Issuu on Google+

Resolution Booklet of the 13th National Selection Conference of EYP the Netherlands

1


Order of the Day 09:00 09:30 10:00 10:45 11:30 11:45 12:30 13:15 14:00 14:45 15:30 15:45 16:30 17:15 17:45 18:00

Opening of the General Assembly GA procedures Committee on Constitutional Affairs Committee on Foreign Affairs Coffee break Committee on Fisheries Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Lunch Committee on Security and Defence Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Coffee break Committee on Culture and Education Committee on Agriculture Closing ceremony Jury results Departure


Procedure of the GA The total time set aside for one debate will normally be 40 minutes, though this will subject to time constraints. The setting of debate time, and changes in debate time, are entirely at the discretion of the President and her Board. Each debate is the main responsibility of the proposing committee – this committee will defend the resolution, and as such will always be given enough opportunities in the debate in which to do so. 1. Reading of the Operative Clauses. One member of the proposing committee will read out the Operative Clauses. 2. Defence Speech. This will be followed by a three-minute Defence Speech from a member of the proposing committee. 3. Attack Speech. There will then be three minutes in which an Attack Speech can be made by another committee or committees. 4. Points of Information To be raised to make a factual query about a term/phrase in the resolution. 5. Open Debate. The rest of the time (approx. 30 minutes) is set aside for open debate among delegates. If you wish to make a point, raise your committee sign and wait to be 6. Summation Speech. 3 minutes to summarise the debate by 1-2 speakers from the proposing committee. 7.Voting Procedure Following the completion of general debate, delegates will be given the opportunity to vote on the resolution in the form of for, against and abstentions. Chairs will collect the votes. A Board member counts the votes and announces the result after the debate on the following resolution. Each student votes according to his or her own convictions. Please note: the passing or failing of a resolution will not affect the jury’s deliberations.

Placards Committee Placard: To be raised each time a committee wants to make a point/speech. Points of Information: or phrase in a resolution only. They should not be used to attack or defend the speaker or the resolution. Point of Personal Privilege: The privilege sign should be raised when a delegate cannot hear or understand what has been said. In this case the President may interrupt the speaker to recognise the point. Direct Response: Allows for a direct response to the most recent point with priority over other Committee’s points. This placard may be used by each Committee 1 time during each open debate. Point of Order: If the board makes a mistake in the order of the procedure this placard can be raised to make them aware and let them correct their mistake.


M OTION FOR A R ESOLUTION BY T HE C OMMITTEE ON F OREIGN A FFAIRS In light of the recent status upgrade of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly, should the European Union follow suit and adopt a unified stance on the Israel/Palestine conflict in the hope of promoting its peaceful end? Submitted by:

Arthur Boitelle (Willem de Zwijger College), Emma Broholm (Berlage Lyceum), Kaoutar Chibrani (Helen Parkhurst), Axel Hirschel (Revius Lyceum Doorn), Mathilde Janssens (Stanislas College), Isabelle Knottnerus (KSG De Breul), Dion Koreman (Mencia de Mendoza Lyceum), Hidde Lingmont (Christelijk Lyceum Zeist), Hanna Linnebank (St. Ignatius Gymnasium), Nienke van der Smissen (Comenius College), Cassie Tingen (Tabor Werefridus), Willem Koelewijn (Chairperson, NL), Arriana Yiallourides (Chairperson, CY).

The European Youth Parliament, A. Taking note of the status upgrade of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) to a ‘nonmember observer state’ by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, B. Believing that in order to achieve peace between Palestine and Israel, the Gaza Strip and West Bank should be under control of a single Palestinian Government, C. Alarmed by acts of violence committed by both countries and the resulting sentiments of fear and aggression among the Israeli and Palestinian public, D. Aware of the multiple and mutual violations of the borders between Israel and Palestine as defined by the 1949 Armistice Agreement, E. Deeply concerned by the conflicting culture, history and opinions of the Jewish and Muslim populations concerning the Israeli/Palestine conflict, F.

Alarmed by the potential threats which several surrounding countries, such as Iran, Syria and Egypt pose to Israeli national security,

G. Realising that if the European Union (EU) alters its current position to a pro-Palestine stance, it could potentially hinder the functioning of the Quartet, H. Fully aware of the imbalance in international support for the different sides of the conflict, most notably, the overwhelming support of the citizens of the United States of America (USA) for the Israeli cause;


1.

Recommends the EU to adopt a more active mediating role in the process of a Palestinian unification;

2.

Calls upon the EU to act as a mediator in peace negotiations between Israel and the PLO in which 1949 Armistice Agreement serves as a starting point;

3.

Urges the leaders of both Israeli and the PLO governments to meet on a regular basis to preserve the peace;

4.

Expresses its hope that the diplomatic relationship between the EU and the USA is not in any way negatively influenced by the EU’s stance on the Israel/Palestine conflict;

5.

Calls for European companies to boycott the illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank;

6.

Urges both Israel and the PLO to ensure that an objective view of the conflict is provided for within the mandatory school curriculum.


!

M OTION FOR A R ESOLUTION BY T HE C OMMITTEE ON C ONSTITUTIONAL A FFAIRS The agreement on the European Economic Area has been a topic of debate since its incubation in 1994. Originally designed as an agreement made for multiple countries it now grants only three countries special rights and access to the European Internal Market. Is there still a place for the agreement in our current Europe? Should the agreement continue as it is, with modifications or should the European Union present an ultimatum to the three nations to be in or out? Submitted by:

Julia van Aart (Marnix College), Larissa Avans (Helen Parkhurst College), Daan Brouwer (Tabor Werenfrides), Josephine Dattatreya Andela (st. Ignatius Gymnasium), Marloes Hagens (Revius Lyceum), Daan de Heij (Stanislas College), Marieke de Jong (Willem de Zwijgercollege), Arooj Khan (Berlage Lyceum), Paul Limpens (Comenius College), Eva Nijssen (Mencia de Mendoza Lyceum), Dirk Hofland (Chairperson, NL), GrĂĄinne Hawkes (Vice-President, IE)

The European Youth Parliament, A. Deeply regretting that Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland are currently in the European Economic Area (EEA) but have not yet joined the European Union (EU), B. Taking into account that currently Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland do not have the opportunity to influence the drafting of new economic regulations for the EEA, C. Taking into account that the benefits of joining the EU for these three countries include: i)

full involvement in the aforementioned implementation of economic regulations,

ii)

greater economic stability,

iii)

potential access to the European Monetary Union (EMU) and EU funds designed to stimulate innovation and education,

iv)

full access to the EU Customs Union,

D. Believing that an immediate ultimatum concerning Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland’s EU membership is not the appropriate method for achieving their accession to the EU, E. Observing that the EU has sole competency over EEA economic policy, F. Deeply disturbed by the fact that the current EEA agreement has resulted in an unfair economic advantage for Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland over EU Member States through their: i)

full access to the European Internal Market,

ii)

exemptions from EU regulations, e.g. in the fields of agriculture, finance and fishery,

G. Fully aware of the sovereign right of Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland to reject a modified EEA agreement and consequently depart from the EEA altogether;


!

1.

Supports the incorporation of the remaining members of the EEA into the European Union by 2030;

2.

Calls for a renegotiation of the EEA agreement with Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland so as to gradually increase their compliance with EU regulations in the fields of: a)

fishing quotas,

b)

animal welfare regulations,

c)

environmental regulations,

d)

agricultural subsidies,

e)

set bottom-prices on agricultural products,

f)

European banking regulations,

g)

the Customs Union,

h)

quotas on various agricultural products,

i)

tax-evasion prevention,

j)

privacy;

3.

Requests that these regulations are gradually implemented by 2030;

4.

Expresses its hope that by 2030 Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland will have accessed to the EU;

5.

Calls for the abolition of the EEA by or before 2030;

6.

Confirms in the event of Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland’s failure to implement the aforementioned changes will result in their exclusion from the European Internal Market after the abolition of the EEA;

7.

Condemns the specific adjustment of EU financial, fishery and agricultural regulations meant solely to entice Norway, Lichstenstein or Iceland to join the EU.


!

M OTION FOR A R ESOLUTION BY T HE C OMMITTEE ON F ISHERIES The world’s fish stocks are collapsing and some blame the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy for worsening the decline. The EU has recognised this and is in the process of reforming the CFP so that it can be implemented by 2014. The reforms, however, have been criticised and questions are raised if the proposed reforms will do enough. Should the EU look to implement more drastic reforms or are the current plans sufficient to preserve marine biodiversity and stop overfishing? Submitted by:

Thom Boelens (KSG De Breul), Antony Boonstra (Herman Wesselink College), Nick Bootsma (Tabor Werenfridus), Nina Fokkink (Stanislas College), Jance Klingenberg (Revius Lyceum), Sanne Lith (Berlage Lyceum), Mighel Molenkamp (St. Ignatius Gymnasium), Robin Simonse (Comenius College), Iwan Vaandrager (Marnix College), Welmoed van Zuiden (Willem de Zwijger College), Tom Verbaken (Mencia de Mendoza Lyceum), Lorenzo Van de Pol (chairperson, BE), Nastassia Winge (chairperson, NL)

The European Youth Parliament, A. Deeply disturbed by the grave effects of overfishing such as the threat to the food supply caused by the depletion of fish stocks, B. Notes with regret that unclear rules and the absence of international cooperation concerning legislative enforcement lead to the misinterpretation of current legislation by fishermen, C. Believes that the proposed reforms of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) put too much emphasis on the environment instead of creating a balance between economic, environmental and social aspects of the fishing industry, D. Recognising that the dominant presence of larger fishing fleets in the industry: i)

limits the opportunity for smaller fleets to make a profit,

ii)

leads to a decrease of income in coastal communities that are dependent on fishing practices,

E. Fully aware that the monitoring of the quota system is ineffective, F.

Keeping in mind that fisheries exclusively invest in profitable economic technologies and neglect the required ecological developments,

G. Realising that consumers: i)

have no knowledge of which fish stocks are overfished,

ii)

are not aware of the imminent danger of overfishing;

H. Realises that the current proposals1 to reform the CFP mostly focus on short term measures threatening long term developments of the Maximum Sustainable Yield2 (MSY), I. 1

Alarmed by the unacceptable high amount of discards;

2011 Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy 2 The largest amount of fish that can be harvested from a stock indefininetely given the current environmental conditions


!

1.

Calls for the implementation of the Catch and Share Policy, which implies that any fish caught exceeding the granted quota should be distributed to other vessels that have not reached their quota of that particular type of fish;

2.

Recommends that Member States inform fishermen about the rules set out in the CFP and remove any contra productive legislation such as the proposal concerning discards;

3.

Advises that further reforms to the CFP maintain a balance between the three aspects of the fishing industry - economic, social and environmental;

4.

Proposes the ability for vessels to exchange quotas, within set limits, in order to increase profits for smaller fleets;

5.

Requests the European Union (EU) to establish a partly decentralised approach of the CFP, including advisory councils aiming at implementing policies at regional level and increasing transparency in the sector;

6.

Calls upon Member States to control and condemn illegal conduct in the fishing industry by: a)

assigning supervisors on large vessels to monitor illegal activities,

b)

imposing fines on vessels that commit fraud by withdrawing their subsidies from the European Fishing Fund (EFF);

7.

Urges for the EFF to subsidise sustainable fishing methods and requests Member States to raise taxes on vessels using non-sustainable methods in order to stimulate more sustainable fisheries and improve the environmental situation;

8.

Encourages Member States to improve consumer awareness of the environmental impact of overfishing by improving labelling;

9.

Expresses its hopes for the EU to install more natural reserves to stimulate the recovery of fish stocks;

10. Strongly condemns any form of discarding3 by making such conduct illegal.

3

A practice that allows fisheries to throw unwanted fish overboard resulting in a waste of resources and unnecessary impacts on stocks and ecosystem health


!

M OTION FOR A R ESOLUTION BY T HE C OMMITTEE ON C IVIL L IBERTIES , J USTICE AND H OME A FFAIRS The Dublin Agreements are designed to combat ‘asylum shopping’ of asylum seekers amongst the countries who have ratified the agreement. In light of recent reports questioning the treatment of asylum seekers in Italy, Hungary and Greece, what should be done to limit the need to transfer asylum seekers between the members of the agreement due to unsatisfactory reception conditions? Should they be transferred at all? Submitted by:

Rosa Bakker (Herman Wesselink College), Linde Berbers (Berlage Lyceum), Merel Blok (Helen Parkhurst), Anna Boogaard (Comenius College), Ruben de Bruin (Willem de Zwijger College), Samantha van Hooijdonk (Mencia de Mendoza Lyceum), Ezinne Molenkamp (St. Ignatius Gymnasium), Maud Schotte (KSG De Breul), Rogier Simons (Christelijk Lyceum Zeist), Nikki van Spronsen (Stanislas College), Karim Ben Hamda (Chairperson, NL), Victoria Bendiksby Wilkinson (President, NO)

The European Youth Parliament, A. Noting with regret that the Dublin II regulation is the source of an unequal and unfair division of refugees across Signatory States, B. Deeply disturbed by the increasing level of xenophobia in Southern European countries, C. Taking into account the overly lengthy process of evaluation for asylum claims, D. Realising that the transfer of asylum seekers between Signatory States is excessive, E. Fully aware of the fact that Signatory States have different criteria for granting asylum to individuals, F. Recognising that the financial situation of certain Signatory States negatively contributes to their respective immigration policy, G. Alarmed by the reception conditions for asylum seekers in certain Signatory States, H. Expecting that stricter integration schemes will lead to less discrimination of asylum seekers;


!

1.

Calls for an amendment in the Dublin II regulation to create an exception stating that asylum seekers cannot be transferred back to Greece, Italy, Spain or Hungary, where these are the initial countries of registration;

2.

Further calls for the aforementioned amendment to remain in place until improvements in reception conditions for asylum seekers are implemented;

3.

Believing that asylum seekers in Signatory States should participate in voluntary work to assist in the integration process;

4.

Urges the Signatory States to invest in border countries’ asylum system in order to ensure faster evaluation of asylum claims;

5.

Urges Signatory States detention centres for asylum seekers to respect human rights by implementing amongst others adequate sanitary facilities and healthcare;

6.

Approves the continued use of EURODAC as a method of registration for asylum seekers in all Signatory States of the Dublin agreements;

7.

Calls for the creation of a Supervisory Council which will be responsible to check on countries who have ratified the Dublin Agreements in order to ensure that human rights are not violated.


!

M OTION FOR A R ESOLUTION BY T HE C OMMITTEE ON S ECURITY AND D EFENCE Nothing to hide nothing to fear – with the increase of CCTV cameras being used to combat crime across Europe as well as new DNA databases being used to prevent future criminality, should the European Union concern itself with the privacy of it’s citizens and limit the use of such technology or is it a necessary evil in today’s world? Submitted by:

Pieter Amsen (Marnix College), Amila Babic (Berlage Lyceum), Mervin Huang (Comenius College Hilversum), Vera Korenblik (Willem de Zwijger College), Sophie van der Leij (Mencia de Mendoza Lyceum), Caecilia Moerdijk (KSG De Breul), Ashley Moes (Tabor), Ewoud Nysingh (Christelijk Lyceum Zeist), Anouk Pietersen (Revius Lyceum), Ya’gel Schoonderbeek (Ignatius Gymnasium), Edda van Teeffelen (Herman Wesselink College), Rick Veldhoven (Stanislas College), Elina Mantrali (Chairperson, CY), Boaz Manger (Vice-President, NL)

The European Youth Parliament, A. Affirming that the use of CCTV surveillance and DNA databases have been proven to both resolve and prevent crime, B. Noting with approval that DNA databases prevent false incrimination, C. Aware that for a DNA database to be efficient it requires comprehensive data from all citizens, D. Deeply concerned by the inadequate supervision of CCTV footage by the Member States, E. Observing the high operation costs of CCTV surveillance, F. Mindful of the European Union’s (EU) duty to balance citizens’ safety with its obligation to uphold Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, G. Fully aware that measures taken by the EU run the risk of turning the EU into a ‘Big Brother’ organisation, H. Reaffirming the EU’s deep respect for the sovereignty of its Member States’ national legislatures, I.

Fully believing that the misuse of CCTV footage constitutes a direct violation of an individual’s right to privacy;


!

1.

Encourages Member States to create or maintain a national body to supervise the use of CCTV surveillance;

2.

Emphasises that the jurisdiction of each national body does not extend beyond the scope of footage of the public;

3.

Recommends that Member States adapt the amount of CCTV cameras to be proportional to the relevant crime rate of the area;

4.

Urges the establishment of an EU-wide supervisory committee to monitor the functioning of the aforementioned national bodies;

5.

Suggests that Member States create a national DNA database containing the DNA profiles of all its citizens;

6.

Expresses its hope that Member States refrain from creating such databases until the public has had the opportunity to express their opinions on the matter through elections;

7.

Trusts Member States to cooperate on international criminal pursuits by providing limited access to their national databases to other Member States;

8.

Suggests that access to sensitive information in the CCTV and DNA databases is limited to authorised individuals trained and supervised by the aforementioned newly-created national bodies;

9.

Authorises the creation of media campaigns in order to promote transparency in the use of CCTV footage and DNA profiles.


!

M OTION FOR A R ESOLUTION BY T HE C OMMITTEE ON E NVIRONMENT , P UBLIC H EALTH AND F OOD S AFETY With 25% of Western Europe’s ‘Healthy Years’ lost to chronic illness as a result of obesity, and the impact it has on people’s lives as well as our healthcare systems. What should the role of the European Union be to combat rising obesity in Member States and what actions should be taken to decrease the harmful impact it can have on people’s lives? Submitted by:

Tim van Dijke (Mencia de Mendoza Lyceum), Kees Foekema (St. Ignatius Gymnasium), Leodie Kruidhof (Christelijk Lyceum Zeist) Laura Lens (Berlage Lyceum), Max Mathijssen (Comenius), Ethan Meijer (Revius Lyceum), Rintati Risa (Stanislas College), Tammie Schoot (Tabor Werenfridus), Myrna Tan (Willem de Zwijger College), Marijn Veelers (KSG De Breul), Nora de Vries (Marnix College), Irem Zoodsma (Hermann Wesselink College), Sophie Duffield (Chairperson, UK), Steffan Oberman (Chairperson, NL)

The European Youth Parliament, A. Aware that obesity is responsible for at least 6% of health care spending in Europe and that obesity levels have doubled in the past twenty years, B. Bearing in mind that an all-encompassing solution is difficult to achieve across the whole of the European Union (EU) due to cultural differences, C. Recognising that unhealthy food1 is often cheaper due to mass-production methods which has a relatively greater impact on lower income groups, D. Deeply conscious that there is a lack of knowledge regarding nutrition and physical activity amongst European citizens of all ages, E. Noting with deep concern that people develop bad habits and behaviours from an early age, F.

1

Aware that targeted advertising of unhealthy foods contributes to the problem of obesity;

Foods that are low in nutritional value, not conducive to maintain health and high in saturated fat, salt or sugar.


!

1.

Supports the appointment of an EU official for each Member State to tailor to the relevant Member State the actions taken to fight obesity;

2.

Establishes financial incentives for positive behaviour by:

3.

a)

introducing a tax duty on unhealthy food products at an initial level of 10% in 2014, increasing at 2% each year to a maximum of 20%,

b)

introducing a subsidy on healthy foods2 at an initial level of 10% in 2014, increasing at 2% each year to a maximum of 20%;

Calls for compulsory training in schools tailored to individual Member States aimed at increasing awareness of nutrition, exercise and the financial and health problems of obesity emphasising: a)

an informative and enjoyable approach for children during primary school,

b)

the effects and consequences of making poor nutritional choices for adolescents including real life examples where possible,

c)

the potential to act as role models and the importance of making informative and responsible choices for parents;

4.

Recommends the adoption of a mandatory labelling scheme using a traffic-light system of colours to indicate the levels of saturated fat, sugar and salt in food products;

5.

Requires schools to establish free and easily-accessible extra-curricular exercise programs through co-operation with sports clubs;

6.

Requests a prohibition on targeted advertising of unhealthy foods.

2

Foods that are high in nutritional value and do not contain high levels in more than one out of saturated fat, sugar and salt


!

M OTION FOR A R ESOLUTION BY T HE C OMMITTEE ON C ULTURE AND E DUCATION MEPs and other experts have debated the growing levels of debt among sports clubs, recent corruption cases and possible remedies under the topic ”Playing by the rules: financial fair play and the fight against corruption in sport”. How should the European Union take the lead in promoting transparency and stepping up the fight against corruption, match fixing and betting? Submitted by:

Lisa Adrien (Berlage Lyceum), Chibuye Changwe (Helen Parkhurst College), Yari Dekker (Tabor Werenfridus), Esmée Doense (Mencia de Mendoza), Juliette Jonkers (Revius Lyceum), Bibiana Louer (Stanislas College), Joep van Meyel (St. Ignatius Gymnasium), Anna Pothof (Comenius), Jasper Veen (Christelijk Lyceum Zeist), Roma Vaessen (Willem de Zwijger College), Moska Hellamand (Marnix College), Fahad Saher Fahad (Chairperson, NL), Emilie Tilstam (Chairperson, SE)

The European Youth Parliament, A. Deeply concerned by the increasingly frequent cases of corruption in European sport, B. Aware that the core values and the integrity of sport are being eroded by the current levels of corruption, C. Alarmed by theextensive lack of awareness of sport-related crime both amongst national governments and the general public, D. Noting with deep regret the lack of transparency in the financial statements of sports organisations, E. Deeply regretting the lack of functional and substantive directives regarding sport-related crime within the European framework, F. Fully believing the aforementioned lack to be the caused by the European Union´s (EU) inability to retain control over current corruption cases;

1.

Suggests the use of media campaigns in order to increase its citizens’ awareness of the presence of corruption in sport and its consequences;

2.

Proposes the creation of an anonymous hotline with the purpose of reporting corruption in sports, aimed at the effective tracking of criminal organisations;

3.

Urges the use of Article 165 of the Lisbon Treaty in order to develop uniform measures against corruption in sport across Europe;

4.

Encourages the European Anti-Fraud Office to open their database in order to provide a better understanding of the extent of fraud in sport;

5.

Recommends that key figures in the sports industry are to be educated to recognise and report attempts to corrupt or fix matches;

6.

Calls for the implementation of debt-ceilings for sport clubs.


!

M OTION FOR A R ESOLUTION BY T HE C OMMITTEE ON A GRICULTURE With growing international competition in the food sector, European farmers have been driven to adopt new measures to remain competitive and to be able to produce cheap food. However these measures come at a cost, specifically to animal welfare within the Union. Is the European Union doing enough to protect the welfare of these animals and if not what should it be doing to ensure the welfare of animals within the European Union? Submitted by:

Lisa van Geel (KSG de Breul), Else Groen (Willem de Zwijger College), Thijs Heijligenberg (Marnix College), Alexandra Kaars Sijpesteijn (St. Ignatius Gymnasium), Lubomir Leegwater (Hermann Wesselink College), Dorien Lijnzaad (Christelijk Lyceum Zeist), Boris Post (Berlage Lyceum), Lauren Reinhoudt (Comenius College), Tessa Renard (Mencia de Mendoza Lyceum), Emma van Rest (Stanislas College), Elke van Saane (Revius Lyceum), Marissa de Swart (Tabor Werenfridus), Bernet Meijer (Chairperson, NL), Bram Van Meldert (Chairperson, BE)

The European Youth Parliament, A. Deeply regretting the inefficiency of the current European Union (EU) legislation to protect and respect the welfare of animals within the European food industry, B. Welcoming the communication of the Commission on the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015, C. Recognising the lack of EU-wide enforcement of current animal welfare legislation, D. Observing that the direct payment programme1 of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) does not reward farmers who exceed the legal requirement for animal welfare, E. Further noting the lack of transparency and comprehensiveness in European product labels used to indicate animal welfare standards, F.

Deeply regretting the lack of awareness of the current conditions of animals in the food industry amongst consumers, producers and other stakeholders,

G. Alarmed by the disadvantaged position of European farmers in the international food market as a result of EU animal welfare legislation, H. Noting with deep concern that the EU imports products from countries that do not have animal welfare requirements;

1

Direct payment ensures a safety net in form of basic income support. Farmers who infringe EU law on environmental, public and animal health, animal welfare or land management are penalised by reducing the EU support they receive.


!

1.

Calls for the further development of EU legislation towards stricter animal welfare requirements;

2.

Proclaims the need to harmonize the enforcement of animal welfare legislation between different Member States;

3.

Recommends that the EU subsidies granted through the direct payment programme of the CAP to farmers are dependent on how well the farmer’s have adopted to animal welfare standards;

4.

Urges for the creation of an EU-wide Quality Labelling System for animal based products, replacing the numerous current different labelling systems;

5.

Endorses the creation of a Network of Reference Centres across the Member States that is responsible for implementing and enforcing EU legislation, educating national stakeholders and improving public awareness on the importance of animal welfare;

6.

Encourages research that explores the potential for the use of science based animal welfare indicators,such as stress level, to prescribe new minimum standards in EU Legislation;

7.

Requires imported animal products to have a proved compliance with EU animal welfare standards.


UTZ Certified

Windesheim College


Resolution Booklet NSC Amsterdam2013