resolution booklet 15th nsc of eyp the netherlands

February 2015 Rotterdam, The Netherlands


Programme

08:30 – 09:00 Opening of the General Assembly

09:00 – 09:45 Motion for a resolution by the Committee on Women’s Right

and Gender Equality

09:45 – 10:30 Motion for a resolution by the Committee on Economic and

Monetary Affairs

10:30 – 10:50 Coffee break

10:50 – 11:35 Motion for a resolution by the Committee on Civil Liberties,

Justice and Home Affairs

11:35 – 12:20 Motion for a resolution by the Committee on Evironment, Public

Health and Food Safety II

12:20 – 13:20 Lunch

13:20 – 14:05 Motion for a resolution by the Committee on Human Rights

14:05 – 14:50 Motion for a resolution by the Committee on Enviroment, Public

Health and Food Safety I


15:10 – 15:55 Motion for a resoluton by the Committee on International Trade

15:55 – 16:40 Motion for a resolution by the Committee on Foreign Affairs


16:50 – 18:00 Closing ceremony

18:00 Departure


Procedure of the General Assembly

General rules

The wish to speak is indicated by raising the Committee placard. The authority of the Board is absolute.

Procedure and time settings

1. Presentation of the Motion for a Resolution (the Board reads out the topic);

2. Points of Information;

3. Defense Speech (maximum 3 minutes);

4. Attack Speech (maximum of 3 minutes);

5. Response to the Attack Speech (maximum 1 minute);

6. Open Debate on the Motion for a Resolution:

7. Summation Speech (maximum 3 minutes);

8. Voting procedure;

9. Announcement of the voting results by the Board.

Point of Information Request for a brief explanation of the meaning of specific words and abbreviations. Note that translations are not Points of Information.

Points of Personal Privilege

These are requests 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 Responses

Twice per Debate, each Committee may use the ‘Direct Response’ sign. Should a Committee member raise the Committee Placard and the ‘Direct Response’ 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.

Monday 9 February, 2015 Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Points of Order The chairperson can raise these 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 to convince the Plenary that the Resolution is worthy of being adopted. This speech can last a maximum of three minutes.

Attack Speeches One 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. Oftentimes, an Attack Speech is concluded with an appeal to the Plenary not to adopt the Resolution in their present form.

Response to the Attack Speeches The Proposing Committee responds to the points raised by the Attack Speeches. They may do so for 1 minute.

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. It typically concludes with an appeal to vote in favour of the Resolution. This speech can last a maximum of three minutes.


MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS AND GENDER

EQUALITY

“Tipping the scale”: The ambitious targets set out by the European Commission for the number of women represented among executive

staff have not been met. A 2012 draft directive is now stuck between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. What measures

should the EU take to tip the scale and make more room for women on the boards of European companies?

Submitted by: Goya van den Berg, Dorith Blijleven, Romee Boitelle, Julia de Gooijer,

Coosje Heijmerink, Laura Joel, Malvina Lucic, Evy van der Meulen, Belle Prinsen, Basia van Vliet, To Wiersma, Marissa de Swart (Chairperson, NL), Anna Zellweger (Chairperson, CH)

The European Youth Parliament,

A. Deeply regretting that 60% of University graduates are women, yet occupy only 18.6% of board positions in all large listed European companies1,

B. Convinced that the roots of gender inequality on boards are a direct consequence of cultural influences,

C. Noting with concern the lack of awareness towards:

i) the severe underrepresentation of women on company boards,

ii) the benefits of gender diverse management,

D. Referring to multiple studies that demonstrate companies with a gender balanced management have proven to be more successful than comparable competitors2 in areas such as stock price growth,

E. Fully aware that the Commission’s 2012 proposal for the Directive3 on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of large publicly listed companies has yet to be passed by the European Parliament and the Council,

F. Expressing its appreciation of the measures already taken by individual Member States towards reaching more gender equality on company boards,

G. Deeply concerned that there are few female role models capable of generating interest and confidence amongst women who wish to pursue board positions,

1 Companies with more than 250 Employees and an annual turnover exceeding 50 million Euros. The directive would only apply to such companies. 2 Gender diversity and corporate performance, Research institute Credit Suisse, August 2012 (https://www.credit-suisse.com/newsletter/doc/gender_diversity.pdf) 3 European Commission, Women on boards: commission proposes 40% objective, 14.11.2012 (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/gender-equality/news/121114_en.htm#Press)


H. Realising that women often face different selection criteria for employment in contrast to men as a result of gender based stereotypes,

I. Further realising that there is a general lack of child care infrastructure within the Member States, such as accessible day care facilities and shared parental leave,

J. Emphasising the negative effects of the Gender Pay Gap (GPG) leading to further enforcement of gender based stereotypes within families and the discouragement of women when aspiring to higher positions throughout their careers;

1. Calls upon the revision of the proposal for the Directive concerning gender balance innon-executive board positions to include:

a) an amendment of the deadline for fulfilment of the demands set by the directive from2020 to 2025 and

b) an amendment of the expiring date from 2028 to 2035;

c) the establishment of a labelling system rewarding companies for both reachinginternally-regulated intermediate goals and displaying efforts toward closing theGPG;

2. Supports a collaboration between European companies and specialised organisations,such as European Women on Boards (EWOB), to create a long term strategy forachieving the goals of the Directive;

3. Further encourages the collaboration with the EWOB to create an EU-wide campaignincorporating elements such as business awards or topical conventions promotingwomen in top positions;

4. Endorses training sessions for European companies to facilitate the transition foremployees into gender-balanced work environments;

5. Recommends European corporations to conduct application procedures for employmentusing gender anonymous resumes;

6. Urges large public companies to publish an annual report concerning changes in theworking environment with regard to an increasingly gender balanced board;

7. Encourages the establishment of a media platform with a focus on topical research;

8. Recommends that Member States establish a 40 week parental leave to be dividedaccording to parental wishes;4

9. Calls upon all Member States to provide their citizens with improved child care facilities.

4 The national bureau of economic research, Christopher J Ruhm, Parental Leave and Child Health, 8.2.2000 (http://www.nber.org/papers/w6554)


MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND MONETARY

AFFAIRS (ECON)

“The day after tomorrow”: Economic growth in the EU has slowed down considerably in recent years. According to the limits-to-growth dilemma there will be a day when resources are depleted, and striving for more

economic growth is no longer an option. How can the EU prepare Europe’s economy and society for this day?

Submitted by: David Budwilowitz, Suzanne Caris, Dijk van Chris, Meike Eijsberg, Juliette Klashorst, Aletta Koopmans, Leysner Asmara, Maura Martens, Charlotte Nijdam, Nathan Peters, Isa Steijn, Cosima Stierman, Isaac Vaarzon Morel, Luc Vorsteveld, Midas Boeke (Chairperson, NL), Laure Steinville (Chairperson, FR)


A. Bearing in mind that the free-market economy is one of the EU’s most cherished principles,

B. Further aware of the financial issues Member States are facing since the early 2000s recession,

C. Deeply concerned by the increase in the global usage of finite resources due, but not limited to:

i) the fast economic and social development sought after by a growing number ofcountries, especially in Asia and South-America,

ii) the continuous increase in world population1,

iii) increasingly higher living standards,

D. Deploring Member States’ heavy dependence on finite resources,

E. Aware of the fact that the aforementioned dependency is partially due to:

i) the lack of efficiency of renewable energy sources,

ii) the reluctance of public and private actors to invest in environmentally friendlyenergy sources,

iii) a common disinclination amongst Member States to prioritise long-term legislation,

F. Welcoming the recent implementation of the Horizon 2020 programme2,

G. Further welcoming the quick and successful completion of the Horizon 2020 national targets by Member States, such as Bulgaria, Estonia and Sweden,

1 The current world population is 7 billion inhabitants and is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050. 2 Horizon 2020: EU’s biggest Research and Innovation programme ever with nearly 80 billion euros of funding available over 7 years (2014 to 2020), promising “more breakthroughs, discoveries and world-firsts by taking great ideas from the lab to the market”. http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/what-horizon-2020


H. Taking into consideration the ever-growing criticisms of using Gross Domestic Product3 (GDP) as a tool to measure the social and economic well-being of a given country’s population,

I. Believing that other indicators have to be taken into consideration for their social and environmental focus, such as the Social Progress Index4 (SPI),

J. Affirming that the concept of Genuine Savings5 should be included in the national well-being measurement process,

K. Recognising EU citizens’ lack of awareness concerning the use of renewable energies;

1. Proclaims the creation of a micro-credit platform, which will give out micro-credit loans tostart-up companies that use sustainable production methods;

2. Calls upon the Commission to promote the use of renewable energy sources through:

a) mass-communication channels and social media,

b) cooperation with specialised Non-Governmental Organisations and energycompanies,

c) online enquiries, giving consumers the opportunity to discover the long and short-term effects of their energy use;

3. Recommends investing in the extended development of efficient alternative energysources and technologies such as:

a) liquid fluoride thorium breeding6,

b) recycling techniques;

4. Requests the introduction of a goods labelling system, which rates renewable energyusage during the production process;

5. Supports Member States that achieve their Horizon 2020 targets early by providing themwith additional funding to invest in sustainable energy technology;

6. Further supports Member States to reach their Horizon 2020 goals by means of anannual summit to share knowledge and discuss the progress of every Member State ontheir goals and their plans for the future;

7. Urges for the introduction of a more accurate index to measure welfare that includes:

a) GDP,

b) SPI,

c) Genuine Savings.

3 GDP: “The monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country’s borders in a specific time period” (http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=1163) 4 SPI: Measures the extent to which countries provide for the social and environmental needs of their citizens, with 52 indicators in the areas of basic human needs, foundations of well being and opportunity to progress show the relative performance of nations. http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/data/spi 5 Genuine Savings: define wealth more broadly than orthodox national accounts and re-calculate national savings figures based on a new definition. They aim to represent the value of the net change in the whole range of assets that are important for development. http://old.brettonwoodsproject.org/topic/environment/gensavings.pdf


MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND

HOME AFFAIRS

“What happens abroad stays abroad”: In light of EU companies’ and their subcontractors’ increasingly illegal and immoral practices in

developing countries, how can the EU ensure that they are held legally and morally accountable for their actions affecting the environment and

workers?

Submitted by: Camile Aardening, Rogier Adler, Charlotte Arnoldy, Anouk Baan, Chris Baljé, Joël van Dijk, Thomas van den Hul, Nora Izeboud, Leonie Kantor, Dalila Khandour, Robin Korink, Rebecca Lensink, Damiët Schneeweisz Sebastiaan Spanjer, , Sjoerd Tubee, Henok Ghebrenigus (Chairperson, NL), Mike Whyard (Chairperson, UK)


A. Taking into account that the production processes of private companies are influenced by consumer behaviour,

B. Realising the importance of outsourcing production to developing countries for maintaining economic growth within the EU,

C. Noting that many EU companies are increasingly reliant on this outsourcing,

D. Bearing in mind that overregulating European companies may compel them to further outsource their production to developing countries,

E. Regretting the fact that most developing countries lack sufficiently thorough environment-friendly legislation,

F. Deeply conscious that companies are not sufficiently incentivised for acting in a morally responsible manner,

G. Noting with regret that opaque relationships between European companies and their subcontractors prevent illegal and immoral practices being traced back to their source;

1. Expresses its desire for an international summit to discuss the institution of global ethicaland ecological standards for businesses;

2. Expresses its hope that the global summit will conclude with the signing of a global treatyconsisting of basic labour rights and environmental regulations;

3. Recommends the creation of an independent international body, funded by the EU, whichwill be charged with inspecting subcontractors in developing countries in order to verifythe aforementioned regulations are adhered to;


4. Further recommends that this body will rate large general contractors on their level ofCorporate Social Responsibility (CSR)1;

5. Urges Member States to adopt a sliding tax scale that adjusts commercial taxation andimport tariffs in order to reward businesses with high CSR scores;

6. Declares accordingly that such a tax policy is most effective if adopted by all MemberStates;

7. Requests Member States to implore native multinational companies to only engage withethical and environment-friendly subcontractors in developing countries, and tocontractually oblige them to adhere to the aforementioned regulations;

8. Supports the creation of a standardised European label for a wide range of products inthe spirit of Fairtrade labelling systems2, enabling consumers to assess whether a productwas ethically and sustainably created;

9. Resolves to support the unionisation of workers in developing countries to ensure basiclabour rights are less easily violated.

1 Corporate Social Responsibility is a management concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and interactions with their stakeholders. 2 The Fairtrade certification initiative “Max Havelaar” was the first independent labelling initiative, which allowed customers and distributors to trace the origin of labelled goods to verify ethical treatment of producers along the supply chain.


MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH

AND FOOD SAFETY II

“The greener mile”: Following the failure of many EU States in meeting the targets for renewable energy set out in 2001 (2001/77/EC) and 2003 (2003/30/EC) and building upon the European Commission’s proposed 2030 Climate and Energy Framework, how should the EU proceed to

reduce its reliance upon fossil fuels?

Submitted by: Sarah Ashworth, Soedhier Bansidhar, Rosa Beijen, Nienke ten Donkelaar, Tofigh Nasen Nezhad Nisi, Nina van der Leest, Gijs Neerincx, Sarah Selanno, Jeroen Smeulders, Sybren van der Velden, Milou Verdonk, Julian Visser, Daniel van der Weerdt, August Winter, Christina Abdulahad (Chairperson, SE), Fahad Saher (Vice-President, NL)


A. Convinced that the 2030 Framework for Climate and Energy Policies needs to combine careful consideration of both long- and short-term climate commitments with the need to address compelling economic and social issues such as:

i) energy security,

ii) high energy costs for industry and households,

iii) the need for job creation, economic recovery and a transition towards a sustainablegrowth model:

B. Taking into account that the prices of different energy sources play a major role in determining the behaviour of market actors, including the energy industry and consumers,

C. Believing that a stable regulatory framework is essential in order to prevent market distortions,

D. Deeply conscious that a focus on long-term green investment, requires that market actors are given regulatory certainty for the medium1 to long term2,

E. Realising that the stimulated production of biofuels could potentially result in an increased demand for agricultural resources,

1. Reaffirms that Member States should promote innovation and the dissemination ofenvironmentally friendly technologies in its industrial policy, including the fields ofrenewable energy, efficient use of fossil fuels technologies and, in particular, energy-efficiency,

2. Calls for greenhouse gas emissions to be subject to binding targets3 for energy efficiency;

1 For the purpose of this resolution “medium term” is defined as a period of 10 – 34 years. 2 For the purpose of this resolution “long term” is defined as a period of 35 years or more.


3. Authorises the Commission to submit an analysis on how different energy sources,including renewables, can be developed more sustainably and cost-effectively, taking intoaccount:

a) environmental impact,

b) resource efficiency and lifecycle,

c) aspects relating to dependence on fossil fuels,

d) total costs;

4. Supports the Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU)4 which requires Member States toset minimum energy performance requirements for new buildings, for the majorrenovation of buildings and for the replacement or retrofit of building elements;

5. Encourages the European Environmental Agency to coordinate between Member States,and facilitate the progress of research into, and development of, renewable energysources

6. Urges the Commission to propose measures in the transport sector5 including the use ofmore fuel-efficient engines and conversion to alternative fuels;

7. Calls on Member States to phase out environmentally harmful subsidies, in particularfossil fuel subsidisations, by 2030 and to redirect these expenses to sustainable energyproduction.

3 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions, (COM(2014)0015). 4 Energy efficiency, key laws, European Commission, last retrieved: 8 February 2015. 5 The transport sector account for over 60 per cent of the total EU oil consumption.


MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

“Is sunlight the best disinfectant?”: Recent cases of whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning revealing classified

information to the public have sparked a heated debate about the line between national security interests and freedom of information. What

approach should the EU take towards whistleblowers from non-EU member states? How can the EU be a safe haven for those that speak up

without jeopardising its close ties with valuable allies?

Submitted by: Tom Cobbenhagen, Sophie Fijnheer, Andres Garcia, Madeleen Hartemink, Erik Koeken, Daniëlle Kronenburg, Amin Ommada, Constanza Schoute, Bas van Someren, Valentine Szita Marshall, Liam van de Ven, Tessa Verheijden, Livia Wassink, Sebastian Weisshaar, Rosanna Zwolsman, Mighel Molenkamp (Chairperson, NL), Astrid Vikström (Vice-President, SE)


A. Noting with appreciation the positive effects of whistleblowing, including but not limited to the revelation of critical information resulting in a discourse vital to every democracy,

B. Further noting these are not outweighed by the disadvantages, such as breaching confidentiality which in turn endangers the national security interests of Member States and their allies,

C. Expressing its satisfaction that the EU has a strong tradition of advocating human rights, especially the freedom of expression enshrined in Art. 10 European Convention on Human Rights and Art. 11 Charter of Fundamental Rights,

D. Recognising the benefits of whistleblowing in holding governmental authorities accountable for their illusive actions,

E. Regretting that whistleblowers are subject to a highly uncertain legal process in most Member States, resulting in a chilling effect1 on the revelation of information,

F. Observing the risks whistleblowers take in choosing to expose classified information after being placed into a state of legal limbo, such as extradition to non-EU Member States and severe prison sentences,

G. Convinced that the EU can become a safe haven for whistleblowers without generating animosity from, and conflict with, its neighbours and allies;

1 The chilling effect refers to the discouraging impact of unclear legal rules towards the exercise of human rights.


1. Endorses the unalienable right of freedom of speech, which should be realisticallyexercised and relied upon, especially where it is a condition for democratic control ofgovernments;

2. Seeks an end to the typically dire legal uncertainty surrounding whistleblowers byencouraging the Member States to coordinate the development of basic legal guidelines;

3. Recommends that whistleblowers from non-EU Member States are not discriminatedagainst by Member States as a result of their political actions, and any application forasylum will be treated on its merits alone;

4. Encourages Member States not to actively invite such asylum seekers in order to remainpolitically neutral;

5. Expresses its hope that Member States will not only grant asylum, but also awardcitizenship at their discretion and thus confer all the rights this entails;

6. Further encourages the governments of Member States to coordinate matters regardingthe criteria employed in assessing the application for asylum of whistleblowers thatshould seriously consider the opinions of non-governmental-organisations (NGOs), suchas:

a) Amnesty International,

b) Transparency International,

c) Human Rights Watch;

7. Urges Member States to develop programmes similar to those providing witness-protection for whistleblowers;

8. Further urges Member States to allow whistleblowers to utilise the following services:

a) Legal advice before and after whistleblowing,

b) Identity protection in the event that whistleblowing has occurred,

c) Access to mediation services if appropriate.


MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH

AND FOOD SAFETY I

“Working towards efficiency”: How can the EU promote the transition from the linear “take, make, dispose” model to a circular model of the

economy which aims to rely on renewable energy, minimises the use of toxic chemicals, and eradicates waste through careful design?

Submitted by: Liza Bex, Danique ten Bokkel Huinink, Luca Bonsangue, Selma Boulmalf, Julie van den Brink, Casper Feitz, Bella Felix, Tamara Happé, Fee Kirsch, Sophie Laveaux, Nicole van Scherrenburg, Thijs Stegmann, Nikki Weststeijn, Yinglan Zhou, Christine Sheldon (Chairperson, NL), Rebecca Smith (Chairperson, FR).


A. Deeply concerned by the continuous exploitation of natural resources, resulting in the rapidly increasing scarcity of those resources,

B. Acknowledging that the withdrawal of the Commission’s communication paper “Towards a circular economy”1 reflects the Commission’s desire for a more ambitious approach to the transition towards a circular economy,

C. Concerned current measures to ensure the transition towards a circular economy are inadequate,

D. Realising that this transition is impeded by the fact that prices do not reflect the ecological costs of resource use to society,

E. Recognising that recycled materials are currently more expensive than virgin2 materials,

F. Bearing in mind the differences between Member States in the presence and implementation of recycling legislation, including biodegradables,

G. Emphasising that a circular economy can potentially provide approximately 2 million new jobs and savings of 600 billion euros3 for companies in the EU,

H. Regretting that the currently implemented legislation, such as the 7th Environmental Action Programme (EAP), has not achieved the desired results,

I. Noting EU citizens’ lack of knowledge about the circular economy;

1 Towards a circular economy: A zero waste programme for Europe, COM(2014) 398 final/2, 25.9.2014 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1415352499863&uri=CELEX:52014DC0398R%2801%29 2 Virgin materials are materials that have not been previously used or consumed, or subjected to processing other than for their original production. 3 Source: Questions and answers on the Commission Communication "Towards a Circular Economy" and the Waste Targets Review.


1. Encourages the minimisation of the use of non-renewable materials and fuels;

2. Supports the Commission’s proposal for the institution of a minimum EU-wide target ofthe recycling and reuse of municipal waste of 70% by 2030;

3. Expresses its hope socio-economic differences between Member States are taken intoaccount through the provision of national targets leading to an EU-wide average of 70%;

4. Further supports the Commission’s proposal to ban landfilling4, incineration and any otherharmful ways of waste disposal by 2030;

5. Urges Member States and industry to promote product sharing5 and re-use through theprovision of fiscal and financial incentives;

6. Calls for the EU to establish a “Green Consultancy Project” to assist the Member Statesin the transition towards a circular economy;

7. Recommends the creation of a centralised EU platform on which relevant research canbe shared between Member States;

8. Invites industries to cooperate through sharing raw materials, knowledge and machineryin an effort to reduce inefficiencies;

9. Further proposes a tax on virgin materials to disincentivise its use;

10. Further requests the implementation of taxes on the landfilling of recyclable resources bycompanies;

11. Proposes the introduction of an EU-wide label for products which would include:

a) the average durability of the product,

b) the percentage of components that can be reused and recycled,

c) the amount and kind of environmentally damaging substances involved;

12. Further calls for the immediate publication of a whitelist of companies that adhere tocriteria exemplary of circular economy as defined and proposed by the Commission, andpublication in 2020 of a blacklist of those that do not;

13. Calls upon both the EU and its Member States to implement eco-friendly policies in publicbuildings and areas, such as increasing the prevalence of waste separation, publictransport and solar panels

4 Landfilling is the practice of disposing of waste by burying it and covering it with soil. 5 Eg.car and bike sharing and telephone leasing.


MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE (INTA)

“Make it rain”: Since July 2013, eight meetings have been arranged to negotiate a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the

European Union and the USA to facilitate trade between two of the world’s biggest trading blocks. So far the negotiations have been

unsuccessful. What should the negotiation guidelines be when it comes to environmental and social sustainability?

Submitted by: Floris Back, Ward Brand, Gregor Cohen Stuart, Margot van Doorn, Badr Fräser, Sasha Ivlev, Thom Lugthart, Nigel Onwuachu, Jim van Oosten, Joep Rieff, Daniël Schneider, Annelotte de van der Schueren, Arian Shadmanfar, Thanos Theofanakis, Charlotte de Groot (Chairperson, NL)


A. Reminding that negotiations between the EU and Canada for the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) were concluded in September 2014,1

B. Concerned by the current level of unemployment within the EU of 11.4 %2

C. Alarmed by the current growth rate of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) within the EU estimated at 0.7 % per year between 2007 and 20163,

D. Noting with approval the positive effects of a possible bilateral free trade agreement between the EU and the United States of America (USA/US) on both economies, including:

i) an annual increase of EU GDP by EUR 119 billion and an annual increase of USAGDP by EUR 95 billion,4

ii) significant new job opportunities for both high and low skilled workers,5

E. Further noting with approval the positive side-effects of a conclusion of TTIP on third states increasing their overall income by EUR 99 billion within 12 years,6

F. Fully aware of the fact that CO2 emissions are forecasted to increase as a result of additional trade due to TTIP,7

1 DG Trade, ‘Canada’, <http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/canada/>. 2 Eurostat, Unemployment statistics, December 2014, <http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics>. 3 Centre for Economic Policy Research, Reducing Transatlantic Barriers to Trade and Investment, An Economic Assessment, March 2013, p. 111, <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/march/tradoc_150737.pdf>. 4 Centre for Economic Policy Research (footnote 3), p. 3. 5 Centre for Economic Policy Research (footnote 3), p. vii. 6 Centre for Economic Policy Research (footnote 3), p. 82. 7 Ecorys, Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the European Union and the United States of America [report


G. Taking into account the differences in labour standards between the EU and the USA,

H. Bearing in mind the different protection levels between EU and USA standards in the sectors of food and product safety as well as in the labour standards contained in rules of origin of products,

I. Emphasising the importance of privacy rights of EU citizens and companies,

J. Recognising the need for harmonisation of future health, food, and product standards also beyond an eventual conclusion of TTIP,

K. Further recognising the potential influence of lobbyists on the decision-making process regarding regulatory standards in the fields of health, food, and product safety,

L. Guided by the concerns of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the EU regarding the effects of a conclusion of TTIP on such enterprises,

M. Further bearing in mind that current tariffs on trade between the EU and the USA are generally low,8

N. Considering that non-tariff barriers (NTBs) can add an equivalent 10-20% in tariffs to the prize of goods,9

O. Acknowledges the public opposition to TTIP10 namely voiced by the self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative against TTIP and CETA

P. Aware of the fact that many EU citizens are unaware of the transparency of the negotiation process,

Q. Further acknowledges the widespread and strong opposition against the inclusion of an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clause in TTIP as illustrated by the results of a public consultation by the Directorate General for Trade (DG Trade) of the Commission,11

R. Convinced that both states and economic actors will need time to adjust to the changes introduced by a conclusion of TTIP;

commissioned by DG Trade], p. 36, <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/march/tradoc_152285.pdf>. 8 Current tariffs on trade between the EU and the USA are on average 3.5% (DG Trade, ‘United States’, http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/united-states). 9 http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/questions-and-answers/. 10 Source: Stop TTIP, ‘About the Campaign’, https://stop-ttip.org/about-the-eci-campaign/). 11 European Commission, Online public consultation on investment protection and investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP), 13 January 2015, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/index.cfm?consul_id=179.


1. Urges DG Trade to continue TTIP negotiations with the US Trade Representative (USTR)and to conclude these negotiations swiftly;

2. Calls upon Member States to compensate for the additional CO2 emissions created bythe increase of trade due to TTIP;

3. Further urges DG Trade, during the TTIP negotiations, to maintain and not to lower EUstandards, in particular regarding:

a) environment, e.g. emission standard for combustion engines,

b) labour,

c) food and product safety,

d) human rights in the fields of labour standard contained in rules of origin,

e) privacy;

4. Recommends DG Trade to include in the scope of TTIP the creation of a RegulatoryCooperation Council (RCC) serving as a dialogue platform for US and EU regulatoryagencies in order to ensure the compatibility of future regulatory standards;

5. Suggests including the possibility for organisations are registered at the EuropeanTransparency Register12 to take part in consultation sessions of the RCC;

6. Further suggests that the Directorate General for Internal Market, Industry,Entrepreneurship of the Commission and SMEs set up a platform together with the USgovernment aiming to help SMEs:

a) to provide information on setting up businesses in in the EU and the US,

b) to set up transatlantic business contacts,

c) to promote joint-ventures, in particular to share fixed costs;

7. Further recommends DG Trade to pursue an abolishment of all tariffs between the EUand US in TTIP negotiations;

8. Calls upon DG Trade, in TTIP negotiations, to minimise NTBs for products in all sectors inwhich the EU and the US have a comparable level of standards, by mutuallyacknowledging such standards under TTIP;

9. Welcomes the recent efforts by DG Trade to increase the transparency of TTIPnegotiations and urges DG Trade to continue these efforts;

10. Invites the national media companies of EU Member States to report on the on-goingTTIP negotiations in order to raise public awareness;

11. Further calls for the investment protection standards contained in TTIP to mirror those ofCETA, especially those maintaining the governments’ right to regulate in the areas ofhealth, safety, and environment;13

12. Advises on the inclusion of a comprehensive possibility for appeal in the ISDSmechanism contained in TTIP according which:

a) either party may appeal against an arbitral award in front of an appeal panelappointed by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID)Secretariat,

12 The European Transparency Register is jointly operated by the Commission and the European Parliament and lists which lobbying organisations pursue which interests on which budget. 13 DG Trade, Investment Provisions in the EU–Candada Free Trade Agreement, p. 2, <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/november/tradoc_151918.pdf>.


b) the losing party shall bear the cost of such appeal;

13. Further advises the inclusion of a provision in the ISDS mechanism of TTIP pursuant towhich an independent panel, to be appointed by the ICSID Secretariat decides on thetransparency of proceedings based on the public interests at stake;

14. Seeks that proceedings which are transparent according to the above-mentionedproceeding be subjected to the UNCITRAL Transparency Rules;14

15. Encourages DG Trade, in TTIP negotiations, to include a 4-year transitional periodbetween an eventual conclusion and the entry into force of TTIP.

14 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, 1 April 2014, <http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/2014Transparency.html>.

Yannick

Typewritten Text

Monday February 9, 2015

Yannick

Typewritten Text

Yannick

Typewritten Text

Yannick

Typewritten Text


Notes

resolution booklet 15th nsc of eyp the netherlands

Documents