kuopio 2015 - resolution booklet

Kuopio 2015Regional Session of EYP Finland

Resolution Booklet

Kuopio, Finland

6th - 8th November 2015

Kuopio 2015 – Regional Session of European Youth Parliament Finland

General Assembly, 8 November 2015



Programme of the General Assembly 08:00 Opening of the General Assembly 08:30 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety 09:15 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs 10:00 Coffee break 10:30 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Culture and Education 11:15 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy 12:00 Lunch break 13:00 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs II 13:45 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Development 14:30 Coffee break 15:00 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs I 15:45 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality 16:30 Closing Ceremony



Procedure of the General Assembly

General rules

The wish to speak is indicated by raising the Committee placard. Each committee may use only one Committee placard.

The authority of the Board is absolute.

Procedure and time settings

1. Presenting of the Motion for a Resolution

2. Presenting of the Friendly Amendments

3. Reading of the operative clauses

4. Three minutes to defend the Motion for a Resolution

5. Three minutes to attack the Motion for a Resolution

6. One minute to respond to the Attack Speech

7. General debate

8. Three minutes to sum up the debate

9. Voting procedure

10. Announcing the votes

Friendly Amendment

A last-‐‑minute modification to the Motion for a Resolution by the Proposing Committee. Amendments are to be handed in to the Board at least two Resolutions before the Resolution in question, or as soon as possible for the first Resolutions of the General Assembly.

Point of Personal Privilege

Request for a Delegate to repeat a point that was inaudible. Failure to understand the language being spoken does not make for a Point of Personal Privilege.

Direct Response

Once per debate, each Committee may use the Direct Response sign. Should a Delegate raise the sign during the open debate, he/she will immediately be recognised by the Board and given the floor as soon as the point being made is concluded. A Direct Response can only be used to refer to and discuss the point made directly beforehand. If two or more Direct Responses are requested at once, the Board will decide which Committee to recognise. In this case, the second Direct Response shall only be held if it can be referred to the first Direct Response, so on and so forth.



Point of Order

These can be raised by the Chairperson if a Delegate feels the Board have not properly followed parliamentary procedure. Ultimately, the authority of the Board is absolute.

Defence Speech

One member of the Proposing Committee delivers the Defence Speech from the podium. It is used to explain the rationale of the overall lines of the Resolution and convince the Plenary that the Resolution is worthy of being adopted. This speech can last a maximum of three minutes.

Attack Speech

An individual Delegate from a Committee other than that proposing the Resolution at hand delivers an Attack Speech from the podium. It reflects an individual opinion and is used to point out the flaws of the approach taken by the Proposing Committee and should propose alternative solutions. This speech can last a maximum of three minutes.

Summation Speech

One or two members of the Proposing Committee deliver the Summation Speech from the podium; the microphone can only be passed once. It is used to summarise the debate, respond to main, selected criticism and to once more explain why the chosen approach is the most sensible. This speech can last a maximum of three minutes.



MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY

THE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH AND

FOOD SAFETY

Harvesting a sustainable economy: how can the EU promote the transition from the linear “Take, Make, Dispose” model to a circular model of economy that aims to

eradicate waste through careful design?

Submitted by: Wahid Bin Reza (FI), Lilja Kanerva (FI), Katri Markkanen (FI), Arttu

Mäkinen (FI), Liam Wiheri Redmond (FI), Selma Repo (FI), Tuomas Vanhala (FI), Naomi Foale (Chairperson, UK), Kristen Rosario (Chairperson, SE)

The European Youth Parliament,

A. Deeply concerned that the “Take, Make, Dispose” linear economic model is not sustainable as it does not easily recover or feed back resources efficiently and safely into the environment,

B. Aware that many businesses follow a linear model to reap short-‐‑term profits despite the environmental and financial long-‐‑term benefits of a circular model,

C. Deeply conscious of the economic burden a circular economy places on small-‐‑ and medium-‐‑sized enterprises (SMEs) given the upfront costs of making the transition,

D. Bearing in mind that the transition from non-‐‑renewable to renewable energy sources requires significant changes to businesses’ infrastructures and is both expensive and complicated,

E. Taking note of lack of awareness amongst consumers concerning the circular economy and its benefits,

F. Realising that the short life span of electrical and white goods is wasteful and inefficient;

1. Requests that the Directorate-‐‑General for the Environment (DG ENV) establishes a support

mechanism that provides financial support to companies transitioning to a circular economy, with the amount of financial support dependent on the annual income and size of the company;

2. Suggest that the amount of financial support increases according to the success of the transition and is paid back once the circular economic model becomes profitable;

3. Calls upon DG ENV to propose a Directive with targets regarding energy sources, including:

a) a one percent annual reduction in the use of non-‐‑renewable energy sources per annum,

b) a one percent annual increase in the use of renewable energy sources;



4. Urges the European Parliament and European Council to agree on the allocation of an increased proportion of the EU budget towards the Horizon 20201 project to further stimulate research into and the development of energy sources;

5. Authorises the European Environmental Agency to initiate a media campaign promoting the benefits of products created using the circular model and including celebrity endorsement;

6. Encourages DG ENV to create a strategy that Member States may implement in order to introduce the concept of circular economies into their national curricula;

7. Demands the extension of warranties on electrical and white goods in order to encourage companies to develop products with a longer life span.

1 Horizon 2020 is the largest EU Research and Innovation programme with nearly EUR 80 billion of funding available over seven years (2014 to 2020).




THE COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS

Research in motion: with barriers in place hampering reasearcher mobility and foreign researchers’ access to national grants, how can Member States work together to create a

more open labour market for research?

Submitted by: Juulia Jääskeläinen (FI), Juulia Kuusimäki (FI), Siina Matihaldi (FI),

Teresa Njugura (FI), Pinja Pesonen (FI), Jesse Saapunki (FI), Lassi Savolainen (FI), Ella-‐‑Maria Palkoaho (Chairperson, FI), Anja Todorovic (Chairperson, RS)


A. Bearing in mind that the lack of cooperation between the Member States prevents the creation of an open labour market and free mobility of Human Resources in Science and Technology (HRST),

B. Confident that an open labour market can benefit individual Member States’ economies and the attainment of common EU goals,

C. Deeply regretting that Horizon 20201, the European Research Area (ERA)2, and EURAXESS3 have not succeeded in breaking down barriers hampering researchers’ mobility and access to national grants,

D. Convinced that cooperation between Member States is hampered by disparities in:

i) existing legislation,

ii) economic situation,

iii) education systems,

E. Deeply concerned that such disparities affect the accessibility of national grants to non-‐‑native Member States’ citizens,

F. Observing that cooperation between Member States has led to a brain-‐‑drain effect4 taking place in less scientifically developed states,

1 Horizon 2020 is a financial instrument of the European Commission that aims to provide grants to all researchers both with in and outside of the EU. 2 The European Research Area is a project of the European Commission, which aims to build an open labour market. 3 EURAXESS is a pan-‐‑European platform created by the European Commission which aims to share information, data and job vacancies among researchers. 4 The brain-‐‑drain effect is the term used to describe the outflow of researchers to other countries in order to have better career opportunities.



G. Believing that Member States’ self-‐‑interests may hamper international scientific cooperation,

H. Recognising that Member States do not take into account the merits of international scientific cooperation in national law-‐‑ and decision-‐‑making;

1. Encourages the Directorate-‐‑General for Research and Innovation (DG R&I)5 to develop and

implement strategies to achieve the free mobility of HRST through existing programmes and platforms, such as:

a) Horizon 2020,

b) ERA,

c) EURAXESS;

2. Has resolved to reduce the educational gap between Member States by requesting EURAXESS, the ERA and research institutions to introduce extracurricular programmes;

3. Urges the ERA to spread information regarding the advancement of ongoing research to achieve increased transparency with the general public and to better inform decision-‐‑makers;

4. Calls upon the DG R&I to facilitate closer cooperation between and mutual benefits for Member States in terms of scientific research by providing extensive assessments of Member States’ policies in this field.

5 The Directorate-‐‑General for Research and Innovation (DG R&I) is a department of the EC that focuses on research and innovation and emphasises the importance of researcher mobility and scientific research.




THE COMMITTEE ON CULTURE AND EDUCATION

The key to innovation? How can the EU build on platforms, such as Open Education Europe, to further stimulation research, practices, and the use of innovative

technologies in online and offline education?

Submitted by: Sara Hoxhaj (FI), Eetu Hyvönen (FI), Anni Karhunen (FI), Jonna Keränen

(FI), Noora Koivisto (FI), Anni Manninen (FI), Mirka Nieminen Joensuun (FI), Riina Pesälä (FI), Jaakko Pienimäki (FI), Iuliia Drobysh (Chairperson, UA), Nicola Ortu (Chairperson, IT)


A. Taking into account that it is more affordable for students to attend online courses than usual classes,

B. Bearing in mind that younger generations are considered ‘digital natives’1,

C. Observing that online education offers a wider variety of choices, is more diverse, and more flexible than traditional methods of education,

D. Keeping in mind that the flexibility of online education enables students to work full-‐‑time whilst studying,

E. Noting with concern the lack of interest and open-‐‑mindedness in generations born before digital natives in relation to rapid advancements in innovative technologies,

F. Deeply concerned that 33 percent of European citizens lack the relevant skills to use the Internet2 and have a negative mind-‐‑set towards modern technological appliances;

1. Encourages educational institutions to use online programmes and courses in order to promote

innovative approaches;

2. Requests the European Institute of Innovation and Technology to promote a blended educational system incorporating both online and offline education;

3. Congratulates the Education and Training Monitor 2014 in encouraging training programmes to develop through its assessment;

1 A digital native is defined as a person born or brought up during the age of digital technology and thus familiar with computers and the Internet from an early age 2 European Commission (2012). Digital Competences in the Digital Agenda. Digital Agenda Scoreboard.



4. Recommends that Member States introduce new school training programmes in order to raise the professionality and skills of teachers as regards technological appliances;

5. Promotes cooperation between the European Union and companies within the technological sector in order to facilitate:

a) a wider distribution of technological appliances on a larger scale;

b) competitive and accessible prices for new technologies for educational institutions.




THE COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, RESEARCH AND ENERGY

Paying the price for innovation: how can the EU allocate its funding to research and development, whilst maintaining the independence of scientific research funded by

private actors and organisations?

Submitted by: Lauri Erkkilä (FI), Elias Khabbal (FI), Vilma Sarekivi (FI), Rene Valta

(FI), Henriikka Hakala (Chairperson, FI), Mirjam Pieters (Chairperson, NL)


A. Viewing with appreciation Horizon 2020 as being the most pre-‐‑eminent funding programme of the European Union (EU)1,

B. Notes with concern that in 2013 only fourteen percent of the applications for Horizon 2020 were successful2,

C. Reaffirms the value of investing in research and development (R&D) as the EU’s market stakeholders contend with emerging states’ economies,

D. Concerned that the objectivity of research is compromised by the pressure of specific funding criteria,

E. Alarmed by the difference in the R&D funding allocation between Member States3,

F. Deeply disturbed by the disproportionate funding allocation as a result of racial and gender discrimination in scientific and research institutions,

G. Taking into account the sharpened funding criteria in R&D as a result of current economic and financial crisis4,

H. Aware that research conducted in the public and private sector have a likelihood to overlap;

1 Horizon 2020 has nearly EUR 80 billion of funding available. European Commission, (2015), The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. Consulted on 07 November 2015. 2 European Commission, (2015). The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. Consulted on 07 November 2015. 3 The three countries that received most funds for scientific research (The United Kingdom, Germany, and France) have a combined number of 2725 projects funded, compared to the three countries whom received least funding (Latvia, Serbia, and Slovakia) who have a combined number of three funded projects. European Research Council, (2015). ERC Funding Activities. Consulted on 07 November 2015. 4 European Commission, (2015). Research of the Crisis on Research and Innovation policies.



1. Proposes the reallocation of ten percent of the budget of the European Research Council from advanced grants to starting grants5;

2. Invites actors of the private sector to meet the EU’s objectives and work together to accomplish the goal of conducting research that benefits society;

3. Encourages the introduction of new criteria for allocating funds of Horizon 2020 by:

a) securing the amount of funds to be distributed to each Member State based on their area of specialisation, such as ICT or agriculture,

b) distributing the remaining funds according to the criteria in place;

4. Expresses its hope that research institutions have:

a) a fifty-‐‑fifty male to female ratio,

b) non-‐‑partisan representation of nationality and race;

5. Calls upon representatives of the private sector and Member State governments to cooperate and hold meetings in order to exchange information.

5 The European Research Council has advanced grants for established researches. The grant funds up to EUR 2.5 million for five years. The starting grants are for top researchers with two to seven years of experience of PhD. This grant funds up to EUR 1.5 million for five years.




THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND

HOME AFFAIRS II

The responsibility to protect? In light of increased border controls as a result of human trafficking of refugees between Member States, how can the European Union ensure that refugees do not illegally move between Member States, whilst protecting the

freedom of mobility in the Schengen Area?

Submitted by: Sakari Lintunen (FI), Mimmi Mertaniemi (FI), Roosa Muukkonen (FI),

Sami Pikkarainen (FI), Aada Ruhanen (FI), Elina Mäkelä (Chairperson, FI), Ioana Pop (Chairperson, RO)


A. Fully aware by the refugees who have passed border checks and illegally entered Europe,

B. Noting with deep concern that Member States’ differences in refugee intake create mistrust and moderate cooperation,

C. Keeping in mind that a number of Member States disapprove of the refugee intake quotas imposed on them,

D. Regretting that stereotypes and lack of information has fostered misguided preconceptions regarding refugees,

E. Deeply alarmed that strict border control trigger human trafficking through dangerous channels of transportation,

F. Observing that size, population and economic state of Member States affect the amount of refugees they can reasonably accommodate,

G. Reaffirming the right to seek asylum as stipulated by Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

H. Emphasising that arrival countries do not have the capacity to accommodate the refugees in accordance with the Dublin II Regulation,1

I. Approving the negotiations with Turkey to share hosting of Syrian refugees, return irregular migrants who have entered the European Union (EU), and upgrade Turkey’s surveillance and patrols on the migrant route to the EU,

1 The objective of the Dublin Regulation II is to identify the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application, and to prevent abuse of asylum procedures.



J. Realising the projected number of refugees in Europe by the end of 2015 is one million;

1. Endorses EUROSUR2 to more effectively supervise border checkpoints through thorough

upgrades of security and surveillance;

2. Urges all Member States to accept an even distribution of refugees according to the host country’s size, population, and economic state;

3. Appeals to the European Council to consider an amendment to Dublin II Regulation, removing the obligation of refugees to remain in the country of entry;

4. Calls upon national governments to invest in campaigns raising awareness of misconceptions about refugees;

5. Invites the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNCHR) to implement a supervisory system for humanitarian support to ensure that aid is effectively distributed across all refugees camps;

6. Recommends the European Commission to grant further funds to countries struggling with refugee intake;

7. Invites all Member States to further support the social and educational integration of legal refugees;

8. Calls for continued implementation of the Mare Nostrum Operation3 in securing safe marine passage.

2 EUROSUR is the information-‐‑exchange framework designed to improve the management of Europe’s external borders. 3 The Mare Nostrum Operation was a year-‐‑long naval and air operation commenced by the Italian government in 2013 to tackle the increased immigration to Europe.




THE COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPMENT

Beyond the domestic labour debate: with competitiveness and cheap labour pushing many European clothing and textile companies to manufacture their products abroad, how can the EU ensure that the presence of these companies abroad contributes to

development in an empowering, participatory and sustainable manner?

Submitted by: Nikolas Drosdek (FI), Elias Id (FI), Riitta Lappalainen (FI), Daniel

Niklander (FI), Aapo Tanskanen (FI), Anette Turunen (FI), Armine Khamoyan (Chairperson, AM), Riikka Nieminen (Chaiperson, FI)


A. Taking into account that 70 percent of European Union’s (EU) textiles and clothing are imported from Asia1,

B. Aware that increasing international competition compels European companies to seek cheaper production and compromise labour conditions,

C. Considering the dependence of EU textile and clothing (T/C) companies on consumers’ purchasing decisions,

D. Alarmed that textile and clothing companies disregard the poor working conditions of outsourced employees, including:

i) long working hours,

ii) unsafe working environments,

iii) low wages,

E. Deeply concerned about the lack of binding legislation in most production countries regarding:

i) the rights of workers,

ii) the processing of production waste,

F. Keeping in mind that numerous T/C companies have abstained from international agreements regarding the labour rights and sustainable production;

1 D’Ambrogio, E. (2014). Workers’ conditions in the textile and clothing sector; just an Asian affair? Briefing by the European Parliament



1. Recommends the creation of a garment labelling system promoting companies that are party to international agreements on standards for sustainable production;

2. Encourages multi-‐‑party negotiations for agreements towards a common denominator between the involved stakeholders, such as:

a) EU T/C companies operating abroad,

b) representatives of national governments of producing countries,

c) labour unions,

d) non-‐‑governmental organisations;

3. Endorses the establishment of solidarity and purposive incentives for production countries amending their economic, labour and environmental legislation in order to achieve:

a) more sustainable production,

b) more educated workers,

c) better working conditions in factories;

4. Supports the establishment of an environmental cleaning project assisted by qualified experts, similar to Clean4Yield2 and Clean by Design3, to further support amendments to their legislation;

5. Draws attention to the co-‐‑beneficial sustainable development that can be achieved through the participation of production countries and T/C companies in this project.

2 Clean4Yield is a collaborative research project funded by the EU with experts from sixteen companies and organisations on the topic of large-‐‑scale roll-‐‑to-‐‑roll technology production. 3 Clean by Design is an innovative programme by the Natural Resources Defence Council of the United States to use the buying power of multinational corporations as a lever to reduce the environmental impacts of their suppliers abroad.




THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND

HOME AFFAIRS I

Deterring data breaches in the Digital Age: given the recent weaknesses to cybercrime, what incentives can the EU foster to ensure that companies and citizens safely gain

access to virtual currencies?

Submitted by: Annika Junnula (FI), Jonna Kesti (FI), Valtter Kivinen (FI), Liina

Lohikoski (FI), Anna Perala (FI), Mikael Savila (FI), Iida Taskila (FI), Markus Tiula (FI), Phoebe Dodds (Chairperson, UK), Yannick Léonard (Chairperson, BE)


A. Acknowledging a shortage of employees with digital skills across all Member States of the European Union (EU)

B. Recognising the lack of general public understanding of virtual currencies and cybersecurity,

C. Alarmed by the insecure nature of encryptions of personal data streams that are easily susceptible to outside threats,

D. Emphasising the fragile nature of virtual currencies and the consequent possible security risks,

E. Concerned by a lack of research into virtual currencies,

F. Regretting that the EU loses large amounts of money each year due to tax evasion and avoidance,

G. Bearing in mind the general trend of moving in the direction of virtual currencies;

1. Recommends that Member States introduce a programme for recruiting former hackers to test

cybersecurity;

2. Endorses the education of the general public about cybersecurity by:

a) suggesting that universities offer up-‐‑to-‐‑date courses,

b) allocating funding for free courses on virtual currency at adult education centres,

c) introducing the idea of virtual currency in basic financial education at primary school;

3. Suggests the implementation of an official research programme on an EU-‐‑wise scale that would provide information for the general public on the risks and merits of virtual currencies;



4. Expresses its hope that encryptions of all private data when using virtual currencies are updated on a regular basis to reduce the susceptibility to data interception;

5. Invites Member States to hold national surveys to gage public support or lack thereof for virtual currencies;

6. Encourages the granting of more extensive rights to intelligence agencies of Member States to keep track of the use of virtual currencies for tax evasion and tax avoidance;

7. Proposes that large1 corporations dealing with public transactions and using virtual currencies be required to employ a minimum of one cybersecurity expert.

1 For this purpose of this resolution the Standing Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs I defines large corporations as companies with 200 employees and over.




THE COMMITTEE ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS AND GENDER EQUALITY

The deficit in research and innovation: with the EU falling to meet its goals of a more equal gender representation in leading public sector research positions, how can the

EU ensure gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research?

Submitted by: Juhana Jämsén (FI), Noora Knapp (FI), Katariina Kokkonen (FI), Veera

Koukka (FI), Roger Lundberg (FI), Joona Mäkinen (FI), Riina Remes (FI), Nea Tuovinen (FI), Melissa Forss (Chairperson, FI)


A. Noting with deep regret that leading positions in public research are dominated by men, with women representing 33 percent of public sector researchers in the European Union (EU), despite representing 47 percent of today’s PhD graduates1,

B. Having examined studies that prove gender equality increases financial performance, research quality, and innovation,

C. Further noting that great differences persist regarding the studied subjects and their respective gender balances2,

D. Deeply concerned that the stereotypes developed at an early age affect study choices and later employment resulting in unequal gender representation in research,

E. Observing that stereotypes of male dominated and female dominated subjects are especially strong in academia,

F. Concerned by the fact that women are less likely to access Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) research fields that are male dominated due to:

i) unequal non-‐‑transparent and non-‐‑regulated recruitment,

ii) funding processes of public research institutions,

iii) fear of social exclusion in male dominated study and work environments,

G. Acknowledging that conservative gender roles stop women from pursuing a career in academics and research,

1 Directorate-‐‑General for Research and Innovation (2015). Gender in Research and Innovation. She Figures 2015. 2 Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects have the lowest female presence according to She Figures 2015.



H. Aware that the inequalities in social policies within and between Member States have an impact on women’s family and career decisions;

1. Affirms the need for equal gender representation in public research to improve and create competitive research and to stimulate innovation;

2. Urges the Directorate-‐‑General for Justice and Consumers (DG JUST) to develop and put into action a transparent application and recruitment procedure of positive discrimination to help an under-‐‑represented sex to apply for fields dominated by the opposite sex, including:

a) a point system favoring the under-‐‑represented sex,

b) the number of points given according to the level of under-‐‑representation;

3. Supports the initiation of Member State campaigns that spread knowledge about options and opportunities beyond traditional stereotypes as regards education and employment, as well as promoting academic careers and research opportunities among young people;

4. Requests that public research institutions find role models to show options and opportunities, and to promote academic fields and work from a new point of view in the name of equal gender representation;

5. Recommends DG JUST to continue the promotion of equal gender representation in public research recruitment and funding processes;

6. Expresses its appreciation for the adoption of fifty-‐‑fifty parental leave schemes in Member States in favor of guaranteeing equal chances for employment and career advancement;

7. Encourages the Member States to have and strenghten social policies which allows female employment in research, whilst guaranteeing their social and economic security.

Partners of Kuopio 2015the Regional Session of EYP Finland

European Youth Parliament Finland - EYP - Finland ryUudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki

[email protected]

kuopio 2015 - resolution booklet

Documents