News

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

The BSPC at the 51 st General Assembly of the PABSEC: Pettersson points out the value of our democracies and the need to stand up and fight daily for them BSPC President Jörgen Petterssonand the head of the delegation of the Finnish Parliament to the BSPC, Kari Kulmala, attended the 51 st General Assembly of the PABSECin Tirana. In his address to the Assembly, Jörgen Pettersson highlighted the closecooperation between the BSPC and the PABSEC, based on a memorandum of understanding and common topics as well as the value of our democracies and the need to stand up and fight daily for them. In particular, he said: On behalf of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference, let me first of all thank you for the possibility to address the 51 st Plenary Session of the PABSEC General Assembly and congratulate you on your 25 th anniversary year. I wish you continued success and prosperous discussions for the next 25 years – at least. After Bucharest, Moscow, Belgrade, Istanbul and Kiev, this is the sixth consecutive time that we as organisations meet and discuss parliamentarism and democracy. We thereby learn from each other. We have also deepened our cooperation through bilateral visits and in the margins of a series of international parliamentary assemblies. We know each other very well, we know our mutual goals, and this is a necessary prerequisite for trusting cooperation. The active participation in our assemblies and conferences and the close contacts between our secretariats further the process of deepening knowledge of each other, mutual exchange of information as well as constantly learning from each others’ ’best practices’. We have pointed out our common goals and visions in a Memorandum of Understanding,as geopolitical areas, which stand for stability, security, democracy, economy, cultural and social development as well as the peaceful cohabitation of their peoples. Weunderlined 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 regard to the interests of all states and peoples in our Regions. Moreover, we considered as a priority the objectives of guaranteeing the security of our peoples, the economic growth and labour market of our regions, and furthering cultural, economic, political, religious and social integration, based on the principles of rule of law and, at the same time, promoting respect for human rights. As the current President of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference, BSPC, I want to point out once more the vital importance of international parliamentary cooperation – especially in times of tense situations. Having a forum for dialogue and exchange between parliamentarians is essential. The BSPC, consisting of 22 parliaments and five parliamentary organisations around the Baltic Sea, was founded in 1991 with the primary goal of creating a platform for open parliamentary dialogue to overcome the cold war and to establish the Baltic Sea as a sea of freedom, prosperity and cooperation. My homeland, the Åland Islands in the very heart of the Baltic Sea, are particularly aware of the need for and committed to international parliamentary cooperation because of our history. Åland is a great and real example of crisis management. Thanks to international agreements nearly a hundred years ago, we today have guaranteed, self-governed, neutralised and demilitarised autonomy in the Baltic Sea. We are a stable democracy based on the rule of law. Åland is not only a vital part of the republic of Finland. We are also known as ‘the islands of peace’. We hope to inspire others with our history of peace-making in practice. Democracies are not a law of nature. They are the products of mankind, and we must always be aware of the value of our democracies and stand up and fight daily for them to be preserved.They take centuries to build but only years to destroy. In order to include the people – our employers – in the decision-making, we have to make sure that they understand and are informed of what we do. We must also be aware of the impact the so-called ’fake news’ has on society and make sure that we are transparent and open towards the public. The truth is always superior to the lies. Finally, we must never forget the institutions that create stability in democracies. They are essential for all parliamentarians. The erosion of the institutions leads inevitably to the undermining of democracy. We must engage proactively in dialogue and cooperation. We have a responsibility towards our societies and future generations to care for our region. Participation and collaboration are a universal mandate for all of us. We might speak different languages, but our common objectives are the same: we want love, peace and a safe surrounding for ourselves and the generations to come. To achieve that, we must strengthen the influence of parliaments. We want to live in a free, peaceful and prosperous world based on democratic values and human rights. Ladies and gentlemen, we, the PABSEC and the BSPC, have already held discussions on how we can deepen our bilateral cooperation. The BSPC is currently dealing in depth with migration and integration issues within the framework of a working group. You have also already dealt intensively with the refugee problem and migration matters which need cooperation and action. The countries of our parliamentary associations are by the sea or have a close relationship with it. In this respect, it would be useful to exchange best practice examples for the achievement of the United Nations’ 2030 goals with regard to keeping the seas clean. Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, we must fight for more cooperation and less isolation. No country can solve international problems by itself. The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Åland with the participation of the President of the Republic of Finland on 27 August 2018 will offer dialogue, debate, solutions, friendship and a strong will to increase cooperation and prosperity in the region. We will also include the young generation in our deliberations – as we regularly have done at our former conferences – and give them the opportunity to discuss their recommendations on the United Nations 2030 development goals which they will elaborate one week before at a youth summit called Regeneration 2030. We are the Islands of Peace, and we want the whole of the Baltic Sea and the rest of the world to follow our example: for the benefit of hope and the never-ending search for a better life.

BSPC at International Forum on Development of Parliamentarism in Moscow: Pettersson pointed out the vital importance of international parliamentary cooperation – especially in times of tense situations: “That time when we stop speaking, we will have real problems“. According to an agreement in the BSPC Standing Committee, a delegation of the BSPC – consisting of the President of the BSPC, Jörgen Pettersson, the former President of the BSPC and Head of the Delegation of the Russian State Duma to the BSPC, Valentina Pivnenko, and the Secretary General of the BSPC, Bodo Bahr – took part in the International Forum on the Development of Parliamentarism in Moscow from 4 to 5 June 2018. Delegates of 96 parliaments from all over the world and representatives of 10 international parliamentary organizations attended. The BSPC was the only international parliamentary organisation to address the participants during the opening plenary session. In the run-up to the Forum, the delegation of the BSPC had a bilateral meeting on 3 June in the State Duma of the General Assembly of the Russian Federation with the Chairman of the State Duma, Mr Vyacheslav Volodin , Vice-Chairmen and further deputies of the State Duma . During the bilateral meeting, the Chairman of the State Duma,Mr Vyacheslav Volodin, emphasised that this Forum was an opportunity to discuss global issues with regard to its parliamentary dimension. He expressed his belief that the experiences and visions on all issues of the Forum would help to find appropriate solutions for them. As members of parliaments, the participants have all the expertise to discuss these issues. He pointed out the necessity to trust each other, to speak to each other. Trust was based on dialogue. The forum provided an opportunity to achieve this dialogue. All the reserves of parliamentary abilities should be employed to achieve mutual understanding and find all the possible solutions for all involved nations. BSPC President Jörgen Pettersson underlined that the International Forum for the Development of Parliamentarism was an essential forum for dialogue and exchange between parliamentarians worldwide. He stressed that all of us could learn a lot from each other. As he had travelled to many places of the world, he had seen that people, despite their apparent differences, were truly the same. They wanted to have peace, they wanted to have love, they wanted to have work, and they wanted to feel secure. At the end of the day, Mr Pettersson said, that was what the parliamentarians were doing, striving to make living better for themselves, their populations and their voters, to make them feel loved and secure and peaceful, to make sure that they had work to go to. That, he pointed out, was an international, a global endeavour and what everybody wanted. He informed the forum about the current work of the BSPC and noted that the BSPC was founded on the initiative of the Finnish speaker, Mr Kalevi Sorsa, in 1991, with the reason that talking was always better than not talking. Meetings were always better than isolation. That idea had been identified at that time and continued to be worked on over the years by the BSPC. Mr Pettersson said that when the time came when they stopped speaking, that would be the moment that they had real problems. Therefore, it was very essential that parliamentarians did meet and did speak to each other, trying to use the best practices in their different countries and different systems. Valentina Pivnenko noted that in the BSPC, despite the differences in views, solutions were being sought that would meet the expectations of other states. Consensus was being reached despite all the differences in place. She also stressed that, at the BSPC Standing Committee meeting in Finland, the cross-border cooperation between Finland and Russia was being discussed. The Russian State Duma had adopted a law on cross-border cooperation in 2017 and was currently working on ratifying the cross-border cooperation between the European Union and the Russian Federation. She felt it necessary to note that this cooperation was an important international tool that would help bring about all the projects of the involved parties. Today, thanks to the position of Finland, it made it possible to preserve the cross-border cooperation between the European Union, Finland, and the Russian Federation. She closed by offering her wishes that the cooperation would be fruitful and successful and would help achieve all the goals pursued by the involved parties for the Baltic Sea Region. In his speech during the opening plenary session of the Forum, BSPC President Jörgen Pettersson pointed out the vital importance of international parliamentary cooperation – especially in times of tense situations. He thanked the Chairman of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, Mr Vyacheslav Volodin , for inviting the BSPC to this highly topical International Forum on the Development of Parliamentarismin Moscow.He characterized the conference as an essential forum for dialogue and worldwide exchange between parliamentarians and informed the participants about the BSPC and its work by saying: “The BSPC, consisting of 22 parliaments and 5 parliamentary organisations around the Baltic Sea, was founded in 1991 on the initiative of Kalevi Sorsa, then Speaker of the Finnish Parliament. The primary goal was to create a platform for open parliamentary dialogue to overcome the cold war and to establish the Baltic Sea as a region of freedom, prosperity and cooperation. “Moreover, we have been successful in this during our 27 years of cooperation. “My homeland, the Åland Islands, is particularly aware of the need for and committed to international parliamentary cooperation because of our history. Åland is a great and real example of crisis management. Thanks to international agreements nearly a hundred years ago, we today have guaranteed, neutralised and demilitarised autonomy in the Baltic Sea; Åland is known as ‘the islands of peace’. We hope to inspire others with our history of peace-making in practice. “We must strengthen interparliamentary cooperation as well as the influence of parliaments. We are the voice of the people who, all over the world, want love, security, prosperity, peace and freedom. “Their collective will is of crucial importance to look for answers to international challenges such as the threats posed by terrorism and armed conflicts but also for best practice examples in good legislation to inspire others and be inspired in the work of improving the well-being of countries and citizens. “Therefore, the themes you have chosen for this Forum are important for interparliamentary cooperation. “That is why we propose not only to hold government summits, but also parliamentary summits to involve parliamentarians and parliamentary institutions in government summits. “We want to live in a free, peaceful and prosperous world based on democratic values and human rights. “Ladies and gentlemen, despite the significant progress that we have achieved over the past years, tremendous challenges remain. These are challenges which we can only tackle jointly, especially environmental protection, sustainability, the implementation of the United Nations 2030 goals, terrorism, armed conflicts, migration and economic development as well as digitalisation and the impact on societies. “Negative spirals in development, which are detrimental to all of us, must be broken by honest initiatives to achieve a lasting solution to any crisis. It is essential to condemn violence and violations of international law and human rights. We must fight for more cooperation and less isolation. “Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, we must make every effort to resolve conflicts through political dialogue and not through armed forces. “In this respect, parliamentary cooperation is a powerful tool for transparent, democratic and fruitful political processes to address contentious issues. “The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Åland on 27 August 2018 will offer dialogue, debate, solutions, friendship and a strong will to increase cooperation and prosperity in the region. “We will also include the young generation in our deliberations – as we regularly have done in our former conferences – and give them the opportunity to discuss their recommendations on the United Nations 2030 development goals which they will elaborate one week before at a youth summit called Regeneration 2030. “We are the Islands of Peace, and we want the whole of the Baltic Sea and the rest of the world to follow our example: for the benefit of hope and the never-ending search for a better life.“ In the context of the conference section “Strengthening International Security: The Role of Parliaments”, Jörgen Pettersson made a contribution to the issue by highlighting: “Life is full of surprises. Thanks to a war that ended in 1854, my homeland Åland is today known as the islands of peace. I will come back to that later. “We parliamentarians are the representatives of the citizens of our countries, and we are the voice of the people. To live means a wonderful mixture of challenges but above all a will to stay safe, wherever you are. “The collective will of the people is of crucial importance to look for answers to international challenges such as the threats posed by terrorism and armed conflicts. “Above all, the people in our countries want to live in a free, peaceful and prosperous world based on democratic values. “We are in debt to those who shaped our continent, and we are in even higher obligation to them who are not yet born but have every right to grow up and form their future and their happiness. We need action to make that happen. “Our security is threatened not only by armed conflicts but also by international terrorism, which knows no borders in its brutal murders. “The parliamentarians of the Baltic Sea region utterly condemned terrorism in all its forms as a common threat to our citizens and our shared values. “They deplore the loss of innocent lives, expressed sympathy and solidarity with the victims of all terrorist attacks, their families and all those who suffered in these inhumane attacks and they underlined the crucial need for the joint fight against this significant threat to our societies and to uphold our democratic values, while stressing that this fight has to respect the rule of law and civil and human rights. “However, because we agree that we must join forces and work together to prevent such attacks and to combat the roots of this evil, this is an area in which parliaments can work together much more closely and on a larger scale than before. It is an issue that could be given a much stronger focus at an international parliamentary summit by a joint declaration by as many parliamentary organisations as possible in its call to intensify preventative measures. That could encourage governments to take preventative measures much more intensively than before and to cooperate unreservedly in this area. “That would also send a signal to our populations that we are taking preventative action to deal with these problems and not only when there are a large number of deplorable victims. “The BSPC is also convinced that the issues of Migration and Integration pose a tremendous challenge to all countries in our region as well as a great chance for their further development. Those issues call for intensive dialogue as well as close cooperation and coordinated policies.Therefore, the BSPC has established a working group which analyses and discusses migration and integration as well as the topic of refugees. This is a global responsibility. When it comes to the right to stay safe we are one world and one people. One of the main reasons why so many people leave and flee their home countries in a short period are armed conflicts. Our task must be to contain or prevent conflicts and reduce tensions. In this respect, we can send out stronger signals through increased parliamentary cooperation, the primary objective of which is to minimize conflicts. “Even if governments can only talk to each other to a limited extent, it has been shown time and again that dialogue and willingness to speak at the parliamentary level to reduce conflicts can certainly be continued. “That is what the people who elected us expect. We must strengthen interparliamentary cooperation as well as the influence of parliaments. “We must engage proactively in dialogue and collaboration. We have a responsibility towards our societies and future generations to care for our regions. Participation and cooperation are a universal mandate for all of us. “We parliamentarians as representatives of the citizens in our countries need to work on deepening dialogue between countries continuously. We also have to find compromises and cooperation related to the democratic values to face future international challenges and possibilities. “We may not be able to reconcile conflicting positions fully, but we can at least provide a forum in which these differences can be openly resolved and in which we can have an open political debate on them – and I believe that this is a necessary condition for pursuing pragmatic approaches and compromises on difficult issues. We should not assume that we parliamentarians can always find satisfactory solutions to various issues. But as representatives of our citizens, we have a duty to our citizens to help resolve conflicts. “Finally, the islands of peace. My homeland Åland. Ever since the peace treaty in Paris of 1856, i.e. the Crimean War, Åland has been demilitarised and also neutralised. International agreements have made a difference, and we are today a great example of crisis management. Thanks to the treaties, our economy is blossoming, and we are an attractive place for people to live in and move to. We are a welcoming society. We are peaceful, and peace makes people strong while fear makes us weak. That’s why we must never stop fighting evil.” In a contribution during the section “Youth Policies: Parliamentary Dimension” of the conference , Jörgen Pettersson referred to the motto of a Baltic Sea Region Youth Conference: “Nothing about us without us” which expresses the foundation of the relationship between policy decision-makers and the young generation. Pettersson highlighted the fact that every new generation is a little brighter than the previous ones. “Therefore you should take our advice but not necessarily follow it. The world of tomorrow is yours, not ours.” Jörgen Pettersson also informed the worldwide audience about the Regeneration 2030 summit (Link: https://www.regeneration2030.org/ ) that will take place in Åland on 18-20 August 2018 where the next generation will discuss what will happen tomorrow and speak about the implementation of the 2030 Development Goals of the United Nations. He pointed out that representatives of this Baltic Sea-wide Youth Forum will get the opportunity to present the results of their deliberations at the 27 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary. In the margins of the Forum, the BSPC delegation also had conversation with a number of Speakers of Parliaments from Africa and South America as well as with Presidents and Secretaries General of other Interparliamentary Assemblies such as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean and PABSEC as well as with members of other parliamentary delegations. The BSPC delegation further attended an event at the Embassy of Finland in Moscow and met the former Speaker of the Finnish Parliament, Mr Eero Heinäluoma and MP Ilkka Kanerva who also attended the International Forum.

The highest Executive Committee of the BSPC, led by the President of the BSPC, Jörgen Pettersson, held its third meeting under the Åland Presidency – on the invitation of Kari Kulmala, Chairman of the delegation of the Finnish Parliament to the BSPC – in Koli National Park, Finland. Delegations from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, the European Parliament, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hamburg, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Nordic Council, Norway, Poland and the Russian Federation participated in the meeting. 27 th Annual BSPC in Mariehamn The main focus was placed on the preparation of the 27 th annual Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference, which will take place from 26-28 August in Mariehamn, Åland Islands under the headline: The Baltic Sea – Our Lifeline, Cooperation, Sustainability and Smart Energy – Three pillars for future development. The main themes will be: The Vision of a Healthy Baltic Sea – A Call for more Action as well as Sustainable Energy, Smart Energy Distribution Platforms which will focus on the next generation electrical grids – pilot projects on Baltic islands. Numerous highest- and high-level speakers have already agreed to attend the conference. A draft programme will be published in due time. The Standing Committee also discussed a preliminary draft resolution with calls for action to the governments of the Baltic Sea Region, resulting from the BSPC work since last September. This will be deepened and completed on the basis of relevant events during the next 2 months. Implementation of the 26 th BSPC Resolution A special focus was placed on the follow-up to the resolution of the 26 th annual conference, which took place in Hamburg from 3 – 5 September 2017, and the reports by the national and regional governments about the implementation of the 26 th BSPC resolution. Follow-up statements to the 26 th resolution have been received from 12 parliaments by now. Further statements will follow. They are more and more comprehensive and partially very detailed. The Standing Committee noted that this was a positive development. All statements are published on the BSPC website. Transnational Cooperation With regard to one of the priorities in the current BSPC work programme under the Åland presidency and in continuation of the SC deliberations in Brussels on transnational cooperation and macroregional strategies with a special view to environmental topics, Dr Raimo Heikkilä, Leading Researcher, Finnish Environment Institute, and Dr Heli Saarikoski, Senior Research Scientist, Finnish Environment Institute, addressed the SC members at the beginning of the Standing Committee Meeting in a round of presentations about projects by the Finnish Environment Institute and about collaborative practices for environmental decision-making. Dr Raimo Heikkilä presented a number of interesting projects, significant for the BSR environmental status, pursued by the Finnish Environment Institute – a research and expert institute under the Finnish Ministry of the Environment, in matters of water resources under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The speaker reported on the process of creating the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) clinic. The original four clinics were implemented by SYKE through the strategic development project Towards Sustainable Economic Systems – key methods and tools, lessons learnt and future outlooks (ToFu). After that initial test, the concept was developed in 30 SME cases in the North Karelia region. By now, he added, that work was being handled by the ERDF project Finnish Industrial Symbiosis System and Model -Y in Northern Savo . Dr Heikkilä went on to say that LCA had become one of the main tools for quantifying the environmental sustainability of products and services. The methodology’s main advantage was that several environmental impacts were assessed simultaneously over the entire life cycle of a product or a service, across its whole value chain. Its holistic nature, though, made LCA a laborious and expensive method, less accessible to start-ups as well as small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Clinics were presently focused mainly on climate change impacts, but other impact categories could also be included easily. The aim was to develop LCA as a role model and to expand it regionally and substantially. Dr Heikkilä further provided information about the project “North Karelia towards a Fossil Oil-Free and Low-Carbon Region 2015-2018”. The project was realized by the Regional Council of North Karelia in cooperation with the Finnish Environment Institute, aiming to increase the energy efficiency in buildings, the share of renewable energy and the usage of low-carbon and cleantech solutions. He pointed out that the improvement of energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy in municipalities strengthened pioneer markets; moreover, investments could offer references for new products. The Carbon Neutral Municipalities project (HINKU), the speaker mentioned, had brought municipalities, businesses, citizens and experts together to create and carry out solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In Finland, the emission reduction target was set on a very high level, i.e. -80 % CO 2 eq by 2030 compared to the 2007 level emissions. Dr Heikkilä emphasised that altogether 39 municipalities had committed, and 9 out of 11 municipalities from North Karelia were included in that programme. The goal of FRESHABIT LIFE IP, the next project presented by the speaker, was to ensure the preservation of freshwater heritage for future generations by improving the ecological state and biodiversity of the 2000 Natura freshwater habitats. SYKE was one of 31 project partners, under the leadership of the Metsähallitus natural heritage services, with a total budget of that project as high as 24.4 million euros. Another interesting undertaking mentioned by Dr Heikkilä was the SYKE EnviCal Manager (ECM), an IoT platform developed by the SYKE laboratory centre for research purposes, offering features such as remote data collection and control for almost any measurement device, process automation, real-time monitoring, alarm systems, automated data analysis and many others. With regard to Finnish-Russian cooperation, the speaker mentioned research projects on e.g. forest and swamp biodiversity and ecology that were funded mainly by the ministries responsible for the topics, the Green Belt of Fennoscandia along the boundary between Finland, Russia and Norway and development projects to support sustainable development and protect the biodiversity. Karelia intended to implement a number of projects financed by European Neighbour Instrument Cross Border Cooperation (ENI CBC), for instance the Collaborative Data and Information Exchange Network for Managing Invasive Alien Species, the Joint Cross-Border Environmental Monitoring System, Green Nature-Based Solutions in Tourism, Education for Sustainable Water Use. The speaker drew attention to the fact that the projects’ development depended on the ratification of the CBC programme by the Russian Duma, and he expressed his hope that it would come soon. Ms Valentina Pivnenko assured the audience that, due to the active support by the Karelian Regional Parliament, the legislative process would be completed during the spring session of the State Duma. Ms Heli Saarikoski from the Finnish Environment Institute presented an interesting approach to environmental governance which was being developed in the ongoing project Collaborative Remedies for Fragmented Societies — facilitating a collaborative turn in environmental governance (CORE). The starting points were fragmented societies confronting difficult environmental problems. The main idea was to create processes and mechanisms to support active citizenship and genuine opportunities for civil society actors to participate in public debate and policy-making processes. The project was founded by the Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland with 4.1 million euros in the years 2017-2021. Ms Saarikoski explained that collaborative environmental governance referred to planning and policy-making processes in which governmental bodies as well as market and civil society actors came together to explore collectively the problem area and to arrive at a reasonable way forward from public participation to partnerships and multi-party joint fact-finding and consensus-building processes. The assumption, she noted, was that collaborative governance had the capacity to create wise, fair, legitimate and efficient solutions. Currently, a number of case studies had been pursued, among them: community development agreements related to mining in the municipality of Sodankylä in Lapland, the national level policy dialogue process on the potential and bottlenecks on increasing the use of renewable energy in Finland, citizen jury process on regional peatland use strategy in South Ostrobothnia in Western Finland and building collaborative capacity in legislative processes (in co-operation with the Ministry of Justice). The speaker pointed out that the parliamentarians on the regional and national level were also involved in the processes of environmental governance. Information about the Region Additionally, the Standing Committee was informed about the regional and municipal situation in the region by Mr Risto Poutiainen , Region Mayor, Regional Council of North Karelia, and Mr Jarkko Määttänen , Mayor, City of Lieksa. The delegates were also given information about the Koli National Park by Mr Arto Sihvonen , Welfare Director, City of Lieksa, and received insight into traditional rafting by Mr Jaakko Saaristo and Mr Asko Turunen . In Joensuu, they also learned about the botanic garden “Botania”. Documents Raimo Heikkilä – Projects of Finnish Environment Institute in Joensuu and Finnish-Russian cooperation Collaborative environmental governance – insights from CORE project

At the Parliamentary Assembly of the South-East European Cooperation Process (SEECP) in the Slovenian capital Ljubljana, BSPC Vice-President Carola Veit underlined the crucial importance of parliamentary cooperation and partnerships between the various parliamentary forums. “Parliamentary cooperation and peaceful and constructive dialogue are now important elements of our efforts to promote sustainable development and the well-being of the people in our regions,” said Veit in her capacity as Vice-President of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference at the 5 th plenary session of the SEECP Parliamentary Assembly. SEECP members are 13 South-eastern European states. The BSPC was for the first time represented at the SEECP Parliamentary Assembly. Carola Veit also presented some core contents of the resolution of the 26 th BSPC in Hamburg and promoted its implementation in other countries The aim of the conference in Ljubljana was to intensify cooperation between parliamentary assemblies. Members of parliament should establish direct contact with each other and bring their findings gained through this exchange to the domestic parliaments. They deal with a wide range of issues, such as refugee issues, the threat posed by international terrorism and environmental protection. Veit reported on the results of the 26 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference last year in Hamburg. Under her presidency, the conference had focused on science and research, democratic participation in the digital age and sustainable tourism. In addition, the new “Migration and Integration” working group had been set up. Regarding Democratic Participation and the Digital Age, the BSPC had called in its resolution on the governments to “- further improve and develop means of democratic participation, e.g. through transparency, comprehensive information, government accountability and other instruments of citizen participation; – stimulate a common dialogue and debate in the region on ethical conditions for the digitization of states and societies and the possibilities of a common legal framework in this policy field. The task of the Parliaments is to guarantee fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law in the digital world as well.” She pointed out that the BSPC wants to initiate cooperation and to achieve progress in the whole region. Therefore, the member parliaments of the BSPC had asked their governments to report on the implementation of the annual resolutions and recommendations for action. She concluded her speech by saying, “We’re facing similar problems. But we have partly much differing regards on them. So it is most demanding to always stay open to listen and understand. It is our task to solve them together, because the problems do not stop at our borders. We are looking forward to coming together for discussions and further, closer cooperation.“ Another meeting with representatives of the SEECP Parliamentary Assembly is scheduled for the summer: Carola Veit invited the Chair of the SEECP to the annual conference of the BSPC in August on the Åland Islands. In the margins of the conference, she also had talks with representatives of the Baltic Assembly and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (PABSEC).

BSPC President Jörgen Pettersson and the head of the delegation of the Finnish Parliament to the BSPC, Kari Kulmala, attended the 47 th Plenary Session of the Interparliamentary Assembly of the CIS Member Nations in St. Petersburg. In his address to the Assembly, Jörgen Pettersson highlighted the necessity of strengthening the interparliamentary cooperation as well as the influence of parliaments related to the democratic values. He also pointed out the necessity of a strong parliamentary support and involvement in the Cultural dialogue. He was referring to a report by the BSPC Rapporteur for Cultural Affairs to the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference on the importance of cultural heritage. In particular, he said: ‘On behalf of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address the 47 th Plenary Session of the Interparliamentary Assembly of the CIS Member Nations here in St. Petersburg. The BSPC, consisting of 22 parliaments and 5 parliamentary organisations around the Baltic Sea, was founded in 1991 with the primary goal of creating a platform for open parliamentary dialogue to the Baltic Sea as a sea of freedom, prosperity and cooperation. My homeland, the Åland Islands, are particularly aware of the need for and committed to international parliamentary cooperation because of our history. Thanks to international agreements nearly a hundred years ago, we today have guaranteed, neutralised and demilitarised autonomy in the Baltic Sea; Åland is known as ‘the islands of peace’. We hope to inspire others with our history of peace-making in practice. We must strengthen interparliamentary cooperation as well as the influence of parliaments. We are the voice of the people. Their common will is of crucial importance in order to look for answers to international challenges such as the threats posed by terrorism which you were intensively discussing one year ago in this hall at your 25 th anniversary. We parliamentarians as representatives of the citizens in our countries need to continuously work on deepening dialogue between countries. We also have to find compromises and cooperation related to the democratic values to face future international challenges and possibilities. We see the need for cooperation not only in the Baltic Sea area but also beyond. Peace, love and understanding are the foundations upon which civilisation is created. We have underlined in our resolution that we want to intensify the cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region, including the Northern Dimension, the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and the Strategy for the Socio-Economic Development of the North West Federal District of Russia. Your Assembly focuses in this year especially on the field of culture and cultural heritage. This policy area is also particularly suitable for interparliamentary cooperation. For the BSPC, this is also an important policy field. The Baltic Sea Region has an outstanding diverse and attractive cultural life and a cultural heritage of great value. We see the necessity of a strong parliamentary support and involvement in the Cultural dialogue. Therefore, we have had a Rapporteur on Cultural Affairs for years. She has followed developments in this area and reported to the conference in recent years. Last year’s report focuses on the importance of cultural heritage, also with a view to the European Year of Cultural Heritage 2018. The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Åland which will be opened by the President of the Republic of Finland on 27 August 2018 will offer dialogue, debate, solutions, friendship and a strong will to increase cooperation and prosperity in the region. The main themes of our conference will be cooperation, maritime policy and sustainable energy. We will also include the young generation in our deliberations and give them the opportunity to discuss their recommendations on the United Nations 2030 development goals which they will elaborate one week before at a youth summit called ReGeneration 2030. We are the Islands of Peace, and we want the whole of the Baltic Sea (and the rest of the world) to follow our example: for the benefit of hope and the never-ending search for a better life! In the margins of the conference, the representatives of the BSPC had talks with representatives of the Parliamentary Assemblies of the OECD, of PABSEC and of the Mediterranean.

BSPC President Jörgen Pettersson and the head of the delegation of the Finnish Parliament to the BSPC, Kari Kulmala, attended the XIX International Environmental Forum “Baltic Sea Day” on 22-23 March in St. Petersburg. In his address to the Forum, Jörgen Pettersson underlined the fundamental importance of a constructive dialogue and close cooperation especially in politically difficult times as well as the crucial need for more stringent action on the national level in the BSR countries to reach the goals of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan until 2021 and thus a good ecological status of the Baltic Sea. In particular, he said: ‘The Baltic Sea Day here in St. Petersburg each year is a crucial component of our common efforts to promote sustainable development in the Baltic Sea Region. ‘Especially in politically difficult times, a constructive dialogue and close cooperation are of fundamental importance. ‘From the very beginning, the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference has dealt intensively with environmental issues. Their solution is also necessary independently from all other political disputes. Environmental problems are our common problems. Environmental pollution does not stop at our borders. ‘That is why we also have to solve them together. ‘Our aim is to be progressive and to urge governments to act progressively and also to convince those who are still hesitant in their actions. ‘Since the beginning of our cooperation – and during 17 years as an official observer –, the 27 parliaments and parliamentary organizations of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) have actively supported the work of HELCOM and called on our governments to give HELCOM the political support it needs to execute the necessary measures. Many topics the BSPC has been dealing with refer to issues that HELCOM is concerned with, such as, to mention only a few, the good ecological status of the Baltic marine environment, stricter emission regulations, stricter controls on eutrophication and the Baltic Sea as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area. ‘And – as I already pointed out at the Ministerial Meeting of HELCOM in Brussels on 6 March – we do this because the people who elected us expect us to provide them with a good environmental status and a clean and healthy Baltic Sea. The environment is similar to peace on earth. It’s the foundation of all human life. ‘That is why it is so important to achieve the goals that we have set ourselves for example with the Baltic Sea Action Plan and to do so within the very time frame set in the plan. We are in a hurry, 2021 will soon be here, and that is why we have to implement the 2030 sustainable development goals. ‘I myself come from Åland, the self-governed, neutralised and demilitarised Islands of Peace as we are called. We have 6,700 larger islands, and we are situated in the middle of the Baltic Sea. For us, the sea is a central lifeline and living space. We see it every morning and say goodnight to it every evening. ‘That is why we have a vital interest in the well-being of the Baltic Sea. That is why we have developed a wide-ranging sustainability strategy which we hope will be acknowledged as a Best Practice and repeated by others. ‘Therefore, we consider it necessary to keep emphasizing the political will regarding a clean Baltic Sea but also a good environmental status overall. It calls for action rather than talk. ‘For that reason, I am glad about this International Environmental Forum “Baltic Sea Day”. ‘Apart from all the progress achieved by HELCOM in the meantime, the current situation shows us that appeals alone are not enough. We must act more widely and stringently and make greater efforts. The priorities from our point of view are eutrophication, marine litter, hazardous substances and underwater noise. ‘We support the agreements in the new ministerial declaration and the path the ministers have taken on this basis. At the same time, however, we call for stricter action at the national level to guarantee the achievement of the objectives that in our mind are necessary in order to reinstate the health of the Baltic Sea. ‘The crucial foundation of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference is: We want to be a political platform for cooperation, for commitment and for competence in the political dialogue of parliaments, governments and civil societies in the Baltic Sea region. ‘We should not take for granted that we parliamentarians can always find satisfactory solutions. But we have an obligation to our citizens to contribute to solving problems. In order to achieve that, we must strengthen inter-parliamentary cooperation as well as the influence of parliaments. Their common will is of crucial importance in order to look for answers to international challenges. We parliamentarians as representatives of the citizens in our countries need to continuously work on deepening dialogue, on compromise and on cooperation related to the democratic values to face future international challenges, especially environmental problems. ‘The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Åland on 26-28 August 2018 will offer dialogue, debate, solutions, friendship and a strong will to increase cooperation, prosperity, sustainability and a healthy environment in the region. ‘I invite you to come to the conference. Let us – parliaments, governments and societies – strengthen our efforts working toward a good environmental status of our Baltic Sea, which is a lifeline for all of us. ‘You are welcome to participate in order to fulfil the will of all people depending on the health of the Baltic Sea!’ In the margins of the conference, the representatives of the BSPC had talks with representatives of the Finnish government, the CBSS, HELCOM, BSSSC, WWF, the city of Turku and a number of scientists.

BSPC President Jörgen Pettersson and BSPC Secretary General Bodo Bahr had an insightful conversation with the Chairman of the Senior Officials of the Council of the Baltic Sea States, Ambassador Hans Olsson, the Deputy Director of the CBSS Secretariat, Bernd Hemingway and representatives of all units of the CBSS Secretariat on 20 March in the premises of the CBSS Secretariat in Stockholm about possibilities to intensify the collaboration and to identify common activities. During the meeting of the Standing Committee of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Brussels, Ambassador Olsson made a series of concrete offers to deepen mutual cooperation and underlined that CBSS sees a great foundation for the development of the dialogue and collaboration between the CBSS and the BSPC. These collaboration points were the basis for the discussion in Stockholm. The representatives of the CSS Secretariat informed in detail about their current work priorities. In regard to Baltic 2030 CBSS had invited the BSPC to participate in ReGeneration 2030 – a joint initiative by the NCM and the CBSS, focusing on youth engagement in Agenda 2030. ReGeneration 2030 Summit will take place on 18 th -20 th of August 2018 in Mariehamn. BSPC President Pettersson informed that he was in contact with the organisers of ReGeneration 2030, that he would participate in the Summit and that 2 representatives of the Summit would be given the opportunity to present their manifesto and the results of their Summit at the 27 th BSPC. In view to a proposal of an annual CBSS-BSPC event to discuss how to coherently implement SDGs and environmental agendas across the region (e.g. back-to-back with BSPC annual conference in Marienhamn) had been envisaged by the BSPC to start a common discussion on the SDG within the framework of the 27 th BSPC. BSPC will further discuss an increased involvement of the BSPC Rapporteurs in the work of the respective CBSS working groups – which is already very intensive in the field of labour – and, in the future more back-to-back events with the BSPC during future annual conferences. CBSS had already been involved in the BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration and will be involved in the further work.