haguen-dazs: farewell issue

Farewell Issue

CONTENTS:

Journalists:Alyona Vyshnevska (UA), Elsa Lund (DE), Erik Müürsepp (EE), George Ross (UK), Oliver Stenbom (SE), Rucsandra Pintea (RO), Siebe Geerts (BE), Yannick Louwerse (NL), Yiannos Vakis (CY), Zuzanna Gil (PL)

Video Editor:Matteo van Dijl (BE)

Editors:Beth Thayne (UK)Tom Wagenhammer (DE)

Editorial 3KRAS 4Accession Aspirations 5Let’s Do It! 6Building Bridges in the European Energy Sector 8The Hague 2013 in Photos 10

C O M M I T T E E A R T I C L E SITRE II & ENVI I: SME-Meltdown 12AFET I & ENVI II: Frack Off, Russia! 16LIBE & ITRE II: In Need of a Renewable Approach 20DEVE & AFEt II: Lending an Energetic Helping Hand 24CLIM & ITRE I: Cutting Carbs for Europe 28

Haguen-Dazs - Farewell Issue3

EDITORIALDear friends,

with the session nearing its close, we’re praying that the rest of our time here doesn’t fly by, although it inevitably will. The session has been utterly incredible so far and we hope you’ve loved every minute as much as we have. We’re look-ing forward to hearing what you’ve got to say in General Assembly over the next two days, and hope that you will draw on the cross-over articles your journalists have written for you − they should provide you with some new angles to consider during your debates.

It’s been an absolute blast so far, and we hope you’ll join us tonight in giving The Hague 2013 the sending off it deserves at the Farewell Party. Take the oppor-tunity to show us that “Young Energy” everyone keeps talking about in the form of some outrageous dance moves. If you can outdance Jan, we will personally bow down to you.

Make sure to stay in touch with the friends you have met here, for some of them may turn out to be friends for life. Who knows, you may even be running Europe together some time in the near future.

Our final words will be those of thanks to the wonderful organising team. The session has run as smooth as a majestic dolphin leaping over waves on a sunny evening in June, and we are ever so grateful to them for their hard work.

Make the most of the rest of The Hague 2013, and when the time comes, safe journey home.

Beth & Tom

4Haguen-Dazs - Farewell Issue

KRAS‘KRAS’. A strange word. It’s Dutch

for ‘scratch’ but it’s also the name of a debating and role playing game that annually gathers more than 500 youngsters aged 17 and 18 from schools all over Flanders, in the north of Belgium. The students assemble to have lively debates about global is-sues.

Every year hundreds of young peo-ple, spread over Flanders, focus on a global theme within a game called KRAS. The theme changes annually and attempts to introduce adolescents to politics and democracy for exam-ple, the KRAS focus last year fell on the topic of children’s rights. To make the participants familiar with the top-ic, they have to crawl into the skin of an international organisation for one year. During this year they have to adopt the point of view of this organi-sation. Consequently, they also have to discuss all issues from this stance throughout the debates.

During this role playing game they are challenged to defend a point of view that may differ completely from their own. Through this procedure they can witness first hand the tensions that can occur within a government.

Between October and May each year, KRAS students from the same re-

gion come together in their free time and discuss the annual topic. Teach-ing them to speak up for their opinion is one of the key purposes of these sessions. These meetings lay the foun-dation of KRAS, whilst the game itself consists of 3 bigger events.

First, an introduction day is held to make the students familiar with the an-nual theme and assigns them to the role they will be working in for the rest of the year.

KRAS believes that using a role playing game will broaden the stu-dents’ view on the theme and to im-prove their debating skills. In May the project ends with a final session in the Flemish Parliament in Brussels where they combine their efforts and create a motion that contains all suggestions and amendements of the participants.

By throwing the students into the heat of a debate, KRAS teaches them to speak up for their own opinions. Every discussion make the participants feel more comfortable with speaking to a crowd, but they also raise their awareness on several domains. Here-by they form a better idea of what politics really is and how global prob-lems are tackled within a government.

Text: Siebe Geerts


ACCESSION ASPIRATIONS

The European Union has come a long way since 1952 and its old title, ‘The European Coal and Steel Com-munity’. Over the last half-century we have witnessed the number of mem-ber states in our union quadruple. It has increased from the original “Inner Six” to the current 28 sovereign mem-ber states, 5 candidate states and 1 applicant state. This change is due to the EU’s enlargement process, which outlines that a country may accede the EU if it meets the Copenhagen criteria of 1993, it is backed by the European Parliament and is approved by all current Member States.

The most recent country to join the EU was Croatia who also holds mem-bership status in the United Nations, Union for the Mediterranean, NATO, the World Trade Organisation and the Council of Europe. However it was only on 9th December 2011 that Cro-atia finally signed an EU accession treaty and thus completed its relevant negotiations.

One of the main reasons this pro-cess took nigh on a decade was Croa-tia’s border disputes with Slovenia which engendered a Slovenian reluc-tance to discuss Croatia’s accession. Slovenia blocked many of the negotia-tions, however this hurdle at the hands of border disputes was overcome with the Arbitration Agreement in Novem-ber 2009. The result of this agreement is that the issue will be handled by, in the words of representatives of Dur-ham University, “an ad-hoc arbitral tribunal” who after approximately 3 years will “reach a decision that will be binding upon each country.”

The end of a decade long process was marked on the 1st July 2013. With many of its obstacles now over-come, after adopting a predominantly accession concentrated foreign pol-icy since 2003, Croatia had finally gained membership status in the EU, an institution it can be proud to call itself a part of.

Text: George Ross


LET’S DO IT!As common as this saying is, it is

usually not binding in any way. Words are being said without being meant. The organisation that this article is dedicated to shows that with enough will power and the support of friends, a simple saying can make a global dif-ference.

“Let’s do it!” is a movement which started in Estonia in 2008. One day, the Estonian people decided to clean up their country and rid it from litter and illegal waste, and they did! In un-der one day, 50,000 volunteers accu-mulated over 10,000 tons of garbage that was scattered around the coun-try. But what was even better - the idea didn’t just get thrown away after this success, but began to spread all over the world.

Other similar movements outside of Estonia started showing up, run mostly by young people determined to take the course of action in their own hands. Most of the regional coor-

dinators are in their 20s, and yet they have managed to set up an enormous-ly connected network. Now, anyone can join and get involved, whether it be by setting up a local committee, joining a clean-up or donating money to the cause. “Let’s Do It! World” now boasts more than 8 million volunteers in 100 countries proving that it is em-powered by everyone who is willing to participate.

The action encourages participation mostly via social networks, turning it into a peculiar game of cleaning. The latter is fulfilled by mapping, that is providing information about illegal garbage through a special applica-tion for all kinds of phones. The aim is to get everyone involved and make them participate in an event bonding every member across the globe – tidy-ing up the world in one day, just as Estonia was cleaned 5 years ago.

Apart from organising clean-up events and spreading awareness through social networking sites, “Let’s do it!” does not fail to provide all the information about keeping the environment clean. Tips, articles and


educational materials are spread via facebook, twitter, and posted on the webpage of the organisation, so that every visitor can grasp the concept of “zero waste” or find convenient ways to limit his garbage output.

“Let’s do it!” managed to get world-wide attention in very little time and proudly claims to be “one of the fast-est-expanding civic movements in the history”. It has managed to gain the support of international partners and companies, and gathers famous am-bassadors, Ian Somerhalder amongst others.

It is heartwarming and reassuring that a simple idea born in the head of a young person is capable of trans-forming into a well-functioning system. It gives me hope; hope that if every “let’s do it” claim was pursued so per-sistently and so amazingly managed, the change all of us wish for so badly would be easier, more pleasant and quicker to obtain than we have ever thought.

Text: Zuzanna Gil


BUILDING BRIDGES IN THE

EUROPEAN ENERGY SECTOR

“The best way to find solutions is together and not in fragmented mar-kets and not in isolation,” EU Commis-sioner for Energy, Günther Oettinger, stated in his speech at the second An-nual Conference of the EU Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) in Ljubljana this spring, refer-ring to a need for cooperation in the European energy sector. Europe and its Member States are still faced with


a number of energy related issues that urgently require the attention of politi-cians and professionals.

The ongoing climate change caus-es worldwide extreme weather events and a shift in the global temperature, and the ever-rising energy prices and shortage of fossil fuels call for a re-shaping of Europe’s energy future. Yet despite the urge and need to move towards a pan-European energy tran-sition, there is little to no consensus within the European Union on how this should be achieved. Efforts to negoti-ate a joint European energy solution are not only beset by many problems, and particularly run the risk of imped-ing individual states, such as Germa-ny, from pursuing their own transition policies.

Innovative and new ideas are there-fore needed to find answers to these important pan-European issuess that will help form the future of the Euro-pean energy sector. The networking organization Young European Energy Professionals (YEEPS) serves as an example for a platform that collects and shares knowledge and experi-ence of young professionals work-ing on energy in Europe. YEEPS con-nects their members through an online blog, programs and conferences all over Europe and therefore enables communication across boarders and companies. These young adults, usu-ally aged between 20-32 years, are

given the opportunity to explore and challenge the European energy mar-ket and work together toward innova-tive and more profitable solutions for a common energy transition.

YEEPS aims to connect young Euro-peans within the energy market to in-crease the overall success for current and future decision makers, compa-nies and individuals by sharing their own ideas and experiences whilst also discovering what others have already achieved or initiated. The ability to learn from others and to combine pos-sible business solutions with others en-ables the YEEPS to facilitate the best possible outcome for everybody. One must add that the YEEPS is still in a development phase, but is very keen to further grow as an organisation. In March 2013 for instance the YEEPS group was invited to visit the RWE in Essen – the main sponsor of our ses-sion – to learn amongst others about RWE’s grid innovation projects2.

Maybe this young generation of professionals is indeed able to rethink Europe’s energy future or maybe not, but one thing is quite sure these young European professionals show that they care about the future of our continent and that is something one should not let unnoticed.

Text: Elsa Lund


ITRE II & ENVI I: SME-

MELTDOWNITRE II

At the start of Committee Work, ITRE II were faced with the question “Should the EU stimulate research and develop-ment into renewable energy sources, and if so, how?” Rather predictably, the outcome of the first question was yes, they should promote research. Who should do the research, though? How do we get them to do it? These were

the key questions the committee had to answer in the next two days. How -ever, within the boundaries the com-mittee set themselves, there are a few questions that I personally felt were left unanswered, and some angles on these issues were missed, especially on the topic of affordability.

The buzzword of day two of Com-mittee Work was “small and medium enterprises”. Apparently, small compa-nies had been chosen to get going in re-search and development. The question as to why it should be these companies rather than larger firms that actually have the means to do such research was not completely answered. One rea-son that was given was that monopolies were a bad thing. It should be noted


however that monopolistic markets are in fact the most innovative of all types of markets. The more competi-tive a market - the ones SME’s reside in - the less innovation. This is espe-cially true with regards to renewable energy research as the product of this research - the knowledge - is of ben-efit to the public. This links to the free-rider problem, which also was not dis-cussed. SME’s have no incentive to do this particular type of R&D, as it costs a lot, and it benefits every player in the market. Also, they themselves ben-efit if someone else does the research. This creates a stalemate in which no one does the research in the end. When I asked where the money that would be allocated to public-private

partnerships would be more efficient-ly used in larger or smaller compa-nies, most ITRE II delegates answered SME’s. However, in general larger companies are much more efficient than smaller ones. This goes for their own money, and the governments. The point was raised that SME’s are smart-er, in a way, but there were no facts or strong arguments for this.

Though this might seem fairly criti-cal of the committee’s performance, there were also many good points, and ITRE II do seem ready for what-ever GA might throw at them. They adapt easily to unexpected points, and genuinely discuss things, slowly convincing each other and converging


on a consensus. This creates a coher-ent and solid background for a strong GA performance.

ENVI I

The Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety I fac-es the challenge of positioning itself within the debate on nuclear energy during this session. In the two days of Committee Work the discussion con-cluded that due to the increasing de-mand for energy in Europe an imme-diate shut down of all nuclear power plants (NPP) would initially lead to a shortage of energy and therefore a dependence on non-European coun-tries. The committee therefore came up with a two strategy solution that on one hand ensures the provision of energy for the near future and on the other hand assures the safety of Euro-pean citizens.

In more concrete terms this means that currently existing nuclear pow -er plants have to be brought to the highest standard possible in order to supply the energy needed, yet the research and development of green

energy needs to be supported and promoted so that in the long-term the European Union will not be reliant on nuclear power.. Still the problem re-mains though that the energy sector is a shared competence within the Eu-ropean Union (EU) and therefore no country is obliged to follow the guide-lines set at EU level. It is clear that all members hold differing stands when it comes to nuclear power plants. Some countries, for example Germany or Switzerland, want to completely rely on green energy in the near future as they believe that NPPs pose a threat to both the people and the environ-ment whereas other countries promote the usage of nuclear energy as they highlight that nuclear energy serves as a sustainable source of energy that reduces carbon emissions and that re-actors using the latest technology re-duce the risk of having to store waste. So which common stance should the EU take that satisfies both proponents and opponents of nuclear power?

The answer to this question was one of the main areas of conflict dur-ing Committee Work as it was clear right from the start that a common ap-


proach for the future should be the final outcome. The delegates agreed that especially in the field of research and development a lot must be done to ensure that renewable energy can provide enough energy for Europe in the future.

Concluding, one can say that ENVI I finds itself in the difficult position of having to take a stance on a very con-troversial topic that directly concerns every European citizen. It will be very interesting to see how this topic will be discussed during General Assem-bly and how the delegates of ENVI I will defend their resolution.

Conclusion

The relationship between ENVI I and ITRE II might not be very ap-parent at first sight, but particularly for ENVI I, a good lobbying round is critical. Since ENVI I are looking for more research into renewable energy sources because they want to shut down nuclear energy in the future, they need ITRE II’s resolution to pass. It is possible, though, that ENVI I are looking for more research by bigger players, which would create the situa-tion in which they agree with the gen-eral direction ITRE II are taking, but

not with the details. In this case, we might very well see this become a key point of discussion in the general de-bate, but with many votes in favour of ITRE II’s resolution nonetheless.

The approach ENVI I has taken so far calls for further research into the field of green energy as they eventu-ally want the shutdown of all nuclear power plants. At present, green ener-gy is not a substantial energy source for Europe and therefore it is essential for ENVI I to rely on high quality re-search into the field of green energy. But what also need to be further de-veloped is the modernisation of ex-isting renewable energy, particularly nuclear power plants as they still pose a risk to the population.

All in all the two committees are more connected than one might as-sume initially and it will be very inter-esting to see how the two will interact during GA. It is always good to find connections between topics as this serves as an ideal base for a heated discussion.

Text: Elsa Lund & Yannick Louwerse


AFET I & ENVI II:FRACK OFF,

RUSSIA!AFET I

Decrease trade between the EU and Russia to twist Russian laws to our will? The Committee on Foreign Af-fairs I have now been faced with this dilemma and is considering it as one of its solutions to the problem they have been given the task of solving. Throughout Committee Work, human

rights appeared to be on the top of AFET I’s priority list, but what are the real consequences of completely shut-ting down energy trade with Russia? Can we supply the energy ourselves or will it just lead to further problems and an energyless Europe because of its will to change the legislation of a foreign country?

AFET I has first managed to high-light the problems of Russia being able to use their energy supply as a political tool and decided that they would rather find a different supplier or produce our own energy. In es-sence, their solutions revolve around being able to force a change in Rus-sian anti-gay legislation by creating a


common European voice and decreas-ing energy trade between the EU and Russia, promoting change. To com-pensate for the energy needed, they are providing a wide range of energy alternatives and opening up trade in new, different ways.

One stance that must be considered in this situation is where the EU’s dem-ocratic values lie. According to a Rus-sian public opinion measuring agency an astonishing 88% of Russians sup-port the anti-gay propaganda law. If the EU is meant to advocate democ-racy, should we be advocating the de-mocracy of the people and respect the will of the majority of the population, or should we deny that and advocate the human right to freedom of speech

and the right to love. Is it even the EU’s job to influence the education, and population of a country which is not a member state?

If we are cutting off trade with Rus-sia because of this violation of human rights, should we not cut off trade with the 11 member states which do not recognise same sex relationships? Or the 7 member states that do not al-low same sex adoptions? What about the 5 member states that have a con-stitutional ban against same sex mar-riage? Are we going to act like true hypocrites and try to enforce legisla-tion in a country that is not our own when we have not even implemented this legislation ourselves?


ENVI II

Meanwhile, ENVI II was confronted with some rather lucrative news: Eu-rope is potentially standing on a fab-ulously ostentatious gold mine. The question is, though, do we frack it or do we frack off?

Fracking – or induced hydraulic fracturing as it is technically named - is a technique in which water, typi-cally mixed with chemicals, is injected at high pressure into a wellbore to create small fractures in underground rock formations. Any fluids, such as gas, released from rock formations flow back to the surface.

Energy-craving Uncle Sam has been fracking away since 2005 with su-

perb benefits for their economy. How -ever, due to concerns over the large amounts of water used in the process, the risk of contamination of neighbor-ing water sources and suspicions of links to earthquakes, the technique has been met with much less popular-ity in our continent. At the same time, though, the product of the process, natural gas, is much more environmen-tally friendly for producing electricity than coal and nuclear (currently pow-ering 38% of Europe) as Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs) released when burned are significantly lower.

ENVI II recognises that no matter how much investment goes into re-newable resources, there will still be a need for non-renewable sources to


power up the European grid at times when weather conditions do not al-low renewable sources to produce at their maximum capacity. As explained in “Watt about the price tag” in our previous issue, generators running on natural gas are the most respon-sive in changing their output at times when green energy is insufficient. This means that even as investment into re-newable sources increases in the fu-ture, the demand for natural gas will remain strong.

ENVI II has decided to allow frack-ing in the EU but to do so under strict regulation to ensure minimum environ-mental damage. The committee wants any fracking in Europe to be defined by outmost safety and to thus estab-lish the use of the technique in the EU as a pioneering global standard for others.

Conclusion

The issue GA will be faced with is how Europe wants to deal with its gas. At the moment, 63% of Europe’s natu-ral gas is imported from Russia. When Europe’s youth comes together to de-bate on trade as well as the environ-

ment, they should keep both the ener-gy as well as the humanitarian aspect of trade with Russia in mind. Do the latest human rights violations in Rus-sia fuel the need for Europe to grow more energy-independent? Should Eu-rope go on a quest for other trading partners or turn towards more domes-tic extraction? Does the current state of EU-Russia relations further bolster the case for fracking?

Combining the course of action called for in the AFET I as well as the ENVI II resolutions, Europe could take a strong stance towards human rights and at the same time increase domes-tically produced energy and in turn become more self-sufficient. Whether this direction is ideal is up to the del-egates to decide, but in either case, the tight link between these topics is beyond question. Whether the EU should avoid fracking for environmen-tal reasons, or ban gas imports from Russia for humanitarian concerns is all up to GA. Will persistence on these goals leave the continent powerless?

Text: Oliver Stenbom & Yiannos Vakis


LIBE & ITRE II:IN NEED OF A RENEWABLE APPROACH

For some it is the answer to Glob-al Warming, for others a threat to their personal property. To reach the 20’20’20 goals, Europe has to invest more in facilities to produce green energy. But to create them we need space, space that is often the prop-erty of European citizens. In the clash between national and local interests, Europe struggles to take action and fails to reach compromises.

LIBE

The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs considered the conflict between national and lo-cal interest as the main problem, but

in a union of 28 member states it’s im-possible to define what these actually are. A clear definition has to be estab-lished in order to reach a compromise between property owners and energy providers. Currently, national inter-ests are often in clash with private property, which makes it impossible to impose a common procedure in all Member States.

But that brought LIBE to their next difficulty. Namely: whose responsibil-ity is it to deal with these conflicts? In situations where national interests conflict with private property, who should have the final say, Europe or its Member States? At the moment, Member States have all power with-out regulations to restrict them. That’s why the EU should have some control in the process in order to safeguard the citizens’ right to property.

Furthermore LIBE agreed that there is a lack of awareness which often re-sults in conflicts that can be solved by simply involving citizens. As property owners, they have the right to partici-pate in the process and have their say


about the matter; it is their property after all. Involving them in the process and making them participate will raise their awareness on the possible ben-efits of renewable energy and may convince them to cooperate.

In most situations, national govern-ments follow a long-term perspective concerning economic growth, and therefore establish energy facilities. However, they frequently forget the disadvantages this may cause for lo-cal inhabitants. The fact is that com-pensations are quite often just not enough, especially considering that Member States want to spend as little money as possible in such situations.

The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs strongly ad-vocate the need for change. In times with decreasing energy fuels, Europe cannot afford to fall behind. Compro-mises have to be made between prop-erty owners and energy providers. By raising the participation and increas-ing the awareness we will be able to sustain economic growth.

ITRE III

Meanwhile, the Committee on En-ergy, Research and Trade III have been discussing how Europe should ensure the efficiency and capability of the energy grid whilst also trying to


meet the Renewable Energy Directive. Aside of this EU objective to achieve a 20% reduction in CO2 by 2020, the European Council has set itself a goal of 80-95% of emissions by 2050. Throughout their expansive discussion some definitive central issues have been identified, these range from the need for a more laissez-faire ap-proach towards energy consumption to the fact that microgeneration tech-nology alone simply cannot quench Europe’s thirst for energy.

An intriguing focal point of ITRE III’s discourse has been that the amount of energy produced by some renew-able sources, such as wind power or solar power, fluctuates depending on environmental factors. For example a wind turbine will produce no energy when the wind is not blowing and on a sunny day a solar panel is more likely to be producing closer to their nominal power output or watt-peak. Geographical factors also effect en-ergy production, for example it is far more difficult for a land locked coun-

try to utilise hydroelectric power in comparison to states which can utilise the tide as a source of energy.

Many of ITRE III’s points were elab-orated upon by Yannick Stomphorst, an analyst working in the department of energy for Essent New Energy, their committee expert. Yannick revisited a lot of familiar ground that ITRE III had touched upon earlier in the day which shows they were heading in the right direction. As well as this, Mr. Stomphorst was able to provide the delegation an expert opinion which further informed their combined argu-ment. He helped them solidify their view that one of the major problems with microgenerators is their logistic feasibility. It is apparent that the tech-nology is best suited for outlying com-munities such as mountainside villages and more isolated housing. It seems clear that microgeneration is not suit-able for large cities.

An insightful comment ITRE III made during Committee Work is that ‘Gov -


ernments have no capacity to dic-tate when energy is used solely how it is generated’. Bearing this in mind brings a new side to the debate: how can the EU combat the fact that they only have control over where energy enters the future energy grid of Eu-rope, not how or when it does. This may very well bring an interesting conflict between laissez-faire and in-terventionist thinking into General As-sembly.

Conclusion

When comparing these two heavily interlinked topics we discovered that both of them focus on the same core issues, namely renewable energy how-ever with contrasting approaches. The central issue that encompasses LIBE’s topic is the right to personal proper-ty and land ownership whereas ITRE III focuses on the technical aspects of our energy grid of the future. Of course, this energy grid has a direct effect on the private land discussed during LIBE’s Committee Work which is where we find this very evident link between these two committees.

Both of these topics make it clear that the current governments of Mem-ber States as well as the European Union as a whole have a restrictive approach towards the development of renewable energy. Furthermore, we witnessed the difficulties govern-ments face when constructing facili-ties to produce green energy. These include the restrictive nature of weath-er dependant technology as well as the price tag of these new pieces of equipment.

Evidentially, due to the interwoven nature of these two European issues there is benefit in thoroughly analys-ing other topics with your own in mind. As we can see here, this allows a new light to be shed on these subjects and when combined, a more comprehen-sive understanding of the matters at hand can be drawn.

Text: George Ross & Siebe Geerts


DEVE & AFET II:LENDING AN ENERGETIC

HELPING HANDDEVE

During intense discussions and a marvellous conversation with an ex-pert from Essent, the largest energy company in the Netherlands, the Committee on Development engaged themselves immensely in debates re-garding the possibilities to promote sustainable energy provision in de-veloping areas, ensuring the effective completion of the Sustainable Energy for All Initiative (SE4ALL) in both inter-national and local areas. Moreover, they attempted to suggest new con-crete solutions to encourage public and private funding.

In order for SE4ALL to be fulfilled, it has to be funded with an extra amount of $678 billion by 2030, which is re-alistically not manageable by the public sector exclusively, especially as the initiative is not legally binding. After a heated discussion, the com-mittee conceded, taking into account the current situation of the decreasing amount of money donated to the Ini-tiative by the EU countries (except the UK), that the initiative should be taken more seriously and, in fact, gain legal boundaries.

Another crucial point that received unconditional support among the com-mittee members was the importance of focusing on the local level implementa-tion of the initiative, rather than on the centralised implementation. The goal would be to ensure that developing countries themselves are concentrated on using sustainable energy. In order to achieve this, their governments should create a positive investment climate and convince investors that the money would be spent appropri-ately. Furthermore, funding from the


private sector would be perceived as even more beneficial, because while members of the public are constantly re-elected, private investors would be seeking long-term investments.

Moreover, the question of proper education definitely can not be put aside. To specify, DEVE is suggesting the creation of a knowledge-sharing bank, where one could find all the necessary information about sustain-able energy and investment possibili-ties.

Another key issue covered was the significance of international coopera-tion with emphasis on China and the

US. Reducing trade barriers towards China would tend to have more rel-evance in supporting sustainable en-ergy. When it comes to the US, it is crucial to make sure that the initiative remains a public agenda to attract possible investors.

To sum up, the Committee on Devel-opment emphasised the importance of both public and private investment, fo-cusing on a local management of sus-tainable energy, rather than a central one, education and knowledge shar-ing opportunities and the ways to co-operate with investors internationally, especially with China and the US.


AFET II

Whilst DEVE were faced with the complex topic of maintainable sus-tainable energy, The Committee on Foreign Affairs II debated the contro-versial issues surrounding DESERTEC. Highly ambitious may be the best way to describe DESERTEC. This €400 bil-lion project would harvest solar and wind power from the deserts of Mid-dle East and North African (MENA) countries and would fulfil the energy requirements of that region in addition to providing 15% of Europe’s require-ments. The scope of the scheme has presented a variety of serious issues which may prevent it from becoming a reality.

AFET II has succeeded in noticing how political instability in the MENA region might prove to be a large ob-stacle for DESERTEC. The Arab Spring uprisings are a prime example of how unstable the political structures in the region are. A huge energy infrastruc-ture would require very efficient co-operation between governments on a timescale of decades. It also means that countries with poor relations to

each other, such as Morocco and Al-geria, would need to set aside their differences and band together.

Confidence in the project has been seriously shaken by the withdrawal of two large founding partners of the Dii consortium that supports the reali-sation of the goals of DESERTEC. By cutting ties with Dii, industrial giants Siemens and Bosch have reaffirmed sceptics who don’t see the economic viability of such an expensive project. For any group of investors it will be very difficult to attract new funding partners if the key stakeholders that know their plans better than any by-stander decide that the project isn’t worth their money.

The initiative has also seen another major partnership fall to pieces. When DESERTEC was conceived in 2009 it began as a collaboration between Dii and the non-profit organisation the DESERTEC Foundation. Disputes over the direction of the initiative led to the breakup of the partnership earlier this year, with both organisations still working on the DESERTEC projects independently. One of their disagree-


ments is whether any of the energy produced should be exported to Eu-rope, with Dii against any sort of ex-ports and the Foundation supporting exports after further economic and social progress in the MENA region. This fundamental difference in ap-proach was seriously considered by AFET II who decided that the Founda-tion’s goal of future exports was the best solution.

Conclusion

The topics of the Committee on De-velopment and the Committee on For-eign Affairs II share common aspects ensuring provision of sustainable en-ergy in developing countries. The DE-SERTEC project is one of the ways to ensure the completion of the SE4ALL.

One of the clearest common issues is cooperation between the EU and developing countries. Because of un-stable political climates there is less motivation for EU countries to invest in developing regions. Both committees emphasise cooperation in the Middle East and Africa.

DESERTEC and SE4ALL both are severely lacking in funding from both the private and public sector. Spon-sors have already withdrawn from the DESERTEC initiative, whilst most EU countries continue to decrease their annual contribution to meet the objec-tives of the SE4ALL initiative. Perhaps once both projects have been running for longer and can show real results, investment will be easier to come by.

Another crucial issue that both top-ics share is the need to provide quali-ty education in the field of sustainable energy. DESERTEC plans to involve students from MENA countries in the local renewable energy sector to en-sure continued expertise in the area. The Committee on Development sug-gests establishing a knowledge bank with sufficient information for engi-neers and possible investors within the area.

Text: Alyona Vyshnevska & Erik Müürsepp


CLIM & ITRE I: CUTTING

CARBS FOR EUROPE

CLIM

Sometimes when you decide to diet with your friends, things do not exact-ly go as planned. There are always those colleagues who, instead of cut-ting back on chocolate, simply just overindulge, leaving you struggling on your own. Now, swap friends with countries and chocolate with green-house gases and you get a notion of the success, or rather lack of it, of the Kyoto objectives.

One of the methods set up for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions was the Emission Trading System – a theoretically glorious system which aims to maintain the competitiveness of the market whilst simultaneously de-creasing emissions. However, in prac-tice, it is a faulty system that is easy to abuse. Certain industries, such as aviation, are able to gain financially from the scheme, and profit-driven auctions lead to carbon leakage and thus excessive emissions. The reces-sion made the price of emitting plum-met, which worsened the situation, as it was thence cheaper to emit. Only 11 out of the 31 countries involved were able to stay within their emis-sions cap. The system hardly served the purpose for which it was set up.

Therefore, the question that CLIM had to ask was “Is the ETS worth keeping?” They discussed the fact that the current ineffectiveness of the sys-tem calls for a fresh solution. But then,


could it be too risky to introduce an-other method that would require years to try out and implement? Rather than revolutionary changes and immedi-ate abolishment of the system, CLIM argued that evolutionary adjustments should be made. They agreed that a logical solution would be to withdraw credits from the market and tighten the security, making the penalties for exceeding limits harsher and more limited in time, as well as considering the possible positive effects of floor and ceiling prices per tonne of CO2.

With regards to the Kyoto Protocol missing its first deadline, CLIM dis-cussed how the ETS did not as impact

on Europe as it should have. Coun-tries are reaching towards their goals yet not attaining them. However, it is hard to take radical action, especially if industries that are rich in green-house gas emissions are those of the energy sector.

CLIM will have many interesting things to discuss in General Assembly and will probably be open to sugges-tions on improvements of their resolu-tion due to having to analyse such a difficult topic. They will benefit large-ly from the input of ITRE I, who have also been discussing the attempts to reduce emissions and instigate a new low-carbon future for Europe.


ITRE I

While discussing the matter of fill-ing the gap between Europe 2020 and Energy Roadmap 2050, the mem-bers of ITRE I brought interesting and innovative ideas to the table during Committee Work. The committee dis-cussed how their main aim, amongst others, was to create a safe, fruitful, competitive and, most essentially, low-carbon European energy sector. However, their specific targets are dis-parate. Within the Europe 2020 strat-egy there are the 20-20-20 targets - a 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions compared with 1990 levels, a 20% increase in the shares of renewables in the energy mix and a 20% cut in energy consumption. This strategy seems more feasible, as the set goals are achievable by 2020, while the lat-ter is far more ambitious. It seems that

cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80% to 95% of 1990 levels by 2050 is quite unattainable. However, del-egates from ITRE I outlined some fair points.

Firstly, they identified that 2050 is a very extensive deadline for a strategy to be implemented and that another stage should be introduced in order to facilitate reaching the final goal. They had discussed setting 2030 as an ex-tra time limit. I believe this is indeed a valid point since it would create a ba-sis for the further development Road-map 2050 requires. Still, I find that 10 years, between 2020 and 2030, might be a utopian goal for such an impressive scheme.

Secondly, since these strategies are being implemented on a long term basis, they might encounter different


obstacles, such as EU scepticism. In Committee Work, this led to the ma-jor debate of whether these deadlines should be legally binding. It is indeed true that without a certain amount of pressure, Member States might adopt a rather passive attitude towards this issue. So, in clearer terms, if the strat-egy set for 2030 is not legally bind-ing, Roadmap 2050 will most cer-tainly not be possible. Nonetheless, I find this subject controversial as it opens discussion on Member States’ national autonomy. Should the EU put stress on Member States to apply such a strategy? Is this something that can be universally attained? That is still up for discussion, but I am curious to see the final outcome, since starting from the early stages of Committee Work I could identify some quite interesting and viable ideas from ITRE I.

Conclusion

Looking forward to the upcoming strategies-Europe 2020 and Energy: Roadmap 2050 − what stance should

be taken to avoid creating yet anoth-er Kyoto Protocol? And did we learn anything from its implementation? It is vital to bear in mind that theory cannot always be put into practice. Achievable goals must be set, accord-ing to our current available technol-ogy and resources. Instead of setting farfetched scenarios and making such ambitious strategies legally binding, it might be a better approach for EU to provide its Member States with guidance and the required logistics, in order for them to be able to move forward. The 20-20-20 targets could be met with a well functioning trading system; however it is crucial for each country to have its own tailored strat-egy. This way, EU could avoid creat-ing discrepancies between Member States and, at the same time, ensure a competitive market in emerging econ-omy countries.

Text: Rucsandra Pintea & Zuzanna Gil

Main Partner

Partner s

Sponso r

Pr int P ar tner

The Hague 2013 - 2nd International Forum of EYP The Netherlandsis supported by:

haguen-dazs: farewell issue

Documents

i t t e e

r t i c

farewell issuecontents

farewell issuekraskras

farewell party

e sitre

year hundreds of young

young energy