News

Under the Chairmanship of BSPC President Jorodd Asphjell, the BSPC Standing Committee gathered at the European Parliament in Brussels on 21 February 2019 to inquire about the developments in the field of the European regional and maritime policy, to exchange information about current common issues with partner organizations and to prepare the upcoming Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Oslo. 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, Finland, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the Nordic Council, Norway, Poland, the Russian Federation, Schleswig-Holstein, and Sweden participated in the meeting. The Standing Committee had a lively and intensive exchange of opinions with the Vice-President of the European Parliament, Boguslaw Liberadzki . On behalf of the President of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, Vice-President Liberadzki stressed that the meeting of the Standing Committee had a very high importance for the European Parliament. He reminded his audience of the fact that 40 years earlier, the Baltic Sea region had been filled with all kinds of divisions, including NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Economically, the OEEC and the COMECON had faced each other. Today’s processes are characterized by coming together, working together, bringing decision-makers closer together, bringing people and governments closer together, and step by step creating more stability and more cooperation. For the European Parliament in the capital of democracy, he said, it was important to meet regularly, to work together, to combine all different organizations related to Baltic Sea cooperation – people, parliaments, governments, non-governmental organizations and other institutions. The Baltic Sea was a joint value, a joint issue and sometimes a joint problem to be solved together. The meeting proved a good opportunity to get closer and deepen mutual relations. The Standing Committee was also greeted by Mr Jørn Dohrmann, the Standing Committee member and Chair of the EP Delegation for relations with Switzerland and Norway and to the EU-Iceland Joint Parliamentary Committee and the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee. Mr Dohrmann emphasized the fruitful cooperation between the BSPC and the European Parliament, good discussions and an exchange of views during previous years. He expressed his belief that a good dialogue would be continued. Progress report on the new European Union Cohesion Policy Mr Jean-Pierre Halkin from the Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policyof the European CommissionMacro-regions, responsible for Transnational/Interregional cooperation, IPA, Enlargementof the European Commission, informed the Standing Committee on new developments in the EU Cohesion Policy and its impact on cross-border cooperation beyond the EU. The speaker noted that he would touch on five key elements in his presentation: the evolution of the territorial cooperation – called Interreg -; the way they work with other countries; the evolution of macro-regional strategies, on which they had just presented a report for the Commission; some more specific aspects connected to the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region; concluding with some views on the way forward. Considering a more global perspective of the cohesion policy, Mr Halkin noted that in May of the previous year, the Commission had proposed a set of new regulations to frame a new cohesion policy. There were some key elements worth reviewing, first of all that Europe was a continent of tremendous diversity. The various regions differed in terms of economic and social situations. Accordingly, the cohesion policy, affecting all regions of the European Union, had to be differentiated in order to provide responses which were tailor-made and supplied the European strategies which were combined with preconditions, to allow for a successful investment which would enable an increase of the EU’s and national investment. The end goal of that policy was to make these regions attractive places for their residents, for their workers, businesses as well as visitors – for everyone. Mr Halkin emphasized this was about creating a Europe that truly empowered everyone, all the citizens, from the bottom to the national level and the regional level. Territorial cooperation past 2020 For the new programming period, the Commission had proposed an enabling and flexible framework that would allow boosting the intervention and tailoring this to the specific context. There were two major evolutions in this proposal: One was a radical simplification, and the other was strengthening the connections between the cohesion policy and the European semester. Moreover, they had proposed a new dedicated policy objective, related to integrated territorial development: Policy Objective Five “Europe Closer to the Citizen”. This was a visible commitment by the Commission for integrated territorial development that underlined a distinctive territorial dimension of the cohesion policy. This was also called Interregio 5 and was open to all kinds of territories, such as notably rural areas but also cities, mountains as well as sparsely populated areas and islands. Regarding changes in territorial cooperation, also described as ETC or Interreg, the speaker noted that territorial cooperation had always been branded as the most European part of the cohesion policy. This was because it was promoting stronger cooperation, building trust and confidence between European citizens, which was part of the European project but also exceeded the European Union as it was not only creating trust between the regions of the European Union but also with neighbouring regions. The speaker went on to summarise the key elements driving the Commission in drafting this regulation, listing seven important points. First of all, they revisited the structure or architecture of the Interreg programmes so as to reduce the overlap between different Interreg programmes as well as minimize fragmentation. The second point was their goal to reinforce the strategic dimension of the new programmes to be developed, by linking them more strongly to existing strategic frameworks and policy initiatives, such as the macro-regional strategies. The third point was to radically simplify the implementation of Interreg programmes. Mr Halkin noted that these were already smaller than the so-called mainstream programmes, despite having similar complexities. As such, the transaction costs were higher by comparison. Therefore, they wanted to ensure that more resources could be dedicated to the substance, that better access would be available to smaller projects by reducing the administrative burden for these programmes. The fourth point was that they wanted to better recognise the maritime cooperation, by combining the connections seen at the trinational level with the very good activities carried out today by the maritime cross-border cooperation programmes. Here, they believed that more synergies could be proposed to continue these interventions such as to deliver more impact and more added value. Equally, the Commission also sought to further promote innovation and to root it better in the cohesion policy, by proposing an initiative for interregional initiative investment. This was a new component, he pointed out, for a legislative proposal which existed to boost investment in innovation through the regional policy, while also strengthening their commitment to the urban agenda, notably through the new policy objective five. Finally, another goal was to strengthen the rule of territorial cooperation to boost governance and administrative capacities. Cooperation with Non-EU countries Regarding the way his side was working with third countries, there was also a major innovation: For the first time, the ETC regulation was covering both the programmes implemented within the European Union and the CBC programmes implemented in such third countries. In other words, the same regulation covered both cooperation between EU-internal regions and with the countries in the neighbourhood which fell under the ENI CBC programmes. Furthermore, a new component had been adopted, dedicated specifically for the outermost regions, which the speaker conceded might be far from the BSPC’s concern. Mr Halkin underlined that the Commission wanted to continue working with some countries that had been associated with the cohesion policy, referring particularly to Norway. Certainly, they would keep welcoming Norwegian participation in Interreg and equally would be delighted to hear about Norwegian intentions regarding their contributions to Interreg programmes. Macro-regional Strategies Moving on to the third point, macro-regional strategies, the speaker related the conclusions from their last report, which had been published on 29 January, on the implementation of the four macro-regional strategies. First of all, they were pleased that this had become an integral part of the EU policy framework, going well beyond the regional policies, as evidenced by the attendance of the key event for the strategy. This attendance had included commissioners and vice-presidents. Many regions had been represented by the senior management level. He noted that Commission services were contributing more and more to the implementation of the strategies. He appreciated that the strategies were offering not only a multi-sectoral but also multi-country governance and also involved third countries on a level playing field. This, Mr Halkin said, was part of the added value of macro-regional strategies. Considering the European Union policy for the Baltic Sea region, EUSBSR, he pointed out that this had been the first strategy to be adopted. It was also the largest and had produced very concrete results which had also been presented in the same report, accompanied by a staff working document including a strategic component. On that aspect, he offered his gratitude to everyone contributing to the report. To the BSPC, he said that this was also their report as the substance very much reflected the BSPC’s work. For the Baltic Sea strategy, two opportunities were coming up, as Mr Halkin said. The first was to ensure that the strategies were used as a strategic framework to guide the programming of all EU funds in the regions. This was very important. The new regulation provided for such an alignment to be promoted, notably allowing cooperation to be supported by all regional programmes, mainstream programmes – outside of the member states, outside of the regions, outside of the European Union. He underlined that this was another way to promote cooperation. Nonetheless, the Commission would like this opportunity of aligning the funds with the strategy available to all existing EU funds, but in particular for the one in shared management where the BSPC was in the driving seat for the programming. The second opportunity was the revision of the Action Plan of the Baltic Sea Region. Tremendous progress had been made on all priority areas. Now, there was an opportunity to bolster the programming as well as the action plan to better fit the expectations of the citizens, by defining more clearly which resources would be committed and also what the intended tangible results would be by 2027. At the end, he also saw a call to do more for the strategies, both from the side of the Commission and also on the part of the member states. Strategies were integral processes. As such, it was important to maintain the political commitment from all member states, participating in this strategy. This was something very important, he stressed, pointing out that the strategies were not technocratic but political processes. Without political processes, the metaphorical bicycle would stop. The Commission was confident that they could rely on the support from all member states to better align the funds and work hard with the governance. Here, major progress had been seen to better associate the grassroots level of the strategies. Any additional step in order to lend more participation to the citizen, to the strategy was welcome. Mr Halkin noted that the Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region was well-known and supported by the citizens. In some member states, even 60 per cent of the citizenry was aware of the presence of the Strategy, which he pointed out was quite an achievement. The goal should be to build on that support to strengthen the governance. The final point the speaker mentioned was to build a better monetary framework, allowing them to produce convincing and tangible results. He concluded his presentation by reiterating that he would welcome any suggestions for the way forward and thanked the Standing Committee for listening to him. Progress Report from the CBSS Ambassador Juris Bone, Chairman of the Committee of Senior Officials of the Council of the Baltic Sea States, Ambassador-at-Large of Latvia, informed the Standing Committee about the course of implementation of the program of the Lithuanian presidency at the CBSS. He admitted that the Latvian CBSS presidency had been very pragmatic with a calendar full of events and activities. He mentioned that at the same time in Riga, two important events were taking place, one a conference on human trafficking attended not only by CBSS member states but also by countries such as the United Kingdom or the United States. The second important event was the high-level meeting on the Baltic Sea Science Days in Riga, a CBSS tradition that had started in Saint Petersburg, continued in Finland and now in Latvia. He reminded the meeting of the three priorities they had established for their presidency. The first had been integrity in societal security. Human trafficking was one aspect, but Mr Bone considered as most important establishing a culture of a secure society by working together. This priority accordingly also included cooperation on tackling organised crime. Latvia had been the presiding country until the end of the preceding year, and the presidency had been taken over since by two countries, Poland and Germany. Another priority had been responsibility, related to the sustainable development goals set by the Baltic Sea 2030 Action Plan. It had also been very successful. One challenge was related to this priority, namely the future view of the CBSS working group on sustainable development. The mandate of this group had been very wide, although it was looking at what exactly it should focus on in the future. Mr Bone noted that its most recent meeting had only been a few days earlier. The third priority was dialogue, specifically focussing on the protection of cultural heritage. Dialogue was necessary among experts and stakeholders, to talk about heritage preservation systems, including such for recent cultural heritage, as well as contemporary measures and technologies to find models that would best serve to protect cultural heritage for the future. In that regard, he was glad to mention an important event coming up in May: The ambassador said that it was a happy coincidence that the Latvian National Library received project money from the CBSS’s project support facility, allowing it to organize an important regional conference on the protection and digitalization of cultural heritage. The Latvian organisation responsible for the protection of heritage, the National Heritage Board, had worked hard on this regional cultural heritage group. They were also knocking on the doors of those countries which were not yet members of this working group. Recently, he added, the Latvian Minister of Culture had sent letters to Iceland, Russia, and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, inviting them to join the group. The Latvian Presidency had had one very specific aspect in its work, noting that it was always a difficult presidency when reform processes were ongoing, as was the case here. At a meeting of foreign ministers in Stockholm in June of the preceding year, the CBSS had been tasked to present a roadmap to achieve tangible results of reforms. The Committee of Senior Officials was currently working on that process, with some first results already achieved. Ambassador Bone said it was clear that the CBSS could not operate in the same way as it had done since 1992 because the environment had changed very much. All the strategic interests were different as was the political context. One point agreed upon was, the speaker stated, that in the future, the presidencies would have more flexibility to decide on political meetings at the end of each term. The reason for that was that until 2013/2014, it had been a precondition to have a Prime Ministers Meeting in the first year, a Foreign Ministers Meeting in the second. Yet considering the last meetings of foreign ministers, in Reykjavik and Stockholm, the interest had proved to be diminishing. This issue had to be tackled. One solution was to provide the previously mentioned flexibility in the presidency, allowing it to fight for political meetings to be possible. Another point discussed was how to balance the political dialogue and practical cooperation as the two main pillars of the CBSS. There were diverging views, the discussion was still ongoing. It was quite clear, the ambassador said, that practical cooperation would most likely have a greater role, but the question was how to define this. Some countries understood this as cooperation between line ministries, while others saw this as cooperation between NGOs and people-to-people contacts. He affirmed that the CBSS would maintain its role as an organisation of political dialogue. Finally, Ambassador Bone announced that the Latvian Presidency of the CBSS had the intention to organise, as a concluding event of its term, a meeting of foreign ministers in Riga. It had been discussed at the working level of senior officials. While there was always the challenge of finding a common date, their intentions were firm to continue this tradition. Conservation and sustainable use of the oceans Director Bernhard Friess of the Directorate-General Mare, responsible for Maritime Policy and Blue Economy, informed the Standing Committee on that particular subject area. He mentioned that at the same time, the meeting of the national coordinators of the European Union Baltic Sea Strategy was taking place in Brussels. Mr Friess began his presentation by underlining a dire environmental situation depicted by the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change). The organisation had prepared a report on the seas and oceans mandated by the European Commission which would be released in September 2019. Unfortunately, the report confirmed the common knowledge that the sea level rise was happening very fast. The IPCC estimated that already at certain levels, an increase of 60 cm around the world would be unavoidable. That trend could not be stopped because the emissions would not be reduced quickly enough. Therefore, an even greater rise of sea levels, one meter or more, should be expected. The IPCC predicted that already in the current century – of which a quarter would have passed in only 5 years -, climate change would happen very quickly. It would affect the cities around the Baltic Sea, and all the coral reefs would be lost due to temperature rise. The speaker warned that those facts should be better known and taken into consideration when discussing the macroeconomic process. Concerning the maritime economy, the speaker informed his audience that if the global ocean economy were compared to the national economies, then it would be the 7 th largest national economy globally. In Europe, the maritime economy was of significant size, employing up to 5 million people across Europe. It was more extensive than many industrial sectors and with as high a profile as the defence sector or aviation sector. In July of the previous year, the Commission had published the first Report on the Maritime Economy – The 2018 annual economic report on the EU blue economy –, showing some trends, based on ten years of statistical data. Many of the traditional maritime sectors such as shipping, ports, shipbuilding had not been performing quite so well compared to the general economy. Good economic performance had been achieved in the so-called maritime blue economy – fishing, agriculture, bio-economy products. Those sectors were outperforming the broad general economy, especially regarding innovative industries, such as blue renewable technology and wind energy. Many jobs had been created there, and growth was high. The Baltic Sea Region a model region of cooperation Mr Friess confirmed that the BSR was in many ways a model for others. It was because the collaboration had started many years ago. During the Swedish presidency of the EU, the idea of launching the Baltic Sea Strategy had been created. Since then, there had been attempts to create similar cooperation in other regions of Europe. The speaker admitted, however, that there was still more space for creating cooperation in the BSR. In 2017, the Commission had prepared a study based on consultations with many stakeholders to identify four areas in which collaboration in maritime issues would be particularly beneficial. The document Towards an Implementation Strategy for the Sustainable Blue Growth Agenda for the Baltic Sea Region focused on shipping, the blue bio-economy, coastal and maritime tourism and environmental technologies, and it had shown that there was a massive set of opportunities for joint investment into some of those sectors. Mr Friess further referred to ocean energy sources. He stated that ocean energy not only meant offshore wind but also more innovative technologies set up to creative electricity from ocean waves or tide currents. The speaker reported that in both areas, companies from the Scandinavian region and the Baltic Sea area were very advanced, and some were quite successful. The maritime department of the European Commission which he represented was helping to introduce those technologies into the market and make the sector one of the essential renewable industries in the European Energy mix. He mentioned that a lot of EU support had been given to promote research and to develop technologies. Still more had to be done to raise captive investment because, in spite of suitable conditions for captive investment, the revenue model was the main obstacle for many investors. A good practice example was the offshore wind industry which had been propelled to a unique level globally. As much as 90 % of all wind energy generators were installed in Europe. This was possible because governments had adopted revenue support policies acceptable for investors. The speaker called for a clearer political message to bring new innovative, environmentally friendly, marine energies into the market. The governments needed to provide the framework in terms of the regulatory environment that would allow developers to have some amount of certainty about the revenue treatment in the next few years. He mentioned the offshore industry as the model that could be used for other sectors of innovative maritime investments. The maritime economy in the framework of the EUSBSR Concerning the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, Mr Friess expressed his opinion that more could be done under that strategy in terms of cooperation in maritime issues. The most innovative of the companies and their activities were hampered due to poor availability of capital for investment in early-stage companies. In the Commission, work was undertaken to set up an early-stage maritime blue economy investment fund for innovative companies across the Baltic, active in biotechnology as well as underwater technologies and environmental technologies, in cooperation with the Luxemburg-based European Investment Bank. The speaker also mentioned the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund which was supporting an exciting project called Baltic SCOPE. This project was bringing together the Maritime Spatial Planning authorities and Regional Sea Organizations in the Baltic Sea Area with the goal of developing the planning solutions to transboundary issues and improving the Maritime Spatial Planning processes. Another project supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) was the project aimed at reducing plastic waste and other hazardous substances. The speaker drew attention to the fact that plastic waste and pollution influenced fish stocks and undercounted the economy basis for the maritime sector. Therefore, protecting the marine environment was not only an investment worth itself but should be perceived as a factor which could yield economic benefit. He gave an example of the state of the fishery in the northern part of Europe, e.g. the Atlantic Sea, the North Sea and part of the Baltic Sea. In a period of 10 years, the fishery had moved gradually from overfishing to sustainable fishing. Currently, nearly all the fish stock in the Atlantic was caught by sustainable methods, and the economic performance of the fishing industries in that area had improved. Mr Friess concluded that there was a parallel between more sustainability and more profit. Sustainability was an investment. That applied not only to fisheries but to all sectors. He closed his speech by inviting participants to the event on the sustainable maritime economy in particular regarding the role small ports were playing in the Baltic Sea. The event would be organised together with the Latvian presidency of the CBSS, 3-4 April in Riga. Working Groups Carola Veit , Vice-Chair, of the BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration informed the Standing Committee about the activities of the Working Group. The WG had held its fourth meeting in Kiel and had agreed to hold its next meeting in Kaliningrad on 28 and 29 March 2019. The next but one meeting in Schwerin would take place on 27 and 28 May 2019 in combination with a Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum. It would be very fruitful to come together with the youths on the same topic. The autumn meeting, she went on, would be planned to take place in Hamburg at the end of October, back-to-back with the European Forum on Integration of Migrants and Refugees in Vocation, Education into the Labour Market and Society. This was the beginning of a new forum by the EU SBSR, as part of the strategy. The Standing Committee and Working Group had decided to commission a political science analysis on the statements and answers of the governments to the survey of the Working Group. The Migration Institute of Finland – based in Turku – had been tasked with the analysis and would present the results of the study to the Standing Committee at its meeting in Turku. Ms Veit also reminded the participants that the Standing Committee had extended the mandate of the BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration by another year. With this in mind, the Working Group had decided to present a 2 nd interim report at the Annual Conference in Oslo. Rapporteurs The BSPC Rapporteur on Labour Market and Social Welfare, Pyry Niemi (Sweden), informed the meeting that the preparations for the organisation of a seminar had started and that the topic of a social pillar reflecting on social protection and inclusion would be discussed at the beginning of 2020. The BSPC Rapporteur on Integrated Maritime Policy and BSPC Vice-President, Jörgen Pettersson (Åland Islands), commented on the processes of the policies and legislation. He gave the example of the sulphur directive implemented in 2015 which had been heavily criticised by both shipping companies and policymakers. There had been fears that the directive would trigger a modal shift from environmental transportation on the sea to tracks and roads. Today, everybody was aware of sustainability and the need for environmental legislation. In the Baltic Sea, ever since 2015, ships were using low-sulphur fuels, leading to a reduction of air pollution. The air was cleaner especially in those cities close to the various ports. People were able to live longer today than before 2015. The same regulations, the speaker noted, would be implemented all over the world after 2020, thanks to the respective decision by the IMO. Accordingly, one could claim that the world would be a little bit cleaner due to the legislation on the initiative by the IMO. However, Mr Pettersson cautioned, this was not that easy a situation because the increasing world trade meant more oil was being used – more oil today than ever before -, and it would continue to rise. The only years that this did not happen was after the financial crisis. Apart from that, the curve of oil consumption was going up, and all of that oil was being transported at sea. Moreover, the ordinary trade, such as telephones, cars, clothes and much more, was increasing as well. Despite all of this rise in trade traffic, though, there was the expectation that pollution would be reduced thanks to the IMO regulations. In one way, Mr Pettersson considered this a relief but also a sign that the world was far from stopping. It continued, and world trade was growing. The maritime policy-makers, though, had made it clear that it was not as financially sound to use fossil fuel for engines these days; accordingly, the engine manufacturers all over the world were doing what they could to use less and less fuel for their engines. Additionally, more and more ships these days were using natural gas than ever. Furthermore, sails were also increasingly brought back into use on modern ships. For example, shipping giants had installed sails on tankers so as to evaluate the effect of the sails. Apart from this engine and the fuels used by ships in world trade, deliberations were also considering more automatic procedures, such as auto-mooring which basically consisted of a large magnet binding ships to the quay instead of ropes. Autonomous ships were another goal being worked towards, promoted by legislation in some parts of the world, for instance Finland. The country had test areas where it was allowed to use autonomous ships without the risk of harming people. Finland has also come up with legislation allowing ships to be piloted from shore instead of on board. In summary, Mr Pettersson noted that shipping was proving to be a very interesting branch in the present day. Much was happening, despite it usually being considered a very traditional business where investments were extremely long-term, ten to twenty years. That had changed. In one way, this was unfortunate, because it was difficult for the ship owners to plan for their investments. On the other hand, it was good because it had forced ship owners to adjust to new legislations, therefore making the world a little bit cleaner than it had been before. The 28 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Oslo 25 – 27 August 2018 BSPC President Jorodd Asphjell briefed the Standing Committee that the 28 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference would be held in the Plenary Hall of the Norwegian Parliament. The speaker of the Storing had agreed to open the conference. The programme was under intense development. He mentioned that Oslo was that year’s green capital of Europe, with many good current projects and activities which could be presented on the first day of the conference. The themes for the conference, which would be aligned with the BSPC priorities based on the Strategy and Work Programme 2018/2019, would be: Peaceful and Close Neighbourliness The Future of Working Life The UN Development Goals Migration and Integration. BSPC Presidency after 2019 and appointment of a further Vice-President to be nominated by Lithuania Lithuania will host the BSPC 2020 and therefore, according to the BSPC rules, proposed Mr Valerijus Simulik, the head of the Lithuanian delegation to the Baltic Assembly and the BSPC as well as Vice-President of the Baltic Assembly. The Standing Committee unanimously appointed Mr Valerijus Simulik as the Vice-President of the BSPC. Further topics of the Standing Committee meeting among others included the issue of and deepening the cooperation with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation on the basis of the joint Memorandum of Understanding.

The BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration held its fourth meeting in the plenary hall of the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein on 17 December. Delegations from Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the Nordic Council, Norway, Poland, Russia, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden participated in the meeting. Chaired by Pyry Niemi, Member of the Swedish Parliament, the Working Group discussed expert presentations, a second intergovernmental survey of the Working Group, as well as the upcoming activities and meetings. Before the meeting, Mr Klaus Schlie , the President of the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein recalled in a speech to the participants the events of 100 years earlier, in particular the sailors’ mutiny in Kiel. He reminded his audience that these events, which had unfolded in November 1918 were, amongst others, part of the roots of parliamentary democracy in Germany. He underlined that democracy did not just happen all by itself, one needed to fight for it; that democracy protected us from oppression and arbitrariness, and only democracy was a form of government guaranteeing the human dignity of every single person as a common good. He referred to Article 1 of Germany’s basic law, which laid down human dignity and human rights as legally binding fundamental rights. He pointed out that another fundamental right was derived from this, namely the right to asylum for those suffering political persecution. This was also a consequence of historical experience. He mentioned that any kind of immigration was associated with challenges for host societies. Such societies were confronted with many questions demanding answers, he went on. Mr Schlie further said that debates about integration were invariably linked to questions about values and identity. Questions relating to integration were a key issue in each country, in the Baltic Sea region and all across Europe, wherefore the BSPC Working Group “Migration and Integration” was so very important to lawmakers from the Baltic Sea region. Parliamentarians had to and wanted to share and pool their experiences. First and foremost, it was necessary to find joint solutions which would be accepted in the Baltic Sea region and well beyond that, despite the many historical differences and national experiences, Mr Schlie pointed out. Expert presentations The meeting was provided with a number of very informative expert presentations and had a lively discussion with the experts. Ms Sabine Hahn, Coordinator of the Policy Area Education, Hamburg Institute for Vocational Education, informed the Working Group on the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region’s new action “Recognising potential – easing the way for newly arrived refugees”. Ms Hahn explained that they were working on the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region with four sub-areas: education, research, employability as well as the integration of refugees. The latter point had been added because of the refugee crisis in 2015. Of the actions listed in the EU Strategy, she said she would focus on the fifth item: recognising potential – easing the way for migrants. In 2015, there had been a huge inflow of migrants to Europe. While the inflow had shrunk in 2016, Ms Hahn believed the current situation to be more of a pause. As such, it was still a common challenge in the Baltic Sea area to integrate these people into society. At the same time, she noted the demographic change. People also had to be integrated into the labour market. There was a high demand for labour, yet there was a mismatch of these components. Ms Hahn stressed that this was not only on the Working Group’s agenda but also on that of her institute. She described the Baltic Sea area as a set of similar countries that nonetheless had different mindsets regarding their openness towards migrants. More cooperation was required. Therefore, they were aiming to create transnational actions, binding together governments, to create and improve integrated measures for migrants. This would come together in a new flagship. The actions already established so far focused on the exchange of best practices, as called for in the Action Plan for the Baltic Sea States. A platform for said exchange was in place; in addition, methods and systems were being developed and tested. Once validated, the goal was to allow local actors to use these, facilitating entry into the labour market. Among the challenges was the need of countries with aging populations to add to the labour force; yet, there were various respective attitudes around the Baltic Sea. What was needed to deliver on that need was an insurance that migrants would learn a new language and would obtain access to work-based learning so as to be eventually integrated into the labour market. Ms Hahn next spoke about the emerging flagship. One of their goals was to separate the policy sub area “integration” from the existing flagship “School to Work” and create a new one, which would be an MRS cross-cutting flagship, involving all macro regions. She stressed that it would not be limited to the Baltic Sea but rather envelop all the macro-regional strategies of the EU. They were currently in a dialogue with stakeholders in Northern Germany on possibly providing anchoring for this flagship; no decision had yet been made. The financing would possibly be enabled through a coordinated ESF call in 2019, targeting the integration of migrants. The plan called for the flagship to be established in 2019, with a kick-off meeting in Hamburg. That meeting was expected to take the form of a conference or a forum on the integration of migrants. Preparations for that forum had already begun. The goal was to bring together 100 participants, representing the public and private sector. Thus, best practices could be shared, and knowledge exchanged. To that end, 30 workshops were planned, with 5 running in parallel, respectively. Accordingly, each participate could take part in up to 6 workshops. Two half days were planned. Discussion would concentrate on the needs and gaps of the issue. Mr Matti Mäkelä, Head of the Project Management Office, City of Turku/Education Division, began his presentation on “Knowledge platform – integration of newly arrived refugees” by informing the working group about the flagship School to Work, a platform for transnational cooperation, allowing policy-makers to zero in on target groups, learn from each other and to develop new ideas. The platform further permitted exchange of best practices as well as the launch of new initiatives and projects. He went on to describe the structure of the flagship, with Sweden’s SALAR as the leader, overseeing three sub-platforms, namely the NEET knowledge platform operated by Norden in Sweden as well as the two platforms Early School Leaving and Newly Arrived Refugees, both run by the Finnish city of Turku. For Mr Mäkelä, the way this had come about was a good example for regional cooperation. He noted that he was also the chairman of the Baltic Sea task force for employment and well-being. This task had proved very similar to the flagship School to Work. Accordingly, three years ago, it had been decided to work together instead of pursuing the same work separately. This was one of the main ideas in their work load, to collaborate. All the materials, seminars, policy recommendations, events, information about conferences had been gathered in a development report, which also contained best practices. The goal was to allow people to join the flagship with its sub platforms, no matter at which stage of transnational cooperation they were. The very first level consisted of collaboration through meetings or study visits, allowing the exchange of ideas. On the next level, there was cooperation, including benchmarking, shadowing and peer review. All of this was leading to an ever-closer cooperation in pursuit of the joint goals, exchanging best practices. Learning from each other was one of the primary concerns; Mr Mäkelä pointed out that this was the only way to prevent each nation from making the same mistakes another country may have already made. He went on to note the case of BSR Integrate Now, a project focused on the exchange of best practices to smooth integration into society as well as the development and testing of methods and systems supporting integration. The city of Turku was the coordinator, coming together with their partners from Sweden, Stockholm’s SALAR and SALA from Malmö as well as the Norden Association. Rather unusual, he noted, was the final partner, namely the Thomas More University College from Belgium which helped them to create and study new ways of guidance for migrants and refugees. He pointed out that these were just the partners with funding from the project. The knowledge platform in total counted some sixty members, and if one included all organisations in some way associated with the platform, the number would skyrocket to well over 100. As such, Mr Mäkelä said, this provided a good basis for the creation of a new flagship. Although a comparatively long time ago, he noted the events of 2017, with a kick-off seminar in Stockholm in June and a number of workshops which had led into the transnational cooperation events of 2018, starting with a March conference on the integration of newly arrived migrants and refugees in Rostock, Germany, under the heading “Sharing the European Dream”. The goal was to create a vision for immigration in 2038 in the Baltic Sea region. The responsibility on the side of Mr Mäkelä’s team covered eight workshops on labour market integration along with study visits, training sessions on entrepreneurship and appreciative inquiries as well as the collection and dissemination of good practices through the knowledge platform on their website. Furthermore, they worked on widening the national and Baltic Sea region networks. In these two years of operations, Mr Mäkelä noted that they had learned a number of lessons. First of these was that transnational cooperation truly worked and created added value. For example, the city of Turku had learned much about the mentoring process in Hamburg which had by now been implemented in the Finnish city. Other best practices adopted from Baltic Sea countries included the integration knowledge centre that would be launched in Turku in 2019. Another lesson was that new working models were required. As an example, he noted their work on “study visits 2.0”, based on the idea that there had to be a better follow-up to the visit, elaborating what added value had been generated for each organisation. During the study visits themselves, there should also be more input gathering for the Baltic Sea region. Furthermore, Mr Mäkelä pointed out that the cooperation both on the Baltic Sea and the European level should be mainstream work, to get the best out of the cooperation as well as the available resources. With the new flagship emerging, he expected there to be some very interesting discussions and work ahead. Mr Niklas Muhlack, “Arbeiterwohlfahrt (= a national workers’ welfare association) (AWO) Schleswig-Holstein”, presented the project “Landgewinn” – empowerment of migrants in rural areas through social and democratic participation”. Specifically, their task was empowering migrants in rural areas through social and democratic participation. The programme had been launched in October 2017, scheduled to last until the end of 2019. Funding had been provided by the federal programme “Demokratie leben!” (“Living Democracy!”) and the ministry of the interior of Schleswig-Holstein. With their core idea of empowering migrants to participate socially and politically, their goal was not merely to provide shelter and food for new arrivals but also to give them the opportunity to have their voices heard. They approached this through a political mentoring programme between migrants ( “mentees” ) as well as local and regional politicians ( “mentors” ). He further noted that “Landgewinn” had succeeded another AWO programme which had suffered from the problem that the countryside had always been a blind spot. Because the challenges in rural areas differed from urban areas, the former had been selected as the focal point. In “Landgewinn”, each mentoring scheme lasted four months per region. The project had begun in the north of Schleswig-Holstein, moving gradually further south. The idea was that there were one or two individual meetings between the mentee and the mentor each month. Here, the mentee might accompany the mentor to a political party’s conference or to a local or regional parliament. This would provide the mentee with an idea of how politics worked and what politicians in Germany were doing, even on the local level. In addition, mentees attended six-day-long workshops on various political topics, for example on human rights, federalism or the different roles played by the political institutions in Germany. The project also offered an educational trip to Berlin per invitation of a member of the federal parliament, providing a rounded picture of the entire political scheme of Germany by visiting the parliament and several ministries. The main goals of the project were that migrants would acquire basic knowledge about politics in Germany and get to know the structure of civil society. Moreover, they would obtain an overview about existing associations, organisations and parties, entering into contact with these institutions. The project was aiming to empower the migrants to build personal networks for their own social and political participation. Mr Muhlack considered the latter to be a very important aspect. He noted that some of the mentees had become politically active after their time in the project. The speaker pointed out that the original implementation in the first two regions had worked as a “kick-starter” for political participation. Currently, the project was talking to the district administration on how to use the structure created by “Landgewinn” and turn this into a permanent institution. This could be handled by founding clubs or other structures that had been non-existent in the rural area so far. Ms Vanessa Perbos, AWO regional association Schleswig-Holstein, Integration Center Kiel, informed the Working Group on the project “Hayati” (Arabic: my life) – Integration of female migrants in the labour market. This project had been designed for refugee women in Kiel who were unable to take German language courses because they had to take care of their young children at home, not least because of the paucity of appropriate child care facilities in Kiel. “Hayati” had been conceived to give these women the space to learn and at the same time provide child care for their children. The project had run from November 2017 to May 2018 and had been funded by the Schleswig-Holstein Ministry of Economics, Labour, Transport and Technology as well as the Job Centre of Kiel. The target group had been refugee women and their children under the age of six, without alternative child care options. 26 women and 19 children had been involved in the project, forming a highly diverse group, considering the country of origin, the time spent in Germany or the educational background. The project had been staffed with two project coordinators, two interpreters and four child carers. The time frame had been Mondays to Fridays, from 09:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., with an additional one-hour meeting per month with the coordinators. “Hayati” had primarily aimed to empower refugee women, to allow them to integrate into society and to prepare them for their academic or professional future – an important goal for the ministry – as well as for a German integration course. The project’s structure was based on the one hand on daily child care. In the project, the first challenge had been building trust within the group. This, Ms Perbos stressed, did not simply refer to the women on the one side and the staff on the other but also between the women themselves. After that, the next challenge had been how the women understood their roles in the family and in society. Yet another challenge had been posed by the mental health of the women. Some of them had seen horrific things on the way to Germany, had suffered through very difficult living conditions or had lost members of their family back in Syria or Afghanistan. Ms Perbos went on to describe the successes of the project: Childcare was one of these as it had enabled the women to have time for themselves. The children themselves had also benefited, showing quick development in their motor skills. All participants also benefited from strong linguistic development. It had been gratifying for the staff members to witness the strong bond between the women that had formed during the project and was still in existence at this time. Moreover, the women had been empowered. They had also developed a better understanding of the system, with some of them forming concrete aspirations for their professional lives. Last but not least, the high participation rate of the women in the integration course was also considered a great success. Six months after the completion of the project, a large portion of the women were still attending that course on a daily basis. Mr Aljoscha Tischkau, Turkish Community in Schleswig-Holstein, presented the project “Diss-kriminierung – empowerment of young participants against discrimination”. In the project’s title, “Diss” stood for diversity, inclusion and self-confidence as well as self-empowerment. The project was targeting youths with migrational backgrounds from various origins that were often facing problems. Mr Tischkau described the maxims and goals of the project as empowerment as well as life-world orientation. The speaker presented a short video featuring various modern music elements, and he stressed that the entire video from start to finish, including the presented songs, had been created in the project’s workshops. Their work, Mr Tischkau said, consisted of workshops and mini projects as both medium and method. The programme was funded by “Demokratie Leben” and the Turkish Community. A series of workshops had been started that would run until February 2019, with different topics about power structure, execution approaches, exchanges of experiences, legal frameworks of conditions, development of options for action and empowerment. In the second phase, begun in April 2018, multiplier training had been started so they could launch their own mini projects which were to be run from February 2019 to the end of that year. Also, part of this phase had been “Beats in the Park”, a youth festival where they could present their own topics. Some two thousand people had attended the event. The series of workshops had been set at twelve events. The idea of the project had been to begin with state-wide workshops, leading into the multiplier training, all to strengthen the overall goals of providing support and guidance on the issue of discrimination among young people and to empower them. A primary motto here was “Each one, teach one”, meaning that you could give back what you deserve from society. Mr Tischkau stated that the project was aiming at strengthening youths in their experiences and their subjectivity while treating each other with appreciation and esteem. Thus, exclusionary experiences were recognized and perceived. Next, Mr Tischkau spoke about empowerment which he described as taking control of your own life at the individual level and determining your own identity. Here, he pointed out that they were considering empowerment at three levels: the personal, group and social levels. Bringing these topics and people together was very important for the empowerment process. Another aspect was teaching to give something back to society. He stressed that all these three levels had to be addressed, also in parliamentary debate. Empowerment was a bottom-up process facing numerous challenges. Mr Tischkau also explained that the group conducted media work – including studio and video production -, allowing the participating youths to bring their work to the public. Mini projects were being conducted at schools or youth centres. All presentations are attached below. Further procedure and next meetings The Working Group decided to commission a political science analysis of the responses and statements made by governments to the survey conducted by the working group. In addition, the Working Group agreed to conduct a second survey among the governments of the Baltic Sea Region to refine and extend the existing survey. The next working group meetings will take place on 28 and 29 March 2019 in Kaliningrad and from 27 to 28 May 2019 combined with a Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum in Schwerin. Documents: EUSBSR Policy Area Education School to Work: Flagship, Knowledge Platform, Enabler Arbeiterwohlfahrt Landesverband Schleswig-Holstein (AWO) Aysel Atasoy-Boyraz & Aljoscha Tischkau

BSPC President Jorodd Asphjell underlined at the 52 nd plenary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation the expectation of the BSPC to make every effort to ensure peaceful and close neighbourliness and close cooperation based on democratic values, the rule of law, human rights and equal opportunities for all. To this end, BSPC wants to pursue all the possibilities of parliamentary, governmental and social exchange and democratic dialogue among neighbours. He also addressed the increasing pollution and burden on the seas, in particular from plastic waste, calling for urgent global action in this area, to achieve the United Nations 2030 development goals as quickly as possible. A year ago, the BSPC and PABSEC concluded a Memorandum of Understanding aimed at further deepening the cooperation between the two parliamentary organisations beyond their previous observer status. The aim is to address even more effectively cross-regional challenges, such as the protection of the seas, global climate change, the swiftest possible implementation of the United Nations development goals, the fight against terrorism as well as migration issues by strengthening the parliamentary dimension of cooperation. In particular, Jorodd Asphjell emphasised: “I congratulate you on the 25 th birthday of your organisation and wish you many more years of successful cooperation and bring you the best regards from the BSPC Standing Committee, which met two weeks ago in my Norwegian hometown of Trondheim. This marks the seventh consecutive time that the BSPC is attending your plenary session. We have also deepened our cooperation through your participation in our annual conferences as well as bilateral visits and in the margins of a series of international parliamentary assemblies. We have additionally pointed out our common goals and visions in a Memorandum of Understanding, where we underlined the benefits of parliamentary cooperation based on the principles of respect of human rights and freedoms, social justice, the promotion of democracy, and the supremacy of law with regards to the interests of all states and peoples in our regions. I very much welcome the fact that PABSEC Secretary General Professor Asaf Hajiyev during the BSPC Annual Conference two months ago proposed a joint meeting of members of our two Standing Committees in Istanbul in the framework of a joint seminar. Our Standing Committee agreed to such a meeting of delegations from both our Standing Committees in spring next year. We agree that common themes could be transportation, the achievement of the 2030 development goals of the United Nations as well as migration and refugees. Two weeks ago, in Trondheim, the Standing Committee of the BSPC learned about the latest developments in Norway regarding autonomous shipping and electric-powered ships, especially in the ferry sector. That is of particular interest for the development of maritime transport and the reduction of emissions it causes, with a view to achieving the 2030 development goals of the United Nations. The exchange of best practice examples in this area could be of mutual interest. The BSPC has renewed its expectation to make every effort to ensure peaceful and close neighbourliness and close cooperation based on democratic values, the rule of law, human rights and equal opportunities for all. To this end, we want to pursue all the possibilities of parliamentary, governmental and social exchange and democratic dialogue among neighbours. Achieving and safeguarding peace and overcoming conflicts through dialogue is one of our fundamental concerns. A strong signal of this is sent out to the world every year when the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded in our Norwegian capital Oslo. In the context of our current resolution, we have paid particular attention to urgent measures in the field of environmental protection: In doing so, we have addressed the increasing pollution and burden on the seas, in particular from plastic waste, calling for urgent global action in this area, to achieve the UN’s 2030 development goals as quickly as possible. We welcome all efforts to move towards healthy and clean seas. We want to establish a way to address the issue of plastic litter on a global scale, as a first step within the framework of a progressive foreign and trade policy. In some areas, this problem has already had a noticeable effect on tourism. We called urgently on the governments to develop or enhance both joint and additional national and regional sustainability strategies to achieve the United Nation’s Agenda 2030 goals; and to prepare for and help shape the “Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development” from 2021-2030 proclaimed by the United Nations, to reach the goal of delivering the ocean we need for the future we want; to further strengthen the interaction between the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and human rights while recognising their close relationship and mutual reinforcement. We also believe that the issues of Migration and Integration call for intensive dialogue as well as close cooperation and coordinated policies as well. Our Working Group on this issue will present another report at our next conference in Oslo. The priority issues for the BSPC during the current Norwegian presidency in 2018 – 2019 are: Migration and integration, Peaceful and close neighbourliness as well as intense cooperation based on democratic values, the rule of law, human rights, and equal opportunities for all The Future of Working Life with particular regard to Digitalization, Integration and Labour Mobility And we want to be a Role Model to reach the United Nations Development Goals before the year 2030 The 28 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference will take place from 25 to 27 August 2019 in Oslo. I hope that the spirit of our parliament will help us to succeed, together with our partner institutions, in achieving common results in these policy areas that will drive us forward. Let us continue our successful and close cooperation, working on the development of peaceful and prosperous common regions.” In the margins of the session possibilities for joint consultations were discussed.

The highest Executive Committee of the BSPC, led by the new President of the BSPC, Jorodd Asphjell, held its first meeting under the Norwegian Presidency in the City Hall of Trondheim. Delegations from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, the European Parliament, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hamburg, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the Nordic Council, Poland, the Russian Federation and Sweden participated in the meeting. Implementation of Resolutions and results of the CBSS Vision Group One focus was placed on the follow-up to the resolution of the 27 th annual conference, which took place in Mariehamn, Åland Islands from 26 – 28 August 2018, the reports by the national and regional governments about the implementation of the 26 th BSPC resolution on the basis of political analyses and the report of the Council of the Baltic Sea States Vision Group. Follow-up statements to the 26 th resolution have been received from 10 national and most of the regional parliaments. They are more and more comprehensive and partially very detailed. The Standing Committee noted that this was a positive development but also pointed out that the statements should focus even more on common international projects. All statements are published on the BSPC website. https://www.bspc.net/statements-to-bspc26/ The outgoing and incoming President have forwarded the Resolution of the 27 th BSPC at the international level to international institutions. The BSPC Member Parliaments will bring the resolution as in previous years to the attention of their governments. BSPC Vice-President 2017-2018 Carola Veit, the President of the Conference at which the resolution had been adopted, reported on the results of the governmental statements as well as on the implementation and the evaluation at the annual conference in Mariehamn: https://www.bspc.net/10-08-2018-rede-implementation/ The BSPC had again commissioned two political scientists to prepare an analysis of the government statements. Dr Tobias Etzold, also a member of the CBSS Vision Group, nominated by Denmark, and Christian Opitz, from the Foundation of Science and Politics, to elaborate a political analysis: https://www.bspc.net/analysis_govresponses_26bspc-resolution_2018_etzold-opitz_final_update/ The analysis includes: an overall quantitative assessment of the governments’ statements; a qualitative analysis of the governments’ statements regarding the more general section on regional cooperation as well as the three priority areas; and an overall assessment highlighting shortcomings and identifying recommendations for the future. Dr. Tobias Etzold presented in Trondheim the results of the analysis in detail. He pointed out, the resolution itself and the governmental responses had shown that there was a lot going in the world, a richness of various initiatives and activities. As much as there was in place, it was still necessary to work to ensure that corporations continued to exist. At the same time, there was certainly place for improvement and for extension of the joint efforts.He noted the very good response rate of the governments. While this in itself showed that the governments were taking the resolution seriously, there was still room for the reactions to be more accountable and relevant. One thing he singled out was the great variety when it came to comprehensiveness and quality of the statements. The next point for Dr Etzold was that in some places, there was too narrow a focus. Many governments focused on national issues; which he considered interesting because some areas had to be implemented first on the national level. But in the context of regional cooperation, he saw it as more important to look at transnational activities, how countries could achieve goals together. In his view, the resolution called for actions across borders and not just within nations. Quite a number of the responses also focused on past occurrences, not just of the past year as asked for in the resolution but also several years earlier. Of greater interest would be what governments were doing to strengthen collaboration. The resolution had clearly called for strengthening a number of aspects in regional cooperation It would be of great interest to get information how the governments proposed to reinforce such initiatives. Equally in need of greater attention in his view were the goals and future activities, based on past initiatives. Rather than only looking back, Dr Etzold stressed that looking forward was also quite important. He noted that the start of the resolution called for further cooperation – efforts to decrease tensions in the region and to rebuild trust. In that regard, he would welcome information from the governments on how they were planning to achieve this since this was a very important goal. Another point already stated in the 2016 resolution and repeated in the 2017 resolution was that any shortcomings and failures in the region were not really mentioned. Yet this would also be interesting, Dr Etzold stated, in order to improve cooperation and to point out where problems existed, where more should perhaps be done. One of the core problems was the narrow time frame. In the analysts’ mind, it might be more helpful to stretch out the opportunity to include a bit more of a medium-term perspective on what has been implemented. The BSPC shares in the 27 th resolution from Åland the vision of the Council of the Baltic Sea States Vision Group. It had been pointed out that the BSPC will take into account the report of the Vision Group in its further discussions on future developments in the Baltic Sea Region. Since Dr. Etzold had been also member of the CBSS Vision Group, nominated by Denmark, he also informed the Standing Committee about the work of the Vision Group in detail. Established in autumn of the previous year, it consisted of twelve individuals, each a representative of one of the Council member states and the European Commission. It had been a group, composed mainly of diplomats, either retired or active, including a vice-foreign minister from Lithuania, but also a politician and a representative of civil society as well as a number of academics. Because of this diversity of backgrounds, he noted, the discussions had been very interesting. The group had started with a number of questions given by the secretariat leading into very open discussions about the possible future course of the Council of the Baltic Sea States. Their report had begun with the vision – which had also been referred to in the BSPC resolution, which Dr Etzold applauded. As such, he read out said vision, aiming for a region that is prosperous, safe and secure for all of its people, open and transparent, inclusive for all nations and nationalities across the region and beyond, confident of its own strong regional identity and focused on sustainable economic growth and development, while being fully aware of the ecological vulnerabilities, committed to vibrant and intense exchange between its people, protective of human security and safe societies as well as capable of building trust between its nations. According to the vision, sustainable development ensured equal opportunities to live the lives they chose to live and to secure conditions for future generations. The CBSS would play a key role in realizing this vision, along with other organizations of the Baltic Sea in cooperation. It was very important, he stressed, to jointly work towards implementing this vision. The work of the CBSS would continue to rest on two important pillars: on the one hand political dialogue and on the other, practical cooperation on the basis of concrete and tangible projects. The value of political dialogue had been stressed throughout the meetings and the report itself. Dialogue had hit troubled waters, he said, and needed to be revitalized since it was the basis for good and fruitful cooperation. Only when people started talking to each other again could concrete results be produced, despite – or because – all the problems and challenges faced by the region. In the analysts’ view, the CBSS served as a hub for stimulating political dialogue, exchange of experiences and best practices. He admitted that a vision was not always very realistic, and now the task was to see how to implement and work towards it in operational terms. For that, the Vision Group had developed a number of recommendations, starting with key issues that they had deemed very important to implement – revitalizing communications, sustaining high-level political contacts – such as foreign ministers and heads of governments -, the role of the secretariat of the CBSS had to be strengthened and made more efficient, funding, implementation. Another key recommendation concerned other regional factors, namely the need for more cooperation between the regional organizations and structures. Here, he referred to the EU, the Russian Federation as well as Belarus where the cooperation should be extended. After considering the changed political and social landscape of the Baltic Sea Region, as well as the current strengths and weaknesses, the Vision Group had developed more detailed recommendations which on the one hand had referred again to the structure and roles of governments, the secretariat and committees, then priorities regarding the regional identity of the region, creating a prosperous, secure and sustainable region. These goals should be kept under constant review by the ministers and senior officials, to be adapted to changing circumstances when necessary. Next, Dr Etzold mentioned funding as an important point since that, as in life in general, proved the vital underpinning for any initiatives. Equally, better communication and visibility were also crucial, not least to publicize the results of the joint activities. The speaker went on to note the importance of matching activities on the inter-governmental and parliamentary level. In Dr Etzold’s personal point of view, it would make sense to not only have a Working Group on Migration and Integration in the BSPC but also a respective counterpart on the inter-governmental level. His summary was that cooperation needed to be strengthened. While there were calls for regular meetings, he stressed that the urgent topics of the region should be discussed together, trying to find solutions. The Standing Committee underlined the importance of both topics in the ensuing discussion. Rapporteurs The BSPC Rapporteur on Cultural Affairs , Karin Gaardsted (Denmark), the BSPC Rapporteur on Integrated Maritime Policy, Jörgen Pettersson (Åland Islands) and the BSPC Rapporteur on Labour Market and Social Welfare , Pyry Niemi (Sweden), informed the Standing Committee on current developments in the relevant policy fields. Working Groups The Standing Committee again raised the question of possible topics for a BSPC working group after the next annual conference. After intensive discussion, the Standing Committee called for the mandate of the current Working Group on Migration and Integration to be extended for a further year given the importance and complexity of the issue and for the Working Group to submit another interim report to the next Annual Conference in Oslo. Other pressing issues, in particular, the problem of plastic waste, shall be discussed intensively by the Standing Committee even without the establishment of a separate working group. The 28 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Oslo 25 – 27 August 2018 BSPC President Jorodd Asphjell informed the Standing Committee that the 28 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in the Plenary Hall of the Norwegian Parliament. He outlined as the themes for the conference, which would be aligned with the BSPC priorities based on the Strategy and Work Programme 2018/2019: The Future of Working Life – Digitalization, Integration and Labour Mobility in the Baltic Sea Region Migration and integration, finding solutions based on mutual information and best practices Peaceful and close neighbourliness as well as intense cooperation based on democratic values, the rule of law, human rights and equal opportunities for all The Baltic Sea Region as a Role Model to reach the United Nations Development Goals before the year 2030 He noted the general consensus about preceding conferences that they had benefited from high-level political representation. The Standing Committee agreed to continue following this path. Further topics of the Standing Committee meeting were i.a. the topic of peaceful cooperation and deepening cooperation with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economical Cooperation on the basis of the joint Memorandum of Understanding. Information about the City of Trondheim and the Region Additionally, the Standing Committee was informed about the municipal situation and the region by the Vice Mayor of Trondheim, Mr Ola Lund Renolen and by BSPC President Jorodd Asphjell . Seminar on the electrification of the coastline as well as Ocean related research in Trondheim As part of the meeting the BSPC Standing Committee was given a deep insight into the latest research results from Trondheim in the areas of Clean Ocean, Renewable Ocean Energy and Smart Maritime as well as the development of environmentally friendly ships. The first presentation, on the electrification of the coastline, was held by the Director Strategy and Business Development at Siemens, Trondheim, Odd Moen . In his presentation, he first discussed the current global megatrends: globalization, urbanization, demographic change, climate change as well as digitalization. He presented a large number of examples of vessels with new electrical technology, which led to massive reductions in consumption and emissions. He also addressed the topic of electric aviation. The question was now how to bring all the electrical ambitions together, on roads, on sea and in the air as well as railway. He also pointed out that digitalization would raise the efficiency of electric operations. He expected the vision that by 2030, it should be possible to travel along the Norwegian seaside without any negative emissions because the technology was already available for the various types of vehicles. He expressed the believe that the future will be electric and that the marine market would double in the next few years. Odd Moen Presentation – Electrification of the coastline Professor Sverre Steen , Head of Department, Department of Marine Technology of NTNU – the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim addressed the topic of maritime transport and the environment as well as the associated and important issue of autonomous ships. The university pursued four strategic research areas: energy, health, ocean and sustainability. He stated that shipping took up some 90 per cent of the transportation tasks in terms of kilometres, carrying e.g. oil and coal. By the same token, shipping also accounted for 2.6 % of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2012. Referring to greenhouse gas emissions, the professor considered it the most difficult problems. For short range vessels, batteries could be used, but that was not available for deep sea ships. While the emissions of 2012 might be considered a small number, they were expected to grow significantly in the coming years unless radical measures were put in place. International shipping was hard to regulate. Regulation through the IMO was a very slow process, taking 20 years on average. The professor noted that politicians could implement some changes on a much faster track, citing local transportation regulated by national rules. Modern hydrofoil technology could double the range for high-speed boats on batteries. The technology saved 20 – 30 % of energy consumption. He pointed out, there was great interest in autonomous shipping in the maritime industry and dealt in detail with the different developments for large ships to be fully autonomous and for short-shipping. Sverre Steen Presentation – Maritime transport and the environment. Autonomous ships Mimmi Throne-Holst , Research Manager, gave an insight in the research results from the SINTEF Center for clean ocean research. Challenges related to marine littering and pollution must be solved to realise growth in a sustainabe blue economy. She covered the topics of Climate Change and Acidification, Over Fishing and Destruction of Habitates, Marine Littering and Pollution as well as Oil Spill Contingency and Response. She pointed out that poor management of waste is the cause of 80-90 % of all marine pollution. To mitigate plastic pollution, she stressed the urgent need for action in the sectors: Development/improvement of infrastructure and waste management; phase out unnecessary single use plastic; extend liability for producers: international coordination as well as new knowledge and technology. She concluded that Climate change is the greatest threat to ocean health. Mimmi Throne-Holst Presentation – SINTEF CENTER FOR CLEAN OCEAN RESEARCH Mr Per Magne Einang , Senior Research Scientist, SINTEF OCEAN was representing an institute funded by SINTEF. The institute’s main goal was improved energy efficiency, reducing harmful emissions and strengthening Norway’s competitiveness. Their research concerned a reduction of natural gas in shipping, for instance with hybrid or electrical power. He noted that deep-sea shipping made up the most part of maritime shipping, and equipping it with environmentally friendly engines was not easy. Finding good solutions for large ships in international travel would be the primary challenge for the centre. Electricity currently looked like the best solution. The institute’s primary approach was to develop tools to reduce emissions, increase energy efficiency and such measures, to be used in ocean-going vessels. In their research, the institute was looking at increasing the energy efficiency of fuels. His institute was internationally active, including two research associates from Chalmers University in Goteborg, Sweden, and one from Copenhagen, one from the UK and one from Hamburg, Germany. The centre was also closely associated with the commercial industrial cluster of Norway. Per Magne Einang Presentation – SFI SMART MARITIME The BSPC Standing Committee discussed the presented developments, research results and challenges for the future intensively with the experts.

Jorodd Asphjell, in his capacity as BSPC President, emphasized the extremely close and successful cooperation between the Nordic Council and the BSPC on the occasion of the 70 th session of the Nordic Council, pointing out the necessity of further action to improve the environment in the Baltic Sea Region. He recalled in his speech that the Nordic Council, together with the Norwegian Parliament, had taken the initiative for the 2 nd Baltic Parliamentary Conference in Oslo in 1992, which laid the foundations for the continuation of parliamentary cooperation throughout the Baltic Sea region. The close cooperation, he went on, was additionally evident from the fact that he was not only the BSPC President but also a member of the Nordic Council, while a number of other members of the Nordic Council were very active in the BSPC. The Nordic Council and the BSPC shared common issues on which both parliamentary institutions see an urgent need for governments to step up action not only in the Nordic countries but throughout the Baltic Sea region. During the annual conference at the end of August, the BSPC had paid particular attention to urgent measures in the field of environmental protection and decided on very necessary steps for a better environment. The BSPC had urgently called on the governments to realize the vision of a clean Baltic Sea as well as more sustainable and clean shipping. Mr Asphjell stated that the BSPC was looking forward to any initiative further promoting the sustainability in the whole Baltic Sea Area. He reminded his listeners that one of the nominees for the Nordic Council environmental prize had also been an innovation project to prevent the flow of plastics into the ocean. The Standing Committee of the BSPC, he said, would deal with environmentally friendly shipping and the improvement of the environmental situation in the Baltic Sea region during a meeting in Trondheim two weeks later. Mr Asphjell pointed out the priority issues for the BSPC during the current Norwegian presidency in 2018 – 2019: Migration and Integration as well as the Future of Working Life under the aspects of Digitalization, Integration and Labour Mobility in the Baltic Sea Region. He noted that the 28 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference would take place from 25 to 27 August 2019 in the Norwegian Parliament. He expressed his hope to see many of the participants in the Nordic Council meeting again during the BSPC Annual Conference.

The 27 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Mariehamn was an outstanding success. With the unanimous adoption of the resolution on cooperation, a heathy Baltic Sea, sustainable energy and smart energy distribution , migration and integration as well as economic development and growth in the BalticSea Region the conference was successfully concluded. The conference appointed Jorodd Asphjellfrom Norway as the new BSPC President. Jörgen Petttersson from the Åland Islands was appointed the Vice President of the BSPC. The third session evolved around “Sustainable energy, smart energy distribution platforms”. Contributions were made about pilot projects in the Baltic Sea Region on the next generation electrical grids. Mr Berndt Schalin , Senior Advisor of the Government of Åland, explained a project which aims to realize a smart and flexible energy system, where novel energy markets and regulation can be implemented. Mr Reinis Āboltiņš, Senior Adviser on Energy from Latvia, described challenges to sustainable energy in the Baltic Sea Region. At the end of this 27 th BSPC conference a new format was introduced – a general debate without restricting the content to give everyone the opportunity to contribute what was particularly close to his or her heart. Therefore, a controversial but healthy debate on current issues evolved. Different views were indicated, and diverse positions were lively discussed. At the end of this open forum, both the resolution of the 27 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference as well as the Strategy and Work Programme 2018 – 2019 were unanimously adopted. The President of the 27 th BSPC, Mr Jörgen Pettersson , pointed out in his closing remarks his hope, that it was a very fruitful conference for all participants and that they could deepen cooperation and friendships, that the decisions of the conference will contribute to making the world a bit better. Mr Jorodd Asphjell , the incoming President of the BSPC on the occasion of the transfer of the Chairmanship of the BSPC underlinedthat peace and cooperation in the Baltic Sea Area is very important for Norway. He was looking forward to the coming year were the BSPC has several important issues to work with. The Working Group on Migration will continue its important work and deliver a final report with recommendations in time for the conference in Oslo. This is also an issue he expected to be discussed at further conferences. The Norwegian Presidency had proposed to have a look into The Future of Working Life – Digitalization, Integration and Labour Mobility in the Baltic Sea Region. This was a very interesting topic and important for all our citizens. How will technology influence the working life in the Baltic Sea Region in the future? New opportunities, but also challenges for others. Can the Baltic Sea Region become a world champion in employing new technology? Another area where our countries are performing well is the UNs Sustainable Developments Goals. However, there is still work to be done according to a recent report commissioned by the governments in the CBSS. I believe the BSPC should see how we also can contribute to this important work. Mr Asphjell was looking forward to a busy, but interesting year, and was inviting all participants to the 28 th BSPC on 25 till 27 th August 2019 in Oslo. For more information, see the following documents: BSPC in a Nutshell Strategy and Workprogramme 2018-2019 Resolution

Cooperation, Sustainability and Smart Energy The 27 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference took place in Mariehamn, Åland Islands. Around 170 delegates met in the Plenary Hall of the Åland Lagtinget, the Parliament of Åland. The aim of this year’s conference was to pass a resolution on cooperation, sustainability and smart energy in the Baltic Sea Region – our lifeline. The conference was opened by H.E. Mr Sauli Niinistö, President of the Republic of Finland, and Ms Gun-Mari Lindholm, President of Ålands Lagting, welcomed the participants. The BSPC Drafting Committee and the BSPC Standing Committee held their first sessions on Sunday, 26 th August, in the Plenary Hall of the Ålands Lagting. In the afternoon, there were two excursions: one to the municipality of Föglö and the other to Bormasund Fortress. On Monday the first two sessions took place in the Ålands Lagting. The first session focused on cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region and it continued into the afternoon. The second session was a call for more action on the vision of a healthy Baltic Sea. A cultural event at the Åland Maritime Museum closed the day. On Tuesday the third session on sustainable energy and smart energy distribution platforms was followed by a general debate and the closing of the 27 th BSPC conference. For more information, see the following report: BSPC in a Nutshell Strategy and Workprogramme 2018-2019 Resolution

In preparation of the 27 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference on 26 – 28 August 2018 in Mariehamn, the BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration has published the Mid-way Report on its activities throughout the past year. The report will be presented at the annual conference and contains the primary considerations and a compilation of the materials to date which had been discussed in the Working Group. The report also offers detailed information on the expert presentations and homework assignments carried out by the Working Group. The report refers in many places with links to other materials already published on the website, in particular, the presentations and responses to an intergovernmental survey and can be accessed here and at the Working Groups website. It also contains political recommendations which have been included in the draft resolution of the 27 th conference. Working Group on Migration and Integration -Mid-Way Report

In preparation of the 27 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Mariehamn on 26 – 28 August 2018, the BSPC’s Observers at HELCOM, Sylvia Bretschneider, President of the Landtag Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Saara-Sofia Sirén, Member of the Finnish Parliament, have issued their report on HELCOM-related developments and activities. The Report can be downloaded here and on the Rapporteurs’ webpage. Report on HELCOM 2018

In preparation of the 27 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference on 26 – 28 August 2018 in Mariehamn, the BSPC’s Rapporteurs on Sustainable Tourism have published their Report on developments in the field of Sustainable Tourism. The report will be presented at the annual conference. The report gives a policy analysis on the implementation of the recommendations of the 26 th BSPC regarding sustainable tourism on the basis of statements of the governments in the Baltic Sea Region. It also informs on certain developments regarding sustainable tourism in the Baltic Sea Region. This mainly includes the activities of the Baltic Sea Tourism Centre and appropriate meetings and conferences. The Report can be downloaded here and on the Rapporteurs’ webpage. Report on Sustainable Tourism in the Baltic Sea Region – 2018

In preparation of the 27 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Mariehamn on 26 – 28 August 2018, the BSPC’s Rapporteurs on Integrated Maritime Policy, MP Jochen Schulte and MP Jörgen Pettersson have issued their report on developments in the field of Integrated Maritime Policy. The report summarizes the developments in the Integrated Maritime Policy since the 26 th BSPC, informs about the activities of the Maritime Rapporteurs anda number of important conferences which have taken place throughout the past year and presents legislative developments at the EU level with regard to Blue Growth and overarching aspects, energy-related aspects as well as infrastructural and environmental aspects of maritime policy including climate protection. The Report can be downloaded here and on the Rapporteurs’ webpage. Report by the Rapporteurs of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference(BSPC) on developments in Integrated Maritime Policy

The BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration held its third meeting on the premises of the Danish Parliament on 21 June. Delegations from the Baltic Assembly, Nordic Council, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hamburg, Latvia, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Poland, Russia, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden participated in the meeting. Chaired by Pyry Niemi, Member of the Swedish Parliament, the Working Group discussed expert presentations, results of an intergovernmental survey, possible recommendations for the resolution of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference and possible contents of a Midway Report. Presentations Migration, Research, and Human Mobility: Myths and Realities The meeting was provided with a very informative expert introductory presentation by Ms Ninna Nyberg Sørenson, research coordinator and senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) on Migration, Research and Policy Dialogue. She informed about the work of the institute and referred to some of its current research reports. Ms Sørenson pointed out that a main role for research was questioning some of the political assumptions taken for granted, underlying the policies implemented. Considering what had been called since 2015 the unprecedented migration crisis, she appreciated that the raw numbers were unmatched at any point in history. Current estimates were that there were 244 million (including refugees) international migrants globally (or 3.3% of the world’s population). While the vast majority of people in the world continued to live in the country in which they were born, more people were migrating to other countries, especially those within their region. Many others were migrating to high-income countries that are further afield. Work was the major reason that people migrated internationally, and migrant workers constituted a large majority of the world’s international migrants, with most living in high-income countries and many engaged in the service sector. Global displacement was at a record high, with the number of internally displaced at over 40 million and the number of refugees more than 22 million. (IOM World Migration Report 2018). Taking the historical perspective, the historical migrations out of Europe were larger when one considered the respective percentages of the population. It could also be seen that recent history had seen higher percentages of migrants among the global population, such as the 1960s and the 1990s, than in the recent crisis, reaching a little above 3 per cent of the total population. As a matter of fact, migration and refugee flows were changing over time, she noted, mimicking a wave motion. She posed the question whether migration was out of control again, what control itself was, and which control mechanisms were put in place. Furthermore, she asked if some political measures already in place could be contributing to pushing migration out of control. As an example, she mentioned an analysis conducted by her institute on the European agreement with Turkey where the latter country had taken on the role of a European border guard. The result was that the agreement worked. Regarding stemming a migration flow, she pointed out that such an agreement was very effective. But when security concerns were taken into consideration, as well as human rights and other concerns, questions could reasonably be asked about the long-term implications of that kind of deal. As for reasons why people migrate, Ms Sørenson noted that it would be better to inquire how and when people were migrating. Many more people than the three per cent of the population – most of whom were westerners, she mentioned as an aside – were thinking about moving between countries but were not doing so due to barriers between countries that sometimes were not conducive to other forms of policies, be these trade policies or labour policies or filling particular labour markets. Posing the right questions might be the important aspect. Ms Sørenson considered the various types of migrations, noting that they were all subject to the global media discussion which sometimes inflated contexts. So, it was important to agree on the terms used. In general, every mobile person was a migrant, e.g. moving from the countryside to the city, but of concern in this context were international migrants, such as people moving abroad for work for more than twelve months. These were economic migrants, also including international students or reunited families. Another group was posed by asylum-seekers, i.e. people who were fleeing for fear of persecution or their lives but had not yet gained refugee status. When asylum claims were accepted, that person would gain certain social rights. Ms Sørenson pointed out that 86 per cent of global refugees were in developing countries, so these kinds of rights might be questionable; she raised the question if, in that regard, the international system was effective in offering adequate asylum conditions. Most of today’s refugees were actually internally displaced persons rather than international refugees. So, the largest problems were in conflict areas. She noted another category, that of climate or environmental refugees, such as people fleeing catastrophes or slow climate change onset in their lives. This was an area with enormous political interest, but it was again an area with a lot of uncertainties involved. The estimates of how environmental change would influence future refugee flows, Ms Sørenson stated, were quite uncertain. Estimates were varying tremendously. Looking back historically at past climate change, migration had always been an adaptive strategy to such change. Accordingly, the analysis should include how migration could be a positive factor on climate and environmental policies. Migration research, Ms Sørenson went on, had a long history. Migration had been generally considered a positive influence as migrants had contributed to the development of the countries to which they had come, but they had also sent back goods and financial resources to their homes. Migrants had also contributed to the democratization of Europe, finding new ways of thinking about politics in foreign destinations. In that theoretical framework, migrants were usually understood as someone who, of their own free will, made the decision to migrate. It was a free choice in those theories, allowing the migrants active agency, to do something to improve their own and their family’s economic situations. Refugee studies as an academic discipline on the other hand had a much shorter history. It was a post-World War II academic field. She underlined that the common idea of refugees saw them as lacking agency, as persons without any choice, so that they deserved – if they lived up to conventions – to be protected. But the present kinds of protection, she noted, often did not leave open e.g. access to the labour market, to education and so on. These were the actual pathways for refugees to better their own situations. Ms Sørenson said that these theoretical implications were important for how foreign nationals were handled in the migration and refugee systems. The same applied to the labour market systems. She introduced an analytical framework developed by DIIS to understand current global migration flows, called “migration industrial analysis”. To be underlined was that in most policy debates, there was much talk of the so-called migration facilitation industry, especially the human smugglers and traffickers, which was what policies were combating, unless these industry actors were labour recruiters bringing in needed labour. Another industry much larger in terms of global earnings was the migration control industry which over the past 20 years had developed enormously. It encompassed security firms which, also in the European Union, were conducting security analyses of which kinds of border control measures were needed. These companies also sold their ideas as well as techniques required to control borders. Countries and the European Union were using this industry to secure their borders, but they were also outsourcing and externalising parts of their politics to some of these control actors. The final industry in this regard was what the institute had termed the rescue industry, i.e. the NGOs and the faith-based organizations, the humanitarian actors intervening. These were important because states were more and more outsourcing traditional state functions to civil society actors, be that handling asylum centres or assisting refugees upon return. With the goal of understanding migration issues more broadly, as was often the case in discussions of these issues, Ms Sørenson stated her view that all these actors had to be seen in how they were influencing each other and how this outsourcing of political control to private actors might actually intervene in policies. She expressed her hope that the BSPC and DIIS could collaborate in the future. Intergovernmental Survey The Working Group had already discussed in Hamburg common questions to be sent by each delegation to their respective governments. This way, the Working Group wanted to obtain a better survey regarding the situation in the whole region, learn from best practise examples and develop proposals to improve cooperation in the integration of migrants. The BSPC Vice- President and WG Vice-chair Carola Veit had summarised the questions and developed a list to be sent to the governments as homework assignments. Ms Veit presented the summary of answers delivered by the governments with regard to the Migration and Integration issue in respective countries and regions. She started with demographics and pointed out that the submitted numbers had shown significant variation in type, allowing only a few demographic comparisons. The homework assignment had only requested numbers concerning migration. While that might have been too unspecific, the numbers still presented a basis for investigation. Ms Veit noted that, on the regional level, about a third of the inhabitants of Åland and Hamburg were migrants. In Hamburg, half the population of minors had migration backgrounds. She considered the percentage of people with a migration background within each age range: The largest age group were the 26- to 40-year-olds, except for Lithuania where the age group between 51 and 64 dominated, followed by the over 65-year-olds. This could perhaps be informative on the reasons for migration. For example, comparing Hamburg to Åland, the under 25-year-olds comprised a much larger group in the former than in the latter region. On the other hand, Åland had a greater proportion of over 25-year-olds of this grouping. That indicated at which time these migrants had arrived in the respective regions. Ms Veit further stated that each country in the Baltic Sea region had its own set of immigration, asylum or aliens laws which were included in the rules of immigration. Ms Veit mentioned a few examples: Germany had both a residence as well as an integration act; Lithuania had referred to a law on the legal status of aliens; for its immigration law, Poland had included a two-tier administrative procedure, the protection of the national work force, and the future possibility to determine how many people were admitted into the country. Another topic of the survey had been the requirements for requesting asylum. The criteria were defined in the previously mentioned laws of the respective countries. Due to the Geneva Convention or the conventions and international agreements on refugees adopted by such nations, there were some similarities. In EU countries, European-level initiatives also provided some more streamlining and similarities. For example, Sweden had listed as reasons for asylum the death penalty, torture, internal armed conflict as well as environmental disasters. Like Estonia, it also included the topic of stateless persons here. Germany concentrated on serious harm, concrete danger to life, discrimination, violence of international law, and internal armed conflict. Some other exceptions were mentioned in Norway where the right to be recognized as a refugee did not apply if the foreign national could obtain effective protection in other areas of his or her country of origin than the area from which the applicant had fled. In Latvia, a person might not apply for refugee status if he or she was a national of more than one country and did not use legal protection in any of the other countries without justifying reason. Regarding dual citizenship, there were different answers: Sweden allowed additional dual citizenships, while Norway was preparing for such a regulation. In Lithuania and Estonia, one might acquire a citizenship by grant of refugee status or if he or she was a beneficiary of international protection granted by Estonia or any other EU member state. Of interest were the different principles allowing exceptions. Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Poland, and Latvia by law allowed dual citizenships, defining the requirements by certain rules listed in the materials. These countries had originally not accepted multiple citizenships. Germany had indicated that “multiple citizenship should be avoided”. With regard to the topic of work permits, all responses, Ms Veit pointed out, had indicated that foreigners immigrating for economic reasons must be granted a work permit before entering the country. They were required to meet the labour market needs of the EU member states. Except for Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, and Germany, the answers to this question had not referred specifically to refugees and asylum-seekers. Germany had specified that people from so-called safe countries were prohibited from working. All answers showed that advisory and legal services to foreigners, migrants, asylum-seekers, and refugees were differentiated by the status of the beneficiary. They existed to a certain extent in each country and region. Against this background, Ms Veit had chosen to highlight two best practise examples, i.e. Lithuania and Hamburg. In Lithuania, there were three foreign integration centres in Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipeda. They aimed to provide a “one-stop shop” for foreigners, to facilitate them with a wide range of services at one desk, so as to speed up the integration into society and the labour market. In Hamburg, apart from the reception centre, where new arrivals were registered and given medical examinations, a program had started in 2015, called W.I.R. (Work and Integration for Refugees), founded to help refugees in a holistic manner. The major concern was to integrate them into the labour market. Regarding language instruction, in most of the countries and regions participating in the survey so far, there were language courses as well as courses for civic education, less often vocational training. Depending on their respective status, foreigners, refugees and asylum-seekers were commonly allowed to participate, and most of the countries offered the courses free of charge. Five countries to some degree obligated asylum-seekers to take part in the various integration courses offered by the authorities. In Poland, participation was exclusively voluntary. Ms Veit moved on to the topic of benefits. Most of the participating countries had yielded comprehensive information about these, such as benefit payments, special requirements for eligibility to some benefits, the monthly subsistence for asylum-seekers in euros or the respective currencies and how this related to the national income. Nonetheless, Ms Veit conceded that comparison was very difficult. She mentioned one example: In 2015, the average taxable income in Finland was 28,000 € a year, i.e. approximately 2,300 € per month. When comparing the average income to the allowances for asylum-seekers, it had to be taken into account that the latter were provided at least with accommodation and necessary health and social services for free. Accordingly, that was difficult to compare, and it was up for discussion how deeply that should be investigated. For Lithuania, the official minimum wage was set at 380 € per month; the medium was 360 € per month; the monthly benefits for asylum-seekers were set at 10 per cent of the state-supported income amount. Family reunification was the next aspect raised by Ms Veit. This part concentrated on family reunification for asylum-seekers and refugees. Every country granted family reunification to a certain extent, with some restrictions and narrative definitions of family. Her examples included: The immigration rules in Estonia aimed to support family migration; Estonia had transposed the family reunification directive for relevant asylum-seekers of the EU; beneficiaries of international protection could reunify their families. Latvia stated that a refugee or asylum-seeker, having resided in the country for at least 2 years, had the right to reunite with family members in foreign countries. An unaccompanied minor who had been granted international protection and was not married had the right to receive mother and father arriving from a foreign country. Since July 2016, there had been a temporary act in Sweden, limiting the rights of family reunifications for those who were eligible for subsidiary protection; the law would remain applicable until July 2019. The same applied to Germany. In Poland, marriage had to be recognised by Polish law, thus leaving out polygamous or same-sex marriages. Regarding minors, the answers given showed that every country tried to do its best to support unaccompanied minors. All these matters, including best practise examples, should be discussed by the Working Group. The next item concerned accommodation. The housing situation depended on the asylum-seeker’s respective status – asylum-seekers waiting for a decision, granted asylum, or an alternative status, an unaccompanied minor or a detained foreigner. Every country provided accommodation in some form to the migrants. Usually, asylum-seekers were first housed at reception facilities. In Germany, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Estonia, and Latvia, these were called transit centres or temporary accommodation, while Poland had settled on the name accommodation centres. As for volunteers and the organization of their involvement, she said that civil society was playing a vital role in every country in the region. Its involvement was encouraged by the state or by NGOs. Voluntary work was supported through civil society, governments and other actors in the public sector. She mentioned best practise examples in Denmark, Germany and Sweden. Ms Veit concluded that the responses and statements by the Baltic Sea Region governments in the BSPC Working Group’s survey were a good basis for further research. Historical context of migration after WWII Mr Veiko Spolitis, Member of the Latvian Parliament , in line with an agreement of the WG in Copenhagen, gave a speech on the historic context of migration after the Second World War. He pointed out that his presentation specifically considered the Baltic Sea region after the second world war because he was concerned why there were different perceptions on what migration was, what refugees were in Scandinavian countries, Finland, Germany, Poland, and the Baltic states. These considerations formed the first part of his working paper, he said. His approach was to look at the reasons for these differences which were objectively real, before investigating the problems of the crises, such as wars. He agreed with Ms Sørenson that there was nothing extraordinary to what they were witnessing these days. He referred to the Yugoslavian wars in the 1990s and earlier, the second world war. The problem of migration as seen from the Baltic perspective was very often muddled. Mr Spolitis had looked at two specific aspects as understood by common people on the street. These were economic migrants and refugees. Both were covered by the United Nations conventions, with very simple to understand definitions. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Migrants for example defined the migrant worker as a person who used to be engaged, is engaged or has been engaged in a remunerated activity in a state in which he or she is not a national. Refugees differed from these economic migrants because economic migration usually took place in a world governed by laws whereas refugees were left alone. Accordingly, there was a need for UNHCR, the Red Cross, and the Red Crescent – all these organizations helping those downtrodden people who had to flee their homes. The UN definition of the 1951 convention stated very specifically that a refugee was someone who had been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they could not return home or were afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal, religious violence were stated as the leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries. Given such clear definitions, the question was why there were such different perceptions in the Baltic Sea area where most of the countries were members in the Schengen area, the EU, and NATO. It the Baltic Sea region, he considered such a development inevitable, since only one totalitarian regime had been abolished after the second world war, while another – the Soviet Union – had still stayed intact. Mr Spolitis cited an example for the different development: After World War II, twelve million Germans had had to be relocated back from the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, and so forth. However, Mr Spolitis went on, in Germany, in Scandinavian countries, in Finland, it had been possible to accept the migrations in a democratic way because there had been political parties, meetings, discussions, and what he considered most important: These nations had dealt with it as the current migration was handled, as shown by Ms Veit’s presentation, on the municipal level. When the refugees had been received, they had lived with the original inhabitants in the same municipalities. He stressed that municipalities had to have a say in these matters. Differently, in the Soviet Union, which had occupied nations such as Poland and East Germany, the locals had no influence at all in these migration flows. People had simply come and gone, with the communist party dictating the rules all the way to 1975. At that point, the Helsinki Acts had finally implemented changes, and human rights had been admitted at the highest level of the CPSU in Moscow. That was the greatest difference, Mr Spolitis pointed out, why there was inertia stemming from the Soviet totalitarian past, that there was a certain perception what refugees meant and how to deal with them. There was another very important detail in the reception of these millions of refugees. It had been rather easy for Germany to accept most of the Germans because they were speaking the same language, they were akin, so there had been no cultural clashes. Mr Spolitis noted that such clashes always occurred to some degree, but by and large, these had been the same European people who had been relocated because of war ravages. Moreover, they had also received help from such organizations as the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. In the Soviet Union, though, the Red Cross had unfortunately been forbidden from operating. In a nutshell, Mr Spolitis summarised, these were the determining factors for the different cultures of receptivity towards migration that had developed. In Sweden, in Germany, in the Scandinavian countries as a total, these populations had been part of the development of economic boom after these relocations. They had learned the language, they had learned the skills, and then they could decide whether they wanted to stay in this newly adopted country or whether they wanted to relocate back. Accordingly, the waves of the Portuguese, the Italians, and afterwards the Yugoslavians and the Turkish ‘gastarbeiters’ (guest workers) – everything went well because they had been integrated into society. Political parties had been making decisions, and on the municipal level, they had been accepted. This had been part of the bargain, Mr Spolitis stated. Everyone had shared the same views on how to deal with this, whereas in Poland, or in the Baltic states, or in East Germany – considering the differences in public opinion -, that had never been the case, as everything had been decided by the communist party. He next considered the end of the cold war when large numbers of economic migrants had moved from the Baltic states and Poland in particular to Ireland and Great Britain. These had also followed the same procedure, acquiring new skills and a new language. Important here was that it had been the European Union which had fostered this movement, because one of the three liberties of the European Union was free labour, next to free capital movement and a free market of goods and services. Aside from the free movement of labour, another focus was the convergence of policies. Such policies had been developed, particularly at the insistence of Germany – which could afford such and had been a driving force along with France -, that there would always be labour movement from the economic periphery. But with convergence policies working, it was possible to see that most Italian and Portuguese who had arrived in Germany in the 1950s had gone back to their native countries because their economic fortunes had risen. The same had also applied to the Turkish population, despite the recent backlash because of the political situation in Turkey. For a while, greater numbers of Turkish people had moved back from Germany to Turkey rather than the opposite way. Nowadays, this movement had reversed. Mr Spolitis also considered the causes of the current refugee crisis. Outlined in broad strokes, Mr Spolitis saw that, in light of global warming, natural disasters were accepted. Whenever there was a natural disaster, people were very receptive, regardless of the regime, to refugees. A man-made disaster, though, was a different affair. Such could be a technological disaster but also wars. Whenever there was a man-made disaster, Mr Spolitis pointed out, people started questioning the influx of refugees. In democracies, after all, there was a right to question. Looking at what was happening in the Baltic Sea region over the past twenty-seven years, there had been a tremendous transformation in the Baltic states and Poland. Most of the work had dealt with making the living conditions acceptable to the population. People living in the Scandinavian countries and Germany, he noted, accepted the fact that they could build and plan their lives as something acceptable. For many countries in the world, Mr Spolitis stressed, this was a luxury. Coming back to your country to raise your children in peace, where you could make plans based on your annual income, where you could raise your children and send them to school, that was often something unattainable. Accordingly, a major policy goal for the Baltic states and Poland was to ensure that people would start coming back. Considering the trends for the last one-and-a-half years, that process had just started. People were beginning to trickle back from Ireland and Great Britain. Basically, Mr Spolitis continued, post-war lessons had taught the European Union how to manage labour shortages, how to manage the reform of governance and education systems, and how to converge economies. These lessons could be applied both in a good or bad manner, depending on the political culture. But one thing could not be managed from within, namely external shocks or wars. Mr Spolitis noted that it was often difficult to understand and grasp that Europeans could also work to end a war driving migration flows in the Baltic Sea region. At the moment, he mentioned, there were two such wars: the war in Ukraine and the war in Syria. Since 2015, there had been media hype related to refugees, such as the reestablishment of the border between Sweden and Denmark, the still ongoing debate in Germany had even threatened the government, and there was the forty-fifth president of the United States intruding in the whole debate. The bottom line, Mr Spolitis said, was that there were two million internally displaced persons in the Ukraine for example. There were also internally displaced persons in Russia, and two million had moved from the Ukraine into Poland. At the same time, these Ukrainians were an economic boon for the Polish economy – while representing a brain drain for the Ukraine. With that in mind, it had to be understood that war was never good. The only ones to profit off war were the immoral businessmen who were e.g. selling arms or shipping people. Mr Spolitis accordingly also looked at the United Nations charter. He emphasised because, as he said, it was always good to look at the basic documents. Article 1 of the charter was very clear: ‘We have to maintain international peace and security to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principles of equal right and self-determination of peoples to achieve international cooperation and solving international problems and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. States must follow the basic principles as outlined in Article 2 of the Charter.’ Article 2, Mr Spolitis explained, clarified how this must be achieved. These basic documents had been written by people who had known that there could not be greater disasters than war. Out of the ravages of war, in San Francisco, in 1945 and in 1948 when the International Charter of Human Rights had been written, they had understood that peace must be kept. Therefore, he found Article 2 interesting, explaining explained how this peace had to be kept: ‘Nothing containing the present charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the member states to matters or settlements under the present charter.’ He pointed out that this showed the embeddedness of the Security Council. Therefore, having these principles of international law, it was possible to discuss this because the BSPC was an international organisation. War and the breaching of basic tenets of human rights was unacceptable behaviour in today’s European region, called one of the most prosperous, most open and most liberal regions. In 2015, uncontrolled migration had made headlines in many media, and it could be clearly said that the European public, including the media, had not been prepared in 2015, unlike in the 1990s, as could be seen from newspapers and other resources. Mr Spolitis said that Europeans had become complacent, that they had forgotten about these problems but had to be ready for them. So, in 2015, it was learned that the Dublin directive of 2003 about asylum-seekers was defective. Without any international crisis, without war, the Dublin directive had managed migration pretty well. But it became problematic in a crisis where the flows of mass migration due to war were overwhelming the bordering areas. Mr Spolitis pointed out that the debate accusing Hungary had been pointless, and instead, the discussion should have dealt with the problems with the Dublin directive. He predicted that the Dublin III directive would fail again. Accordingly, it was necessary to fix these matters on a fundamental level. As a historic note, Mr Spolitis said, in 1997, prior to the Amsterdam Treaty, there had been debate about following up on Maastricht and introducing a common migration policy. Unfortunately, at that time, Helmut Kohl had an agreement with Jacques Chirac but not the support of the German federal states in the Bundesrat. Therefore, a common migration policy had failed in 1997 because Helmut Kohl didn’t have the necessary support back home. As a result, Europeans now had to live with a defective system where politicians tried ad hoc fixes here and there, with crises here and there. But, Mr Spolitis underlined, without a common migration policy, they were in the same position as they had been in 2015. Coming to the conclusion of his presentation, Mr Spolitis said that they had been speaking about possible policy responses in this broad track of problems concerning perception, with an eye on the wars in their immediate neighbourhood – i.e. Ukraine and Syria. Equally of concern were economic migrants and their countries of origin, such as the Maghreb nations in northern Africa as well as Ethiopia and Eritrea, both with authoritarian regimes. All these matters had to be dealt with. Lacking a common migration policy, it wasn’t enough to strengthen Frontex and fix the Dublin directive because disagreements were rising in bordering areas, particularly Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, and Spain where the greatest pressure was experienced. Moreover, the Dublin directive stated quite directly that countries had to deal with these issues on their own merits. At the same time, in 27+ EU member states, there were different levels of understanding, different levels of reception, and different levels of remuneration, as Ms Veit had outlined by the example of the Baltic Sea area countries. Therefore, possible policy responses had to first of all raise the awareness of these differences in our society. Mr Spolitis stated that it was the role of parliamentarians to go out and approach media and explain that the differences were due to specific, historic developments. Second, he said, they should not be shy to resist political correctness and call facts and arguments by their own names. The third response suggested by Mr Spolitis was that parliamentary assemblies – such as the BSPC itself – could appeal to the super-regional organizations, e.g. the Council of the Baltic Sea Countries, the Council of Baltic Cities, or the United Nations to raise awareness. Another possibility was to demand of the heads of states to also raise this issue during the General Assembly Meeting in September, if the group decided to do so and agreed on the goal. Regarding the previous discussion, it could be seen that this process could not continue and that impartiality was not acceptable. Finally, but not least, a fourth proposal was that the BSPC as an organisation could coordinate information with like-minded super-regional organisations in this Baltic Sea area and jointly appeal to the European Council to continue work in order to establish a common EU migration policy. Further procedure The Working Group further discussed possible recommendations for the resolution of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference and possible contents of a Midway Report. In addition, the Working Group agreed to hold the next meeting in Kiel on 17 December 2018. Documents: Migration, Research, and Human Mobility: Myths and Realities Introduction to the compilation of the answers of the governments in the Baltic Sea Region to the questionnaire of the BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration Roots of the refugee dilemma, way of dealing with consequences