News

BSPC President Pyry Niemi underlined the crucial need for close cooperation on the international and regional level, for a coordinated approach rooted in solidarity and mutual support, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. He further pointed out the focus of the Swedish BSPC Presidency on sustainable democracy and how to face common challenges in a changing world. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 28 th Annual Conference of the Baltic Sea States Subregional Cooperation (BSSSC)took place online from 29 September – 1 October, with a primary focus on Strong and Inclusive Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region for the Future. The annual conference gathered more than 100 participants from the political and administrative areas (local, regional, national, EU and other international levels) as well as representatives from science, international organisations, NGOs and the private sector from 11 countries taking part in the Baltic Sea cooperation. The main topics included the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and Russia’s Strategy for North-West Russia, Interreg achievements and future solutions, the European Territorial Agenda, Culture and Baltic Sea Regional Identity, the State of the Baltic Sea with a particular focus on a Plastic-Free Sea as well as Intelligent Transport and Mobility. The conference specifically offered space to the young generation to present proposals for future priorities and cooperation based on a BSSSC Autumn Youth Event. BSPC President Pyry Niemi stressed the urgent need for holding events like these annual conferences, pledging the continuation of close cooperation and presenting the priorities of the Swedish BSPC Presidency. In detail, he emphasised that the COVID-19 pandemic required enhanced cooperation among all levels of society and various stakeholders. As several regions were beginning to deal with the second wave of COVID-19, the parliamentarians had a crucial role in shaping the response to the pandemic, through legislative, policymaking, oversight and advocacy roles. Moreover, due to the global nature of the crisis, and the deep interconnectedness of societies and economies, close cooperation on an international and regional level was crucially required for a coordinated approach rooted in solidarity and mutual support. For that reason, BSPC President Niemi was very grateful to Marshal Struk, as Chairman of the BSSSC, for addressing the parliamentarians of the Baltic Sea region with the core concerns and current focus topics of the BSSSC during the BSPC’s annual conference on 24 August. “We are pursuing similar goals and objectives and I am confident that we will make significant progress in these areas through synergies in our approaches.” As the main results of the 29 th BSPC had already been related to the conference, Mr Niemi concentrated on the priorities of the Swedish BSPC Presidency, which were to be discussed at the organisation’s 30 th annual conference from 29 to 31 August 2021 in Stockholm. During their Presidency, he said that Sweden would focus on sustainable democracy and how to face common challenges in a changing world. This emphasis was chosen not only, he explained, because of the Swedish Parliament’s celebration of 100 years of democracy. The Swedish Presidency saw the more than urgent need to address not only the preservation of livelihoods but also the fundamental issues of democratic coexistence due to – the demanding challenges currently threatening the livelihoods and coexistence in the Baltic Sea region, – the rapidly changing communication structures and media landscapes as well as the worrying interventions in the democratic forms of several countries, – the intensification of violent conflicts and the noticeable increase in human rights violations BSPC President Niemi extended his best wishes to all those fighting for democracy and more democratic structures in their countries, hoping that they would find peaceful success. The severe challenges of COVID-19 had also brought fundamental issues of their coexistence with their neighbours into the public debate. For that very reason, Mr Niemi saw the need to continue learning from each other’s experiences in overcoming the crisis. Not only was it necessary to keep an eye on their own respective countries, but policymakers had to rely more on best practice examples in the future. Especially in times like these, he stressed, it was essential to keep reminding themselves what a valuable asset the Baltic Sea region had in its democracies and how important it was to defend their cornerstones. It was impossible to highlight enough the importance of democracy and the need to strengthen the parliamentary dimension in the countries around the Baltic Sea. Democratic institutions, strong cooperation and environmental and social sustainability were the foundation of the BSPC’s work, the president said. Preserving these were clear priorities of the Swedish Presidency. During the upcoming year, Sweden would focus on four areas related to achieving sustainable democracy: First of all , the joint work of the BSPC would be concentrated on peaceful and reliable neighbourliness and intense cooperation built on participation and trust in the democratic system. That is why the BSPC had reaffirmed in its resolution the urgent call and the expectation that all Baltic Sea States would continue to make every effort to ensure the Baltic Sea region maintain its close and intense cooperation. The BSPC had underlined that the basis of its collaboration – international law, mutual understanding, trust, democratic values, the rule of law, human rights as well as equal opportunities for all – was of particular importance. All around, various new forms of political engagement were coming into play, and the Swedish BSPC Presidency would focus specifically on youth and the role of civil society. The president was glad that these aspects were also at the heart of the BSSSC’s work. With current challenges decreasing trust in traditional democratic mechanisms, the BSSSC had pointed out the demand for an even more active and concerted approach. Mr Niemi also appreciated very much that the BSSSC had already realised a seminar on democracy and a youth event back-to-back to its annual conference, involving young people in the parliamentarians’ consultations even more strongly and topic-oriented. He explained that the BSPC was looking at similar steps. The BSPC considered the BSSSC in terms of youth involvement – through board meetings, youth camps and back-to-back events for the annual conference – as well as the Nordic Youth Council as best practice examples of youth work in the Baltic Sea region. BSPC President Niemi expressed his optimism that the current focus of the Lithuanian CBSS Presidency on youth inclusion and the Baltic Youth Platform – established by the CBSS – would bring about significant progress in the representation of young people in institutions and decision-making processes in the Baltic Sea region. The BSPC had repeatedly called for that. The second theme Sweden wanted to explore in greater depth during their Presidency was the issue of democracy in a changing media landscape. Digitisation, disinformation and fake news were playing an increasingly important role in everyone’s daily lives. So, it was now more important than ever to protect free media and freedom of speech. The Swedish Presidency’s third focal point would be adaptation to new demographics and challenges to the welfare model. He noted that the demographic situation in the Baltic Sea region was changing. The question was how best to adapt to these changes and how they would challenge the current welfare model. The president asked how urbanisation, an ageing population and labour shortages were connected to trust in public institutions, social and regional equality and young people’s opportunities. This led to the question of how the Baltic Sea region could tackle these challenges sustainably and democratically. The fourth pillar was a theme where the BSPC had a long tradition of commitment and engagement: the environment. For many years, the BSPC had repeatedly addressed far-reaching demands to their governments to protect the region’s natural life resources in the best possible way. He underlined that the Baltic Sea was uniting the people around its shores, and the BSPC had continuously called for it to return closer to a good ecological status. Much had been achieved in this regard over the years, President Niemi said but added that developments had been so rapid that it was necessary, again and again, to take new and more far-reaching measures to move closer to these objectives. For that reason, the president appreciated that the BSPC would focus during the next two years on the issue of climate change and biodiversity in a BSPC working group chaired by his fellow Swedish parliamentarian Cecilie Tenfjord Toftby. BSPC President Niemi underlined that the Swedish Presidency wanted to concentrate not only on the environmental side of climate change and biodiversity but also on innovation, technology and further economic aspects. In concluding his speech, the president noted his delight that the two institutions of the BSSSC and the BSPC had mostly similar or identical priorities for the coming year. This showed that they were focusing on strategically fundamental challenges. Sharing the same basic views in many respects helped both to find similar and joint contributions to solving the current problems. Those synergies allowed them to meet the present challenges in the best possible way and to strengthen peaceful cooperation and democratic values in the Baltic Sea region, to enhance prosperity further and to make the Baltic Sea region a more attractive place to live. To that end, he saw the long-standing cooperation of both organisations as a good foundation. With that, the president brought his speech to an end. In the run-up to the conference, BSPC Secretary General Bodo Bahr had informed the BSSSC Board Meeting about the key results of the digital 29 th BSPC.

Following the Digital 29 th Annual Conference, the BSPC has published a Report with all speeches and contributions during the conference. The compilation can be downloaded here and on the 29 th conference webpage.

In addition to the statements given during the digital 29 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference on August 24, the BSPC’s Rapporteurs on Integrated Maritime Policy, MP Jochen Schulte and MP Jörgen Pettersson have issued their comprehensive Report 2020 on Developments in the field of Integrated Maritime Policy. The Report underlines the crucial importance that the BSPC attaches to Maritime policy issues and challenges. It summarizes the developments in the Integrated Maritime Policy since the 28 th BSPC, informs about the activities of the Maritime Rapporteurs and important conferences which have taken place throughout the past year. Like in previous years, the Report is focusing on Blue Growth, energy, infrastructure and environmental aspects of maritime policy, also including ocean governance and research. One focus is laid on autonomous ships in future years as on the improvement of air as a result of the Sulphur directive. It also presents legislative developments concerning Blue Growth and overarching aspects. Furthermore, the Report addresses the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Maritime policy and the Maritime economy. The Report can be downloaded here and on the Rapporteurs’ webpage.

The Digital 29 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference gathered delegates from all member parliaments and parliamentary organisations of the BSPC. The delegates discussed topics such as the environmental state of the Baltic Sea, migration and integration, maritime policy and tourism, but the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on every aspect of cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region was a constant element of the discussion. On behalf of H. E. Mr. Gitanas Nausėda ,President of the Republic of Lithuania, Mr. Sigitas Mitkus , adviser to the President on Foreign Policy Issues addressed over 150 participants of the conference. In his speech he referred to the situation in Belarus expressing his support for the aspirations of the Belarusian people on their way to freedom. He reminded that 30 years ago the Baltic states gained independence and stressed that Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia received significant support from other countries. Speaking for the president, Mr Mitkus pointed out at the end of his speech that he would like to believe in a free and democratic Belarus. Viktoras Pranckietis , Speaker of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania in his speech emphasized the importance of cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region to ensure sustainable development in this region. He expressed hope that the region will remain an area of peaceful cooperation based on rules of law and human rights. Virginijus Sinkevičius , European Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries expressed his strong belief that the cooperation between the countries of the region should be strengthened in order to improve the environmental situation of the Baltic Sea. He announced the organization of a summit meeting of ministers responsible for the state of the environment in the RMB After the opening of the Conference by Mr Sigitas Mitkus , on behalf of H.E. Gitanas Nausėda ,President of the Republic of Lithuania, the welcome address by H.E. Viktoras Pranckietis , Speaker of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the speech of Mr Virginijus Sinkevičius , European Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries, and the speech of Mr Valerijus Simulik , President of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference on the Lithuanian BSPC Presidency 2019-2020 representatives of the incumbent, former and incoming CBSS Presidencies spoke about Vision 2030: Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region for Safe and Prosperous Development: Mr Neris Germanas ,Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania, presented the four priorities of the Lithuanian Presidency: green and maritime tourism as an important sector in reviving the regional economy, increasing the region‘s visibility, giving employment opportunities to young people; civil protection in the region, strengthening resilience in the region against major emergencies and disasters; the fight against human trafficking for labour exploitation in the region as well as the prevention of violence against children. Ambassador Ove Ullerup , representing the 2019-2020 Danish Presidency of the Council of Baltic Sea States, reported that on 19 May, Foreign Ministers of all 11 Member States and a high-level representative of the EU had met in a video conference. Mr. Ullerup underlined the extraordinary level of participation as a strong sign of the political support for the reform of the CBSS. As a result of that meeting, the Bornholm Declaration had been adopted. Mr Dag Wernø Holter , Senior Adviser, Nordic-Baltic Section, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Norway, confirmed that the incoming Norwegian presidency would continue to implement the CBSS reform and follow the Bornholm Declaration. Mr Pyry Niemi , the Vice President of the BSPC who was chairing the session, expressed his gratitude to the management of the CBSS Secretariat for their excellent cooperation with the BSPC and added his best wishes to the outgoing Director General of the Secretariat, Ambassador Maira Mora. The second session, chairedby Ms Valentina Pivnenko , former BSPC President, dealt with the topic of Safeguarding the Environment, Seas and Oceans for Future Generations. The speakers of that session were: Ms Svenja Schulze , Federal Minister for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany, HELCOM Chair, European Council Presidency; Mr Oleg Nilov, Member of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, and Mr Peter Stein , BSPC Rapporteur on Sea-Dumped Munitions, Member of the German Bundestag . All of them called for even more close and active cooperation in these times of the coronavirus pandemic. “The overarching goal remains the best possible protection of the Baltic Sea,” said Svenja Schulze , Federal Minister for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety of Germany, in her video address introducing Germany’s HELCOM Chairmanship, further adding that all efforts should also consider aspects of “sustainability, relevance for the climate and biological diversity, and suitability”. The Minister further noted that Germany’s Chairmanship would also lead to the finalization of the update of the Baltic Seas Action Plan (BSAP) and its implementation as well as devote attention to strengthening regional cooperation and ocean governance. Oleg Nilov noted the example of the Russian tundra fires, requiring huge resources. Despite all that, the tundra served as the green lungs of the northern part of the earth. Peter Stein reported on the topic of sea-dumped munitions and their removal that many researchers, institutes, nationally and internationally funded projects and private companies had developed a high level of expertise and that several companies were offering specialized solutions. However, despite existing knowledge and a general awareness of the dangers, no action had been taken. The reasons for that could be complex, among them diverse responsibilities and the high cost of potential action. Liz Mattsson , Member of the Åland Parliament,emphasized that of a total 30,000 inhabitants of Åland, about 600 were farmers. With its rich agricultural landscape, a well-developed food industry and small-scale production, Åland could be a good place for pilot projects in food production sustainability. The speaker gave examples of several projects currently being realized in her region. Carola Veit , Former BSPC President and Vice-Chair of the BSPC WG on Migration and Integration, chaired the third session: Migration and Integration: Finding Common Solutions Based on Mutual Information and Best Practices. Hans Wallmark , Chairman of the BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration, Sweden, in his conclusion of the three-year work underlined that all members should continue to disseminate and share best practices regarding, for example, supporting the employment and integration of certain groups of migrants. The multifaceted character of integration should be further explored, including the labour market, language, social relationships and cultural accommodation. Dmitry Demidenko , Deputy Head of the Main Migration Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, brought the issue of migration during COVID-19 closer to the audience from a Russian perspective. He outlined how the President of Russia had ordered a comprehensive reform of migration regimes and the institution of citizenship to be carried out. The rules for staying would be simplified and the conditions for compliance with the law rendered clearer and more feasible. He reminded the delegates that Russia was one of the centres of global migration flows and that every year, 16-17 million foreign citizens were coming to the country, with the current year accounting for about 10 million. Vladlena Avdeeva , representative of the NGO «Stellit», St. Petersburg, spoke about the role of online technologies in the involvement of migrant children in human trafficking. She pointed out that the COVID-19 pandemic had increased the risks of children becoming victims of human trafficking as they were spending more time online with reduced adult supervision. The speaker added that digital technologies were erasing the geographical distances between the child and the perpetrator, thus improving children’s accessibility. On the other hand, online technologies were playing an increasing role in the work of NGOs and government organisations helping them to identify vulnerable children, to monitor the condition of the child after rehabilitation or in preventing children from falling victim to human trafficking. In the second part of the session, the reports by the BSPC Rapporteurs were presented: Mr Jörgen Pettersson and Mr Jochen Schulte on Integrated Maritime Policy, Ms Beate Schlupp , First Vice-President of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,on HELCOM and on Sustainable Tourism. The conference was also addressed by Mr Mieczysław Struk , President of the Baltic Sea States Subregional Cooperation, BSSSC, Marshal of the Pomorskie Voivodeship, and by Mr Asaf Hajiyev , PABSEC Secretary General. The Conference approved the new BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity with Ms Tenfjord-Toftby from the Swedish Parliament as the Chairwoman of the Working Group. The Digital 29 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference has unanimously adopted the Conference Resolution. In his final remarks, the BSPC President Valerijus Simulik expressed his great regret that the Lithuanian Parliament had been forced to cancel the 29 th BSPC in Vilnius. Nevertheless, thanks to digital tools, it had proved possible to organize the meetings of the Standing Committee in May 2020 and the Drafting Committee on 20 July as well as finally the 29 th BSPC Conference. The President expressed his satisfaction with the constructive, albeit sometimes fierce, discussion and with the outcome of the Conference which was the adoption of the Resolution by all delegations.Then the symbolic baton went to the incoming BSPC President , Pyry Niemi from the Swedish Parliament, who presented the priorities of the Swedish Presidency and invited all delegates to the 30 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference – hopefully with everyone present – in Stockholm on 29 – 31 August 2021.

9:32 CEST: The 29 th BSPC conference opened On behalf of H. E. Mr. Gitanas Nausėda , President of the Republic of Lithuania, Mr. Sigitas Mitkus , adviser to the President on Foreign Policy Issues addressed over 150 participants of the conference. In his speech he referred to the situation in Belarus expressing his support for the aspirations of the Belarusian people on their way to freedom. He reminded that 30 years ago the Baltic states gained independence and stressed that Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia received significant support from other countries. Viktoras Pranckietis , Speaker of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania in his speech emphasized the importance of cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region to ensure sustainable development in this region. He expressed hope that the region will remain an area of peaceful cooperation based on rules of law and human rights. Virginijus Sinkevičius , European Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries expressed his strong belief that the cooperation between the countries of the region should be strengthened in order to improve the environmental situation of the Baltic Sea. He announced the organization of a summit meeting of ministers responsible for the state of the environment in the RMB The 29 th BSPC is being chaired by Valerijus Simulik, President of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference

In preparation of the Digital 29 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference on 24 August 2020, the BSPC’s Rapporteur on Sea Dumped Munitions, MP Peter Stein, has issued an Interim Report which deals with the issue of dumped munitions and unexploded ordnance in the Baltic Sea. This Interim Report provides a general overview of the current situation and existing challenges in dealing with the legacy, presents a selection of ongoing research projects and results in broad outlines and provides an insight into the current state of the art. Following the 28 th BSPC resolution, a conclusion is drawn on the state of implementation and, finally, a proposal is drawn up on how the existing knowledge and technology can be used efficiently by the Baltic Sea countries to solve the problem of sea-dumped munitions and unexploded ordnance in the Baltic Sea with a variety of links to further materials. The Report can be downloaded here and on the Rapporteurs’ webpage.

The BSPC Standing Committee members reported at the Digital Standing Committee meeting on 17 June 2020 on developments of the corona crisis to date, the current situation and the assessment of further steps in their countries. The topic turned out to be of high interest for the participants; therefore, the Standing Committee agreed that the members of the BSPC would be asked to deepen the meeting’s survey through written reports on the subject. The following statements give a survey of the development in most Baltic Sea Region Countries. The reports also inform about the effects on the work of parliaments and interparliamentary organisations as well as on legislative measures to deal with the consequences of the pandemic. The statements also serve to prepare the digital 29 th BSPC. The compilation will be updated as soon as further statements are received. The Document can be downloaded here and on the 29th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference webpage.

In preparation of the Digital 29 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference on 24 August 2020, the BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration has published the Final Report on its activities throughout the past three years. The Report will be presented at the digital 29 th conference, containing the primary considerations and the results of the negotiations during the last years. The Report also features numerous links to the materials which had been discussed in the Working Group, exceptionally detailed information on the expert presentations and homework assignments carried out by the Working Group as well as to other materials already published on the website. Moreover, the Report highlights best practice examples from the BSPC member countries. Furthermore, it includes links to intergovernmental surveys and a policy assessment by the Migration Institute of Finland as well as the results of a Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum and the statements of governments to recent calls for action of the Working Group and the BSPC. The Final Report comprises political recommendations – also referring to the COVID-19 pandemic – which have been included in the draft resolution of the digital 29 th conference. The Report can be downloaded here and on the Working Group webpage.

Under the chairmanship of BSPC President Valerijus Simulik, the BSPC Standing Committee held its first Digital Meeting. Delegations from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, the German Bundestag, Finland, Hamburg, Kaliningrad, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the Nordic Council, Norway, Poland and Sweden participated in the meeting. Current situation in the BSPC BSPC President Valerijus Simulik, in his welcoming speech, recalled the extraordinary circumstances of the previous Standing Committee meeting in Brussels. Right after that meeting on 2 March, the President of the European Parliament had announced that until further notice no more meetings of international bodies would be held in the European Parliament. At that time, no one had been able to say with sufficient certainty how drastically the situation of this pandemic would affect the population in nearly every country of the world. Currently, there were attempts to return to a new normal through a plethora of individual measures at different speeds. Mr Simulik stressed, however, that the situation in different BSPC member countries varied significantly and that this divergence would prevent all members from physically meeting again for an unforeseeable period. In this context, the Standing Committee meeting initially planned for 29 May in Vilnius had been rendered unfeasible. Accordingly, Mr Simulik had proposed a Standing Committee meeting in digital form in its stead to discuss the further procedure within the BSPC. The COVID-19 pandemic – the situation in the BSPC member countries TheStanding Committee members reported on developments of the corona crisis to date, the current situation and the assessment of further steps in their countries. Mr Pyry Niemi and Ms Cecilie Tenfjord Toftby presented the case in Sweden, Mr Simon Påvals in the Åland Islands and Mr Christian Juhl in Denmark. Mr Johannes Schraps spoke from the perspective of the German Bundestag, Mr Alexander Musewitsch about the situation in Kaliningrad, Prof Jānis Vucāns from the point of view of the Baltic Assembly and Mr Arne Fogtby in the name of Mr Michael Tetzschner from the perspective of the Nordic Council. Mr Arvils Ašeradens talked about Latvia and Mr Jarosław Wałęsa about Poland. The topic turned out to be of high interest for the participants; therefore, the Standing Committee agreed that the members of the BSPC would be asked to deepen the meeting’s survey through written reports on the subject. The 29 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference BSPC President Valerijus Simulik regretted that due to the unpredictable situation related to the spread of COVID-19, the Board of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on 21 May 2020 had been forced to cancel the events that had been planned as part of the 29 th Baltic on 22-25 August 2020. This decision had been necessary to protect the citizens of all countries against the possible spread of the virus. Information about that decision had been sent to all parliaments immediately and published on the website. The President pointed out that the Seimas in that situation was determined to take over the Presidency from Sweden and hold the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in 2022. He proposed discussing the question of whether, given the current situation, the 29 th BSPC should be held in a digital and condensed form. In careful consideration of all circumstances, the BSPC Standing Committee unanimously decided that the 29 th BSPC annual conference will be held in a digital form on 24 August. This decision started the usual path for also preparing a BSPC Resolution which will be discussed in a digital Drafting Committee meeting on 20 August. BSPC Presidencies BSPC Vice President Pyry Niemi informed about the issues of the upcoming Swedish Presidency which will be part of the BSPC Strategy and Work Programme for 2020/2021. The Standing Committee welcomed that subsequent the Presidency of Sweden set to begin right after the 29 th BSPC and following the elections in Lithuania, the Lithuanian Parliament will consider if it would be possible for the BSPC Presidency to return to Lithuania. BSPC Rapporteurs and the new BSPC Working Group The Standing Committee has left it to the rapporteurs to decide whether they will also submit a report this year which would be published on the website or – due to the cancellation of many international events – whether they will report next year on a two-year period. Ms Cecilie Tenfjord Toftby from the Swedish Parliament, the designated Chairwoman of the upcoming BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity, reported that a significant amount of preparations had been implemented before the pandemic; therefore her team was ready to start working. She encouraged the delegates to join the working group and invited the members to the first meeting of the group in November to Stockholm.

Under the Chairmanship of BSPC President Valerijus Simulik, the BSPC Standing Committee gathered at the European Parliament in Brussels on 2 March 2020 to exchange information about current common issues with the CBSS, to inquire about the developments in the field of the European maritime and regional policy, and to prepare the upcoming Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Vilnius. About 50 participants, representatives and delegations of the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Council of the Baltic Sea States, and of the BSPC members from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Nordic Council, Norway, Poland, the Russian Federation and Sweden participated in the meeting. The Standing Committee was greeted by Mr Andreas Schwab , MEP, Chairman of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Northern cooperation and for relations with Switzerland and Norway and to the EU-Iceland Joint Parliamentary Committee and the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Parliamentary Committee on behalf of the President of the European Parliament. The EEA delegation, he explained, was dealing with the EU’s northern European policies and relations with various parliamentary formats in the north. During the last parliamentary term, the delegation inter alia had actively participated in activities of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference and its Standing Committee. It also hosted the fifth Northern Dimension Parliamentary Forum and maintained close contacts with the Nordic Council as well as the West-Nordic Council. It was also the intention of the European Parliament to keep both the Baltic and Arctic areas high on the agenda of their work, as represented in the EEA delegation. As requested by parliament and its committees, the remit of the delegation was rather wide, making it special and interesting. The European Parliament was paying close attention to the Baltic Sea region and its own inter-governmental and sub-national institutions, including the parliamentary ones. The European Union’s Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region was a fundamental tool to maximise the growth of this region, and there were many member states of the European Union that were involved but also the Russian colleagues. The European Union underlined the importance of the development of the thick network of cross-border and people-to-people programmes in the Baltic Sea region, and they were proud of their shared values, their culture and vision of life that they wanted to preserve and improve upon. Together, they also highlighted the value of practical regional cooperation, including those countries that were not part of the European Union, as well as stable development, public health and social well-being, culture, environmental protection, logistics, the connectivity of people and transport – issues of importance to the normal people in the whole region. Mr Schwab further underlined that the European Parliament was also fully engaged in protecting and improving the environmental health of the Baltic Sea and were in support of the Helsinki Commission, created for this purpose. All Baltic Sea states and the EU had to take prevention measures and immediate actions, showing determination to clean up this heavily polluted sea. They believed that it was necessary to address efficiently by doing so the urgent environmental challenges in that area. For this, he again offered his welcome to the parliamentarians to the European Parliament. He stated his conviction that they all agreed on the need to work together in facing the current challenges in their region as well as his hope that this cooperation would be made even more efficient in the near future. BSPC President Valerijus Simulik thanked for the hospitality of the European Parliament, noting that the working group presided over by Mr Schwab was an important delegation. He further mentioned that more work was incumbent upon said delegation with the United Kingdom now joining the community of states outside EU membership, and the president expected the UK to be added to the other three nations within the remit of that delegation. He opened the meeting of the Standing Committee, pointing out that this was the first such meeting in 2020 and indeed the first session after Brexit. The situation was changing in the European Union, but it was still too early to say how things would pan out. He went on to state that Brussels was an important player in all political affairs. He also hoped and expected that they would work well together at the upcoming BSPC conference in Vilnius which was being prepared. For the Baltic Sea countries, it was of paramount importance what would be discussed both in Vilnius and here in Brussels because their love for the sea truly marked their identity. He also offered his thanks to the representatives from the Council of the Baltic Sea States and the European Commission. Progress Report from the Council of the Baltic Sea States Ms Ida Heimann-Larsen, Chair of the Committee of Senior Officials of the Council of the Baltic Sea States, Denmark, Ambassador Maira Mora , Director General of the CBSS Secretariat and Mr Bernd Hemingway , Deputy Director General of the CBSS Secretariat informed the Standing Committee about the course of implementation of the programme of the Danish presidency at the CBSS and its current activities. Ms Heimann-Larsen started by mentioning that at their last meeting, in Oslo in August at the annual conference of the BSPC, she had noted the overriding priority of the Danish presidency to use its 12 months in the chair of the CBSS to drive through real change in the organisation. The aim was to enable it to regain some of the relevance the organisation used to have in the early 1990s. , namely that there should be more focus and flexibility in the work of the CBSS, that there should be improved cooperation with other regional cooperation formats and that better use should be made of the unique strengths of the CBSS when designing and implementing activities. During the Latvian presidency, considering work had been carried out on how to best achieve these objectives. It had been a major achievement indeed when foreign ministers agreed on a roadmap for reform in Jūrmala last year. Moving from roadmap to reality was the focus of the Danish presidency’s work. The speaker noted that they would be able to present the results by the end of the year when handing over the presidency to Lithuania. Ms Heimann-Larsen spoke about some main goals of Danish presidency in that respect: Firstly , to increase the focus and flexibility of the organisation, they had prepared some new terms of reference for the organisation and the secretariat. This had been done so as to highlight the need for coupling the work of the CBSS to timely and politically prioritised debates in national governments and other international fora. This meant that the ministerial level meetings should be used to ensure a continuous and timely political dialogue in the region on issues of mutual concern with all Baltic Sea states around the table. The discussions would not be limited to the activities that were taking place within the CBSS but would rather use the meeting to speak more broadly, engendering a regional dialogue and embracing cooperation also in various other formats around the Baltic Sea. The second aspect of their reform process was thinking about how to improve cooperation with the many other regional formats active in the region. Most notably, the CBSS had considered how and to which extent it should interact with the European Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and with the Northern Dimension. Getting these relationships right was essential to getting the most out of their regional cooperation. The responsibility here lay within the member states which governed all these three formats. Nonetheless, the CBSS had served as a meeting platform on which to discuss possible policy alignments and best use of resources. The Danish side was very much hoping that the incoming presidency would continue this approach. Beyond the three largest cooperation formats, Ms Heimann-Larsen underlined the existence and value of others. The CBSS could – and should – look into improving its relationships with them as well. This would include other regional councils such as the Nordic Council of Ministers, the Bering Arctic Council, the Arctic Council or HELCOM or VASAB, with very similar setups as intergovernmental organisations. But the CBSS also had many other valued partners, working at different levels. She mentioned such like the Union of the Baltic Cities or the BSSSC. These would be good examples of how they also cooperated with organisations at different levels so as to create real change in the region. Of course, she went on, the political dialogue with the BSPC also offered scope for more cultivation. She suggested that this might require the development of new tools of dialogue between their organisations, tools to ensure a more focused dialogue with a high degree of political backing in the parliaments of the Baltic Sea states. This, she added, also lay at the discretion of the BSPC. Regarding the third reform objective, they had worked at making explicit the unique strengths of the CBSS as a regional actor, ensuring the best possible uses of these strengths when activities were designed. She considered one of these most pronounced, namely the ability to work on projects in an integrated manner, involving all levels from the political actors to interest organisations, municipalities, academics, youth actors and others. Ambassador Maira Mora , Director General of the CBSS Secretariat added an information about the youth at the Annual Forum of the EUSBR which the secretariat was co-organising this year in partnership with Turku City. She confirmed that the engagement of youths would not be as merely invited guests but rather full participants at all stages. They would not be present just for engagement’s sake but rather take part fully in all the deliberations and proceedings of the annual forum. Mr Bernd Hemingway , Deputy Director General of the CBSS Secretariat commented on the question of the migration and integration issue. There had been discussions in the Council, but it had appeared that countries had faced very different challenges. It was his belief that the BSPC had come to the same conclusions. As for the CBSS, their focus for the time being was looking into the demographic factor in particular of an aging population. He clarified that some of the countries of the CBSS were also migration countries, adding to the demographic challenges. But this was the extent of the concerns at the moment for the CBSS; they were not discussing integration as such. The conservation and sustainable use of the oceans Mr Felix Leinemann , European Commission, Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, responsible for Blue Economy Sectors, Aquaculture and Maritime Spatial Planning gave a Progress report on the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans and also took a statement on the BSPC’s recommendations for action in the Oslo resolution, insofar as they relate to maritime policy. He spoke about five topics of particular interest to the BSPC at present, one of them the Commission’s objective for the upcoming UN Oceans conference, the second the effects of Brexit, the third the progress made in combating marine pollution, the fourth the potential dangers from ammunition dumps, and the fifth topic concerning comments regarding the Oslo Resolution. He began with the final topic, noting that the Commission very much appreciated this resolution as a very constructive contribution aimed at protecting the oceans and restoring them wherever possible. Specifically, his side was supporting the goal of developing a legally binding and globally reaching mechanism for managing plastic waste. The European Commission had been quite active in combating single-use plastics. They had come up with a strategy in the previous year, with one of the highlights being the ban of the ten items most frequently found littered on Europe’s beaches, but they were accompanied by several activities aimed at reducing marine littering. For example, the Commission was developing a standard for fishing gear or aquaculture gear, because such gear in its current form was wasteful and could lead to non-targeted fish or marine species becoming entangled in nets. He also noted that these nets could be lost at sea and become a nomadic hazard. For such reasons, they were trying to fit fishing gears with devices that would make it possible to retrieve them much easier than was the case at the moment. In the present, they were relying very much on volunteers or on fishermen who went out with the intent of fishing for litter. Mr Leinemann stressed, though, that this could not be enough. Therefore, they were working further to expand on these areas. The next step would be looking at microplastics from all sources. As with normal plastics, these microplastics did not come from the sea but rather from land, such as the tires of cars on the road, and so it was necessary to address these problems on land. Mr Leinemann pointed out that his Commissioner, Mr Virginijus Sinkevičius, who was also responsible for the environment and not just the oceans, would very much work with the environmental colleagues in this area. Other fields of tackling marine plastics included a new directive on port reception facilities, currently being implemented by all member states. The speaker added that there was a strong international dimension to this issue. The Commission was very much in support of the plans of regional conventions against marine litter. The Baltic Sea Action Plan for management by HELCOM was a good example for collaboration and effectiveness in a given sea basin. The Commission invited all relevant stakeholders, such as NGOs, to actively participate in this action plan. Mr Leinemann noted that the resolution also mentioned maritime spatial planning as an important tool to achieve clean and sustainable oceans. As the speaker himself used to be responsible for spatial planning in the European Commission, he himself very much appreciated this item. Again, with respect to HELCOM and VASAB, the Baltic Sea had become a very successful test bed in addressing maritime spatial planning from a cross-border perspective where different countries were working together. Returning to his work, Mr Leinemann stated that the Commission had been funding two projects so far in this area and would launch a third call this year for a cooperation project in the Baltic Sea region on maritime spatial planning. With regard to Commission’s objectives for the UN Oceans conference which was to take place in June in Lisbon, Portugal, he noted that the lack of improvement over the last five years was reason for serious concern. Looking at the reports on biodiversity or the state of the ocean report by the IPCC, the International Panel on Climate Change, none of these was painting a good picture. He cautioned that they would fail to meet the targets under the sustainable goal 14 that were due in 2020. Accordingly, this would continue to play an important role in the discussions at the United Nations. They also wanted to ensure that the conference would be successful as well as the implementation of SDG 14. The focus of the UN Ocean Conference was intended to be research and innovation. The European Commission was keen to contribute to this on a wide scale. Around 250 million euros a year were spent by the European Union’s research framework programmes on ocean research. Mr Leinemann said that they could deliver more and that they should do so. For the conference, the Commission had four main goals: They wanted more collaborative action, addressing all sources of pollution, including the plastics he had mentioned earlier. In addition, they wanted to enforce biodiversity laws and provide qualitative assessments of the marine areas which were being or needed to be restored. Thus, the Commission sought to protect these better and to manage them actively – this could be achieved through more protected areas and better management. Moreover, they wanted to ensure more sustainable fisheries and aquacultures, including from an ecosystem perspective. There were climate change mitigation and adaptation as well as nature-based solutions that the Commission was keen to put forward, and the Baltic Sea was very strong in the area of the blue bio economy, for instance working with algae and making use of shellfish as well as other natural resources to clean the sea. This approach had proven successful in some areas, to achieve the maximum available yield in fisheries and to reduce the pressure. Unfortunately, this did not apply to the Baltic Sea but rather in the North Atlantic where they had reached maximum sustainability yield and had seen an increased economic return for fishermen. That was proof for the European Commission that if those who were fishing sustainably, could combine that with economic growth. At the UN Conference, the Commission would also push for action: They could not accept they were already failing that had been set five years earlier, and the Commission would not accept any compromise in this area. At the conference, they would also make sure that it was clear that there was no one-size-fits-all solution; every sea basin could contribute with its own characteristics and assets. The fourth objective for the UN conference was accepting that there were no easy solutions. He qualified this general statement by conceding that there surely were a few easy solutions, but as an overall view, no sustainable solution was easy. Mr Leinemann had mentioned using mussels to clean the waters from eutrophication. This was a possibility, he acknowledged, but it might not work in all situations and settings. The speaker said that there was hope for some programmes, but he cautioned that none should think that the issue would take care of itself naturally and without any outside effort. What was needed was to develop the science, ensure that it worked and then put it into practice. With regard to Brexit, Mr Leinemann noted that one month earlier, the UK had become a third country, but the transition period was still ongoing and would extend until the end of this year. During this period, the United Kingdom was still fully governed by the common fisheries policy; it was part of the common fisheries policy, he clarified, but it did not have any say in it since it was no longer part of the institutions governing this policy. Nonetheless, the European Commission was still working closely with the British and in constant contact, also because there was a deadline in the Withdrawal Agreement that stated that on 1 July 2020, an agreement on fisheries should be in place. Negotiations between the UK and the European Union had started on that day, 2 March 2020, and debates on fisheries were part of that negotiations package. As they had only just begun, Mr Leinemann cautioned that there was nothing he could say about these. They were working based on a mandate from the European Council and were working in close cooperation with the UK taskforce on this issue, so as to make sure that there was a link between the future trade agreement and the fisheries part. The next topic for Mr Leinemann was progress with regard to marine pollution. Considering the recent trends and sources of concern for the Baltic Sea, which had also been outlined in the State of the Environment report published by the European Environmental Agency, there were various pressures from human activities that caused adverse effects on the marine ecosystems: nutrient enrichment from farming, contaminants, bottom trawling, overfishing. The latest assessment by HELCOM showed that 97 per cent of the Baltic Sea was affected by eutrophication, depleting habitats and food webs. Another target planned for 2020 that was unlikely to be met was the good environmental status of the Baltic Sea. Mr Leinemann nonetheless insisted that this should not stop them from recognising that there was progress on some other fronts. They had implemented measures to combat chemical pollution; there was a reduction of contamination and impacts from some hazardous substances, such as PCP, in the marine environment as well as, more generally speaking, a reduction of oil spills. In terms of marine litter, he referred back to the actions the Commission had taken. Although these had not yet resulted in measurable results, Mr Leinemann hoped they would see the results of these actions already implemented in the near future and thus less litter being produced. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive was in place, he noted, serving as an incentive to develop underwater noise monitoring surveys. This had not been studied sufficiently up to this point. Knowing more about this issue, though, would help them work on reducing its impact on the marine environment. In addition, better management of the fish stocks and shellfish stocks had contributed to a clear decrease in the fishing pressure in the Baltic Sea, and there were some signs of recovery in the reproductive capacity of a number of fish stocks. He underlined that this was not a positive development on all fronts but that some fish stocks at least were registering improvements. The efforts to reduce further pressure needed to be intensified. The conservation of Europe’s natural environment was part of the European Green Deal. Accordingly, the success of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive would be instrumental to achieving the EU’s overarching objectives, such as halting the loss of biodiversity in the sea and on land as well as moving towards a zero-pollution society. The Commission was determined to deliver on its zero-pollution ambition for both climate neutrality and a toxic-free environment. For 2021, it intended to adopt a zero-pollution action plan for air, water and soil, with actions that should prevent pollutions from being generated along with measures to clean and remedy existing pollutions. Mr Leinemann went on to tackle the final point he was asked to present about, namely the potential emerging dangers from ammunition dumps in the Baltic Sea and other ocean waters. He stated that this had to be taken seriously, and he appreciated the BSPC doing so as evidenced by the topic surfacing in several reports. The president had also mentioned it during the current meeting. The European Commission supported the text in the Oslo Resolution, calling for more cooperation. The Commission or DG Mare Maritime Affairs had organised a colloquium on the challenges of unexploded munitions in the sea in February of 2019, seeking expert advice from all the various European seas. A further studied would be commissioned to see what could be done very concretely. The new Maritime Security Action Plan included an action point on the disposal and elimination of sea-dumped ammunitions. This was very important not just for the environment as such but also for the development of a blue economy. One point of concern here was for example how to develop offshore wind farms, another was the development of aquaculture that was more sustainable. All such activities tied into the question of whether the sea was actually safe for these construction measures. Progress report and perspectives on the European territorial cooperation and the macro-regional strategies Mr Jean-Pierre Halkin from the Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy of the European Commission Macro-regions, responsible for Transnational/Interregional cooperation, IPA, Enlargement of the European Commission, informed the Standing Committee on new developments and perspectives on the European territorial cooperation and the macro-regional strategies. Mr Halkin presented a published report on the implementation of the four macro-regional strategies and focused himself on five findings. First was that they had had a very fruitful discussion in the Council in which a very constructive presidency from Romania had supported them. That had led them to innovate this year by organising the first edition of the week of macro-regional strategies. It had been, for the Commission’s side, a good way to feel the pulse of the interest for macro-regional strategies in Brussels. The purpose of this first week had been to encourage the cooperation between the strategies themselves but also the interaction between the stakeholders of the strategies and everyone working in Brussels, in the Council, in the parliament, in the Committee of Regions, economic and social committees and in the Commission itself. For the Commission side, it had been quite a success as they had made it one of the forty thematic weeks of the Commission. The Commission had been quite well represented during this instalment; the Commissioner Elisa Ferreira had been there as had the Deputy DG Normunds Popens and the four directors, including Ms Andersson Pench, and also colleagues from twelve different DGs. It had also been extremely well attended by the member state representatives, for instance, ministers, state secretaries or deputy ministers. Furthermore, it had been a new type of event that they had organised with a social dimension. Thus, it became clear that there was indeed still strong interest in macro-regional strategies. One of the key reasons for this interest was his second finding, namely that everyone was convinced that the strategies remained very relevant. The world was changing faster and faster. They had been speaking about climate change a lot and realised that the way climate change was understood today was very different from five years ago or even just two years earlier. Globalisation had come, the EU had a digital agenda, migration patterns were different – everything was changing quickly. The conviction of all parties had been that the strategies were the right approach to convert uncertainties into opportunities, since root causes or solutions exceeded the administrative border of a member state of the European Union. The third finding Mr Halkin spoke about was the connection between the macro-regional strategies and the new EU priorities. Certainly, for the four macro-regional strategies, there had been a feeling that the new EU priorities offered an opportunity for the strategies. Both of these were already supporting green growth and systemic blue growth. These were completely interconnected. Moreover, it was necessary to connect the coastal regions with the inland regions. The Commission was already supporting the circular economy in transition to a carbon-conserving economy. During the week of macro-regional strategies, they had heard that there were good ways of tailoring the Green Deal to the needs of the regions, buffered by the strategies. That was a very strong message, Mr Halkin stressed. There were also very good ways of speeding up the implementation of the new EU priorities and in particular the Green Deal, in the end increasing the ownership by EU citizens of those initiatives. The fourth finding noted by the speaker was the importance of what they called embedding. That was how the Commission was going to take the priorities of the strategies into the EU programmes. Embedding, he explained, was a technical word but very important, nonetheless. In that regard, they expected the countries participating in the European Union’s Baltic Sea region to pave the way and be the forerunners for the four macro strategies. Embedding was something totally new. The Commission was aware that many actions were already taking place to put the strategies into motion, but they had to do more. They needed to make sure that in all national programmes and regional programmes, the priorities of the strategies were reflected where it was appropriate. The Commission had seen a great deal of interest in embedding, and that was a very strong signal. Representatives of managing authorities – those who were going to translate the plans into concrete action – had been present at the event and were interested in making sure that the strategy was enacted and was indeed moving forward. On the Commission’s side, Mr Halkin noted, they certainly encouraged this as well as the connection with all EU funds, including those put in direct management like Horizon Europe or the programme for life sciences. He added that it was very important to be sure that they were connecting to the right persons, to the changemakers. These were the people operating the programmes, extremely dedicated civil servants who were working very hard. Still, it was necessary to help them be connected among themselves, within the countries, within the regions and among the regions. That had to be supported, he underlined, and a strong signal in that direction was required. Surely, they were already taking the first actions, but government encouragement was needed. Moving to the last finding, Mr Halkin spoke about the need to reengage with the political class. That was also vital. They had established macro-regional strategies under the inspiration of the countries of the Baltic Sea region in order to address challenges that were otherwise lacking political support. They were furthermore aware that political control rested in the states contributing to the strategy from all sides, and he also had to mention Norway and Russia in this regard. Good politicians at the start of their mandates needed to take on board new priorities, and in order to do that, they had to identify lesser priorities so that they could create space for the more pressing ones. There had to be a constant fight, a constant push in order to keep the strategies on the agenda. That mattered very much, he highlighted. In that regard, Mr Halkin mentioned the Baltic Sea Council which would co-chair the Forum of the Baltic Sea Region in Turku, on 16 – 17 June. This forum would prove very important for reengaging the representatives of the political level, and it was vital for ministers to be there. It was equally important for young people to participate in this process, and Mr Halkin noted that he had been very encouraged to see the first draft of the agenda of the forum as it was designed for the people who would in the end be operating the strategies and making sure that they would be successful. In conclusion, Mr Halkin noted that there had been a very strong convergence of the former regional strategies during the week of macro-regional strategies. He believed it vital for these strategies to keep moving together after this first meeting. Mr Halkin further highlighted that parliaments could also remain extremely vital catalysts in the implementation of the strategies. For some strategies, the parliaments had set up priority action funds for pilot projects, even though their resources were extremely limited compared to the regional policies; nonetheless, these were transformational. The overall goal was not just to achieve blue growth or green growth but rather to ensure that trust and confidence among the EU citizens were strengthened, and it was here that parliamentary support proved vital. Following their presentations, the representatives of the CBSS and the European Commission discussed questions, comments and statements from the Standing Committee on the issues raised in the presentations. BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration Mr Pyry Niemi , informed about the progress on the Working Group’s report. The aim was to distribute a first draft of the final report to all delegations by 7 April and to receive comments, remarks and further proposals by 23 April, so that the report could be discussed conclusively during the planned meeting in Mariehamn. The report will then be forwarded to the Annual Conference in Vilnius. New BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby the upcoming chairwoman of the planned new BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity informed that the first draft of how the working group should function had been prepared. The plan was to have several meetings in the Baltic Sea area, looking for best practices. Focus areas had been established. In the case of the new group, one such focus area was how to meet the target from the UN. She saw a need to explore how the biodiversity was being affected and how they could adapt to these effects of climate change on biodiversity. The third focus point was almost more important, she noted, as their goal was to have an optimistic view on these issues. The working group should set out to beat climate change, although it could not accomplish this task all the way. They had to adapt to climate change, they wanted to preserve biodiversity, but they had to meet the changes in biodiversity. Moreover, this should be done with an optimistic tone, aiming to use the technology already available in a good way. That was the current plan, she concluded, noting that they were open for further input. Rapporteurs Peter Stein informed the Standing Committee on his activities and his further plans as BSPC Rapporteur on Sea-Dumped Munitions and made suggestions regarding experts during the annual conference. BSPC Finances The Standing Committee approved the 2019 Financial Report including the Financial Result as per the Fourth Quarter of 2019 as well as the budget plan proposal for 2020. The Financial Report was published on the BSPC website. The 29 th BSPC, Vilnius, 23-25 August 2020 BSPC President Valerijus Simulik once more invited the members of the BSPC to the annual conference in Vilnius. He underlined that they would have to work there. Welcoming them as friends, they were looking forward to continue working with each other in Vilnius in their conference. The attendees would arrive on 22 August 2020, with the meeting of the Drafting Committee and the Standing Committee set for 23 August 2020. On 24 August, a very special opening ceremony was expected as the President of the Republic of Lithuania had sent a confirmation that he would attend the ceremony. The Speaker of the Parliament would participate as well as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Danish minister of foreign affairs as well as the Norwegian Minister of Foreign affairs, had also been invited. The topic suggested by the Lithuanian Presidency was to work on a strategy for 2030, the future of the Baltic Sea region. The first session was set on the Vision 2030 and the development of the Baltic Sea region. For the second part, Vision 2030 on seas and oceans the EU Commissioner was expected to attend. The third topic was migration and integration, in which the working group would provide a report. The following day, 25 August 2020, would deal with science and technology as a driving force behind the development of the Baltic Sea region. He proposed that the president and the vice-presidents, would sign the BSPC resolution. The Swedish Presidency 2020/2021 BSPC Vice-President Pyry Niemi, Chairman of the Swedish Delegation to the BSPC, informed that the Swedish delegation was currently in the process of creating a draft proposal to be presented in Vilnius, at the Standing Committee meeting. Due to the fact that the Swedish parliament and the general right to vote in the country was now one hundred years old, with a century of democracy in Sweden, that would be a focus of the Swedish presidency. More specifically, it would concentrate on sustainable democracy and how to face a changing world. In some countries, it could be seen that the space for democracy was shrinking; therefore, the Swedish delegation suggested to focus on sustainable democracy, with some major elements and issues that would be presented in Vilnius. Further topics of the Standing Committee meeting among others included the Follow-up to the 28 th BSPC Resolution.

The BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration held its eighth meeting on the premises of the German Bundestag in Berlin. Participants from Åland, the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Lithuania – represented by the BSPC President Valerijus Simulik -, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the Nordic Council, Poland, Russia and Sweden attended the meeting. Chaired by Hans Wallmark, Sweden, Chairman of the Working Group, and welcomed by the Head of the German Bundestag’s delegation to the BSPC Johannes Schraps, the participants discussed expert presentations as well as the next meeting and the elaboration of the Final Report for the BSPC Annual Conference in Vilnius. The overall theme of the meeting was unaccompanied minors alongside the topics Managing Migration, Border Control and Return as well as Sustainable Management of Migration and Integration Policies. The Working Group vividly discussed four expert presentations and agreed on the structure and main themes of the final report. Expert presentations Prof Dr Stefan Thomas from the University of Applied Science, Potsdam, held a presentation with the title “Understanding and Supporting Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking and Refugee Children and Young People”. Prof Thomassaid that the exceptional migration flows during 2015 and 2016 had resulted in a lot of unaccompanied minors in Germany. These minors would stay in Germany for the next 50, 60 and 70 years, and it was therefore of utmost importance to find solutions for both migration and integration. Prof Thomas had conducted interviews with unaccompanied minors andpresented some of the main findings from his study. Primarily, this was that the institutional and legal circumstances of the German Youth Service system were highly standardised, and the standard of youth welfare was very high, but there was a lack of integration of the minors into social life in Germany. The findings of the current study indicated that integration into social life in Germany succeeded rather seldomly. The unaccompanied minors who had participated in the study experienced exclusion, discrimination and racism in their everyday lives. The minors were also at risk of inactivity since they did not have much to do apart from school. Contact with German peers and a welcoming culture in the country was essential for integration. Another aspect pointed out by Prof Thomaswas stress and pressure on the unaccompanied minors. Earlier traumas were relevant, but the study showed that most of the stress and pressure the minors were subject to concerned the situation in their current lives. Another finding of the study was that the minors were wishing for a job and an apartment, establishing an independent conduct of life. Prof Thomas concluded by saying that it was a common view that unaccompanied minors were in need of therapy to be able to deal with their traumas, but his study showed that the need and the wish for a job and an opportunity to stand on their own two feet were much stronger. Ms Ulrike Schwarz , a legal expert at the National Association for Unaccompanied Refugee Minors, held a presentation with the title “ Understanding and Meeting the Legal Needs of Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking and Refugee Children and Young People”. The National Association for Unaccompanied Refugee Minors (BumF) is a small NGO advocating for the rights of refugee children and young adults in Germany. Their projects are financed by the EU and are aimed at improving the reception conditions for unaccompanied minor refugees through training of professionals in the field of social work, family law and asylum. As Ms Schwarz explained, the most significant countries of origin for unaccompanied minors seeking asylum in Germany were Guinea, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Iraq and Eritrea. These countries differed from the general statistics where Syria was the primary country of origin for asylum seekers in Germany. Ms Schwarz noted that the general protection for unaccompanied minors was quite high in Germany, placing the interests of the child at the centre. The safety net protecting the minor consisted of a relationship triangle, where the Youth Welfare Office, the care person and the guardian/legal representative each were playing an essential part. The Youth Welfare Office supported the minor until the Family Court appointed a guardian. The YWO was also responsible for clearing the minor, a process which usually took about three months. During the clearing process, many aspects were assessed; health, education, personal development (physically as well as psychologically), possible caretaking facility, family ties, trafficking issues, asylum application and the question who should be the legal guardian. The clearing process was of great importance since that formed the basis for further applications, negotiations and hearings. The family court had to confirm that the legal requirements for guardianship did apply: The minor should be underage and unaccompanied. The court then appointed a guardian as part of its responsibility to monitor the guardianship and if necessary, end or change the guardianship. Ms Katrin Hirseland , head of research at the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, held a presentation about “ Managing Migration, Border Control and Return”. Ms Hirseland presented the main tasks of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees: the asylum procedure and the Dublin procedure, resettlement and humanitarian reception, migration, integration, voluntary return, internationals tasks, security issues, digitisation and research. The office implemented a new approach after 2015 because of a new legal basis. In June 2019 a new migration package was adopted in Germany – which would take effect in March of the current year 2020 – including stronger return policies and regulations for labour market integration of asylum seekers. Ms Hirseland presented some statistics about immigrants in Germany, concluding that the leading immigrant group was EU-internal migration. Other significant groups consisted of international university students, family reunification and asylum applications. The central countries of origins were Romania, Poland and Bulgaria. The number of applicants had been very high around 2015-2016 but had decreased since then. In 2019, 166,000 people had sought asylum in Germany. About 38 % of them had obtained a positive response. Germany had implemented temporary border controls since 2015, intended to prevent illegal entries and enable early registration for asylum seekers. Another aspect of migration policy was promoting returns. There were two types of returns: voluntary and forced returns. The challenge in return number was that they did not match the number of legal obligations to leave Germany. Forced returns had doubled since the beginning of the mass influx in 2014. One example of Germany tackling the return challenge was the Assisted Return Programme providing support to the migrants for travelling, medical assistance and accommodation. One of the conclusions of the work with a return policy was that financial incentives often were not the primary return motivation but could encourage people who were already thinking about returning. The final presentation, “Sustainable Management of Migration and Integration Policies “, was held by Prof Dr Lars Castellucci , from the University of Applied Management Studies. Prof Castellucci is also an MP in the German Bundestag. Prof Castellucci presented several numbers to illustrate the migration flows today and in the past: In 2018, there were 258 million migrants in the world. 2.5 % of the population had been migrants in 1965 compared to 3.3 % of the world population today. The birth rate in Europe in total was 1.6, and 11 billion people were the estimated number of people in the world in the year 2100. According to Prof Castellucci, people earning more than 2,000 USD per year but less than 10,000 USD per year were most likely to migrate. People with this income had the financial ability to move but at the same time not enough money to live a decent life, thus fostering a wish to move to a better place with other opportunities. Prof Castellucci commented that we should not just let migration happen, not attempt to prevent it but instead try to handle it. Prof Castellucci also informed on the new migration law that was intended to allow skilled workers to come to Germany. Conceptually, it gave the country the opportunity to attract skilled workers from all around the globe and served as an addition to a previous act aimed only at highly qualified workers with high salaries. Further on, Prof Castellucci commented on the triple-win-effect. As an example, he brought up the issue of nurses from abroad. The idea was to attract such nurses only from countries that had a surplus of them, rather than stealing the skilled labour from nations where they were also needed. That, the professor pointed out, was not a win-win scenario but rather a lose-win case. He saw the triple-win model created by present German policy as an indication that it could be achieved: The migrants would win, with better living perspectives. The labour market and the country would win as the currently severe shortage of nurses would be resolved. The countries of origin would win through readmittances and by Germany respecting the needs of their labour markets. The professor voiced his opinion that this model should be applied to other sectors as well. That would require an organisation like the World Health Organisation to monitor these labour markets. As large as this issue was, he felt it was necessary to move from sector to sector with the aid of an institution that provided them with the requisite data enabling solutions that were good for the many and not the few. Regarding asylum, the main issue is to enforce the laws that Germany has. He also stressed the importance of distinguishing between those in need and those able to return. Prof Castellucci addressed the question of integration, pointing to the importance of fundamental needs as food, shelter, education, but also getting in touch with other people. The Working Group had a lively debate with the experts on the issues raised in the presentations and possible recommendations for action. The Working Group confirmed that it would hold one more meeting on 27-28 April 2020 in Mariehamn. The meeting will focus on the details of the working group’s final report and further calls to action for the 29 th annual conference of the BSPC in Vilnius. Following the working group meeting, the BSPC Secretary Level prepared the Standing Committee meeting in Brussels on 2 March 2020. Prof Dr Stefan Thomas: Presentation Ulrike Schwarz: Presentation Katrin Hirseland : Presentation