 over 360 immigrants were killed when two boats sank carrying immigrants to Italy.

Conditions in most refugee camps severely violate human rights. With more immigrants arriving every day, there continues to be less space. The camps are unhygienic and lack hot water, proper food and shelter. The camps have been described as “inhumane, degrading and deplor-able.”

One of these camps is the Bulgari-an Harmanli camp located near the Turkish border. At the moment, Har-manli is a temporary home for over 1,800 people of whom 98 per cent are Syrians. Though the camp is al-ready crowded, the Bulgarian au-thorities constantly send new asy-lum seekers there. Pregnant women and children receive very little nutri-tion and care, and of Harmanli’s 300 children most suffer from some kind of illness. Harmanli has no staff and provides no assistance to the refu-gees.

16

17

One of these asylum seekers stationed in Harmanli is a Syrian woman, Kulstan Kalo, who fled Syria in September 2013 after her son was murdered by ISIS. She along with her husband, sister and three children share a small room with ten other people. The family dreams of moving to Belgium, but only the ones with money are able to leave the camp. Harmanli has been visited by a Euro-pean Parliament delegation to assess the conditions, but Kulstan Kalo com-plained: “They don’t even speak to us. How can they know about the condi-tions when they barely look at us?”

Another resident, Abd Anjalil Bonja from Syria paid 2500 US dollars to get himself, his wife and four children to Bulgaria. Instead of finding a safe hav-en, his entire family has been trapped in the camp. According to Abd, the Bulgarian government has done noth-ing to help them and though the EU has promised to send aid, nothing has yet happened.

Though the conditions still remain inade-quate, The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has provided emergency assistance to ref-ugee camps, especially Harmanli and oth-er camps located in Bulgaria. In December 2013, the UNHCR started distributing hot meals to the people located at the Har-manli camp and relocating people living in tents to unfinished buildings. Plans have also been started for setting up health cen-tres. In addition, the European Commission granted Bulgaria 5.6 million euros of emer-gency aid. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres urged Bulgaria to stay open to refugees instead of turning them away. The problem has certainly been recognized but unfortunately not much ac-tion has yet been taken. With the rapidly approaching winter, improving the camps’ conditions is getting more urgent.

“Conditions in most refugee camps severely violate human rights”

18

THank you to our session partners: