News

With a particular focus on the current geopolitical situation and on strengthening the resilience of maritime ecosystems At the European Parliament in Brussels, the BSPC Standing Committee convened to learn about the recent activities of the European Parliament and its close partner organisations, the CBSS and HELCOM, as well as about the work of the EU Commission’s DG MARE with a particular focus on the current geopolitical situation and on strengthening the resilience of maritime ecosystems. Further, preparations were made for the annual conference in Berlin on 27-29 August while considerations were given to the next working group to investigate an urgent topic of interest. About 35 participants, representatives and delegations of the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Council of the Baltic Sea States, the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM) and the BSPC members from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, the European Parliament, Denmark, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the Nordic Council, Norway, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden participated in the meeting. Introduction Returning once more to the pre-COVID tradition of its winter meetings held in Brussels, the BSPC Standing Committee convened at the seat of the European Parliament for its discussions. They were welcomed by their host, Mr Andreas Schwab , MEP, Chairman of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Northern cooperation and for relations with Switzerland and Norway and to the EU-Iceland Joint Parliamentary Committee and the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Parliamentary Committee, who highlighted the importance of the Baltic Sea region for the European Parliament. With the probable accession of Finland and Sweden into NATO, turning the Baltic Sea into a “NATO lake”, that importance would only increase. Energy security in that region would also remain crucial, with cooperation on wind farms and establishing hydrogen infrastructure in Denmark, Germany, Sweden and Finland. At the same time, environmental efforts continued to be fundamentally urgent, also in connection with the ecological disaster after the bombing of the Nord Stream pipelines. He voiced his hope that the cooperation in the Baltic Sea region would be even more efficient. BSPC President Johannes Schraps remarked on the multiplicity of crises in recent times – not least the Russian aggression against Ukraine – during which parliaments, such as the European Parliament, had taken and were taking far-reaching decisions to provide fundamental long-term decisions as well as short-term and fast-acting decisions on pressing matters. On that note, Mr Roberts Zile , the Vice-President of the European Parliament, spoke about the current challenges in Europe and the future of Europe from the perspective of the European Parliament. In particular, he noted recognising the paramount importance of security. He underlined the efforts in having Ukrainian President Selenskyy address the parliament as well as pushing for the military and financial support for Ukraine. In the course of the past year, it had become clear that military preparedness had to be established as the key for security in the Baltic Sea region. The decision of Finland and Sweden to join NATO had been crucial. The energy sector was another area where the mistakes of recent history had to be rectified in the present. By standing together, though, that course correction was underway, already having brought Europe through a winter where a worse situation had been expected. Mr Zile also addressed the climate change endeavours, pointing to the upcoming response of the EU to the USA’s actions on promoting in-country products and services. Yet to be resolved, though, were such issues as countermeasures against inflation or how to handle migration and general asylum policies. He stressed that the international order had to be strengthened, adding that what was good for Europe was very good for the Baltic Sea region. Parliaments had to stand together in these efforts. Prof Jānis Vucāns highlighted the intensive support from the Baltic countries to Ukraine, wondering how the other European countries’ efforts could be improved. Mr Roberts Zile noted the varying urgency of the issue in the different nations, requiring internal striving to intensify the help. At the same time, sanctions and confiscation of Russian assets within the EU were on the table, despite the complex legal situation. Cooperation With the CBSS Ambassador Grzegorz Poznański , Director General of the CBSS Secretariat, highlighted how closely the BSPC and the CBSS were working together, especially on the continuation of the regional cooperation after Russia’s withdrawal. He focused on the most important happenings in the CBSS, beginning with the German presidency’s priorities on youth, offshore power and dumped munitions. The CBSS had provided a sustainable youth platform for the Baltic Sea region, also feeding into the renamed Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum. The CBSS Baltic Sea Youth Forum, now a permanent institution, allowed young people to interact with political representatives. On that basis, a CBSS Youth Ministerial Meeting would be held in Berlin, prior to the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum in conjunction with the BSPC in Berlin back to back to BSPC Conference. On the second point, a planned Offshore Energy Forum would bring together the foreign ministers of Germany and Denmark as well as the environment ministers of all CBSS member states with the stakeholders, including business and academia. Regarding dumped munitions, the CBSS had moved the matter forward into concrete action together with HELCOM. They now knew what was known but also what still had to be researched. Monitoring was required, he noted. In December, an expert round table had taken place, with politicians and civil servants also taking part. Ambassador Poznański underlined the significant role DG Mare from the European Commission was playing in these endeavours. Furthermore, the CBSS had been considering the future of regional cooperation, looking into safety and security as well as the youth voice as part of the regional identity. Ambassador Poznański pointed to the upcoming Ministerial Meeting in Wismar as decisive for setting the course on all these various issues. As for the present work, he pointed out that the cohesion among the member states had increased greatly since the Russian withdrawal as had the importance of the CBSS. In addition, the integration of the successful Baltic Sea cooperation into the European cooperation was important since the Baltic success also meant a success for Europe. Mr Florian Rudolph , Chair of the Committee of Senior Officials of the Council of the Baltic Sea States during the German Presidency, added the economic urgency of offshore energy – the transition away from fossil fuels which included ending the dependence on Russian supplies – as well as the climate crisis requiring this. That necessitated stronger cross-border cooperation, as reflected by the mentioned high-level meeting in Berlin on 9 May 2023. In the run-up to the next Ministerial Meeting in Wismar in early June, the youth voice was to be encouraged to find recommendations on security and resilience which they would communicate to the ministers. On dumped munitions, he noted the recent workshop in Kiel. BSPC Secretary General Bodo Bahr underlined the BSPC’s delight that the twelve-year process of making the Baltic Sea Youth Platform a stable institution had been completed, wondering how that was secured for the future. Prof Jānis Vucāns was interested in the planned financial mechanism for action on dumped munitions. BSPC President Johannes Schraps asked about the possibility of a CBSS Summit as 11 years ago in Stralsund. Mr Rudolph confirmed a foreign ministers’ meeting for the beginning of June, offering the possibility of high-level dialogue on the issues of the region. He did not believe a Baltic Sea Summit was likely during the German presidency. On dumped munitions, the CBSS was pursuing its cooperation with HELCOM and further promoting the issue. Regarding youth collaboration, a respective permanent position in the CBSS Secretariat in Stockholm had been established, highlight youth dialogue and the Youth Ministerial Meeting. Different players – among them the parliament of Schleswig-Holstein – were coming together to sustain a reasonable future for this platform. Ambassador Poznański added that the structures for the youth platform were being enacted but had already been enshrined in the CBSS. The financial mechanism for dumped munitions would be discussed by the member states in HELCOM and the CBSS. One option raised at the Kiel workshop was a format like the Northern Dimension partnership, to generate funds. The EU Commission: DG Mare Mr Felix Leinemann , from DG MARE, was responsible for Blue Economy Sectors, Aquaculture & Maritime Spatial Planning, presenting the Current Main Activities of the Commission on Strengthening Maritime Ecosystems with a Particular View of the Baltic Sea. On the economic front, he noted that sustainability had to be built into all aspects, as per the Green Deal, such as the circular economy. The Baltic Sea could become a forerunner for green growth and sustainability, with many countries already willing to work together. At least 19.6 gigawatts of energy should be provided by offshore wind energy by 2030, seven times the current capacity. The Baltic Sea region’s experience in maritime spatial planning and regional cooperation on marine issues would be crucial in achieving this. Environmental aspects represented some of the best success stories in Baltic Sea regional cooperation. Innovation, though, could also be promoted through such collaboration, especially for a sustainable blue economy. In a smart specialisation platform, a bottom-up approach had identified several priorities in blue biotechnologies, green renewables, coastal and maritime tourism, fisheries, and agriculture as areas. He moved on to say that the sea basin was important for the mission of restoring the oceans by 2030, with concrete actions to be set for the North and Baltic Sea at a high-level event in Hamburg on 25-26 April 2023. Part of that would be regenerative ocean planning, allowing fishermen to diversify their business. Mr Leinemann noted that safety and security were also an issue in this, noting as an example that Russian ships had already been seen approaching Belgian wind farms. The European Maritime Security Strategy, established in 2014, updated in 2018, would be updated again in the current week, including the increased geopolitical competition. But that also included the dumped munitions from the World Wars, threatening the blue economy in e.g., offshore construction or fishing vessels. Some cooperative efforts were already in place, but a dedicated mechanism was being discussed to tackle this issue in earnest through the CBSS and HELCOM. Mr Wille Valve asked for more information about said dedicated mechanism while Mr Staffan Eklöf wondered about how to avoid negative impacts on biodiversity in the course of the expansion of offshore wind power. To the first question, Mr Felix Leinemann explained that the Kiel workshop had explored expert knowledge and concrete solutions, leading into a small-scale pilot project to be scaled up later. As for the impact on biodiversity, he noted that maritime spatial plans on where to allow wind farms to be built had to be developed internationally at the sea basin level rather than on a national basis. Mechanisms to support such measures were already in place, such as VASAB in HELCOM. An example was the North Sea Energy Cooperation looking at the cumulative impacts of the different developments on marine species. To a question from Mr Bodo Bahr about the revisions to the Maritime Security Strategy, Mr Leinemann mentioned that the renewable energy produced at sea was now also considered in terms of strategic and energy security. The common information sharing environment CISE was another instrument, allowing information everything that could be monitored and observed at sea to be exchanged on a need-to-know basis. Those were the main building blocks, he noted, but the strategy had tens of dozens of actions that would be updated. HELCOM: Its Work and the Priorities of the Latvian Chairmanship Mr Rüdiger Strempel , Executive Secretary of the Helsinki Commission, gave an overview of HELCOM’s achievements in 2022 as well as an outlook on what was planned for the present year 2023. First, Mr Strempel provided some background, focusing on HELCOM’s goal of improving the unique but fragile ecosystem of the Baltic Sea to a healthy status and outlining the working structure of the organisation. This was due to be revised in the spring of 2023. Since the Russian aggression against Ukraine, HELCOM had entered a strategic pause in which all official meetings had been postponed. Mr Strempel pointed out that the HELCOM Contracting Partners which were also EU members were presently called the “HELCOM 9” or “H 9”. These continued informal consultations as needed while official procedures still requiring Russian participation were handled via correspondence with the latter. As for external meetings, HELCOM presently did not participate in any with Russian involvement, except for the UN and the like. Mr Strempel underlined that the organisation was in fact operational. As for HELCOM’s current activities, implementing the updated Baltic Sea Action Plan was front and centre. Its predecessor had aimed for a healthy state of the Baltic Sea by 2021, which had failed. The update had tweaked various measures, resulting in 199 actions, each of which had an individual target year. Some of these had already been implemented. Each action had been assigned to one or several HELCOM bodies who assumed ownership of this. There were specific criteria by which achievement could be measured. This could be tracked on a tool which was available on the organisation’s website called the HELCOM Explorer. Aside from the Baltic Sea Action Plan, Mr Strempel mentioned several other processes, including the regional action plan on marine litter as well as the recently released Climate Change Fact Sheet, providing information on what was known – and what was not known – about the effects of climate change in the Baltic Sea. Further activities included the HELCOM Red List Project and the HELCOM submerged assessment of warfare materials in the Baltic Sea. Moreover, HELCOM was continuing its cooperation with partner organisations, global, continental, and regional. They were contributing to the Global Ocean Agenda, the UN Oceans Conference, and the 2020 Global Diversity Framework. Another flagship activity was the Holistic Assessment of the State and Loads on the Baltic Sea (HOLAS), currently going into its third iteration. It was holistic because it covered the entire area of activities: biodiversity, eutrophication, hazardous substances, economic and social analyses and spatial pressures and impacts. It also looked into the various facets of impacts on the environment – from drivers over activities all the way to the measures to address them. There would be a number of outputs, including a holistic summary report as well as thematic assessment reports, indicator evaluations, and new data. In 2024, the next Ministerial Meeting would be held. The same year, the 50 th anniversary of HELCOM would be celebrated in some form, despite the circumstances. Ms Evija Šmite , Chair of the Helsinki Commission, Deputy Director-General, Director of Fisheries Control Department, State Environmental Service, spoke about the priorities of the current Latvian HELCOM chairmanship : first, maintaining HELCOM as an effective and well-functioning organisation of regional cooperation; second, the implementation of the updated Baltic Sea Action Plan, focusing on the protection of marine biodiversity and advancing ecosystem-based sustainable marine management; third, strengthening the role of regional cooperation in the context of international ocean governance to support the achievement of the global sustainable development goals and focus in those on the conservation of marine biodiversity. It was also important to coordinate and harmonise the work in the context of the Baltic Sea Action Plan 2021 with the various political instruments and ongoing international initiatives of the European Union. Ms Šmite noted that HELCOM had entered a strategic pause so that official meetings were postponed but not cancelled. The suspension had also been prolonged until further notice by the current chairmanship. However, the Latvian chairmanship was organising as major events the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in Riga in the spring of 2024 and a celebration of HELCOM’s 50 th anniversary. Mr Wille Valve asked how nutrient input into the Baltic Sea could be reduced. Mr Bodo Bahr inquired about how the updated Baltic Sea Action Plan could ensure better implementation and what was known about Russia implementing these measures. To the former, Ms Evija Šmite pointed to the very concrete actions and thresholds in the revised action plan, including work on reducing eutrophication. Mr Rüdiger Strempel noted that while the previous action plan had not succeeded, it had ameliorated the situation. HELCOM had undertaken a unique sufficiency of measures analysis, allowing the weaknesses of the previous iteration to be preceived and rectified in the update. With the high level of commitment by the involved parties, he expected substantial progress. As for Russia, Mr Strempel mentioned that improving the conditions in the Baltic Sea was in that country’s self-interest, so he assumed they were taking action which would contribute to implementing the Baltic Sea Action Plan. Precise information was not available, though. The 31 st BSPC Resolution and Conference BSPC President Johannes Schraps explained that the statements on the 30 th Resolution had been received from Åland, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden. These had been published on the BSPC website. As for the 31 st Conference in Stockholm in 2022, the detailed report with all speeches and contributions and decisions adopted during the conference plus the list of participants and photos had been published on the BSPC website. He had presented the 31 st Resolution at several international meetings. The deadline for submitting government statements regarding that resolution had been set for 15 April 2023. Prof Jānis Vucāns noted that the Baltic Assembly had informed the Baltic governments about the Resolution, expecting a reply prior to the deadline. The BSPC Working Groups and Rapporteurs The present Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity would hold its next meeting in Tromsö in Norway, two weeks later. Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle explained that the programme would focus on the Arctic, including a visit to the Polar Institute. The reason was that climate change was most visible in the Arctic. Mr Jarosław Wałęsa underlined that the preparations for the subsequent final meeting of the working group in Gdansk on 14-15 May were well under way. The Standing Committee proceeded to discuss the topic of the new working group to be launched in September 2023. As a basis for the conversation, President Johannes Schraps listed as primarily possible themes the energy transition, safety and security in the region, migration and integration in the current context as well as digital resilience. Mr Staffan Eklöf noted the need for better preparedness in security matters. Prof Jānis Vucāns proposed a thorough concept from the Baltic Assembly for an energy-focused working group. Ms Hanna Katrín Friðriksson saw overlaps in several of the suggested topics. Ms Westgaard-Halle highlighted Europe’s vulnerability in energy matters but also the connection to security. Mr Wałęsa agreed that security challenges covered a broad range of areas. Ms Carola Veit argued for a clear focus of the working group, adding that an option would be to have two groups in parallel so that a wider swathe of interests could be covered. Mr Henrik Møller offered his interest in the Baltic Assembly’s concept. President Johannes Schraps noted that the previous two working groups had run for three years although a two-year span would fit better with the election cycles of parliamentarians. He proposed that the delegations think more about narrowing down the focus of the options and that firm suggestions be submitted by the end of April . A decision would then be taken at the next meeting of the Standing Committee. The 32 nd BSPC Conference and the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum BSPC President Johannes Schraps noted that a preliminary draft programme had been made available, including speaker proposals from the Estonian and Swedish delegations. Mr Staffan Eklöf explained that his side had proposed Prof Humborg, an expert on biodiversity who had spoken to the BSPC on several occasions already, for the topic of maritime resilience as well as a fellow parliamentarian on the working methods and processes in environmental politics. Mr Wille Valve of the Åland delegation had proposed a speaker on eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. President Johannes Schraps welcomed further ideas, also by e-mail later on. Given that the PABSEC was along the preliminary programme envisaged to be invited to the conference, Prof Jānis Vucāns wished to clarify the BSPC’s stance since Russia was still a part of the PABSEC. President Schraps said that he would discuss the matter with the vice-presidents and put the invitation to a vote at the next Standing Committee meeting in June, also taking into account the position of Ukraine as they were also members of PABSEC. He cautioned that this would mean cutting ties with the other organisation. For the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, President Johannes Schraps noted that a preliminary meeting would be held on 3 June, introducing the work and functioning of the BSPC and CBSS. The forum itself would start on 25 August 2023 with a get-to-know-each-other. The first full day on Saturday, 26 August 2023 would include networking sessions with parliamentarians as well as panel and roundtable group discussions to allow participants to work out recommendations which were to be finalised on the following Sunday to be presented to the annual conference right after the forum. 50 young people between 18 and 26 from the BSPC member countries and regions would take part in a mix of open applications (from 15 March to 15 April 2023) and representatives of youth organisations. The theme of the forum would be Democracy Under Siege – How Do We Make Democracies More Resilient? Four sub-topics had been prepared: Improving digital resilience – Conspiracy theories and hate speech as a threat to democratic societies; Increasing youth participation and engaging young people in political decision-making; Social division and polarisation in the face of right-wing extremism – How do we stand together and find common ground?; Sustaining faith in democratic institutions by reducing social inequality. The aim was to incorporate the recommendations into the resolution of the 33 rd BSPC 2024. Prof Jānis Vucāns asked for and received clarifications on the sub-topics. BSPC Finances Secretary General Bodo Bahr explained that 2022 had been a uniquely difficult year, having the Russian delegations withdraw from the BSPC and even discussions about closing down the organisations. The budget had had to keep all options open, giving the reduced funds. Partial compensation was possible due to the removal of translation services and some parliaments covering meeting costs. Looking to the future, the Standing Committee had decided to raise the annual contributions of the member countries and regions. These were already made available for 2023, even though some parliaments still had to undergo approval processes. That meant an increase of contributions to € 249,000, compensating both the lacking Russian fees and inflation since 2007. Mr Bahr pointed out that the new Rules and Procedures stated that the secretariat costs were covered now by the membership fees. Despite original expectations, the surplus had increased to ca. € 173,000. The Standing Committee agreed to the financial report for 2022. Moving on to the budget plan for 2023, Mr Bahr explained that this was based on the increased contributions, including the running costs for the secretariat. Translation costs would be paid from the BSPC budget in special cases. The costs for the meetings – excluding the conference – would be covered by the BSPC rather than hosting parliaments, allowing less financially viable parliaments to offer hosting. In addition, the BSPC website urgently had to be updated. Should there be a shortfall, remaining costs could be covered from the unused means. Mr Sten Erikssen asked about the youth forum’s costs being – partially – covered in the budget. BSPC President Johannes Schraps and Bodo Bahr explained that this was also intended to ensure that a hosting parliament would be able to organise this event. The Standing Committee agreed on the budget for 2023. Furthermore, the matter of a permanent location of the secretariat would be discussed within the presidium, President Johannes Schraps noted after the approval of the Standing Committee, now that both vice-presidential positions were (about to be) filled. Further Matters The Standing Committee appointed the new head of the Danish delegation, Mr Henrik Møller, as Vice-President of the BSPC, due to take over as President after the 2023 BSPC Annual Conference. The participants deepened the discussed issues and their cooperation in a series of conversations on the side-lines of the meeting. Further photos can be found in EP’s Multimedia Center: https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/de/photoset/bspc-standing-committee-meeting_20230306_EP-146200A_EVD_042

Following the 31 st Annual Conference in Stockholm, the BSPC has published a Report with all speeches and contributions during the conference. The compilation can be downloaded here and on the 31 st conference webpage .

The Standing Committee of the BSPC met in Berlin to learn more about the environmental and health threat posed by munitions and ordnance dumped in the Baltic Sea as well as the development of measures for their detection, clearance and disposal. Aside from that, the Standing Committee reflected on past events and continued its discussions of the organisation’s future both in the short and long term. The meeting included more than 35 participants from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, Finland, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the Nordic Council, Norway, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden. Introduction BSPC President Johannes Schraps welcomed the members of the Standing Committee to Berlin. He underscored the manifold threats to democracy in the world right now – the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the continued atrocities committed there, the cost of living crisis and the ever-menacing climate change. This watershed in history meant that the BSPC had to respond with trust, togetherness and even deeper cooperation. Parliamentary cooperation was crucial in preserving democratic values, in which context the president mentioned the partnership with the Baltic Assembly and the Nordic Council. Presentations on Sea-Dumped Ammunitions Since the Annual Conference of the BSPC in 2019, the topic of sea-dumped ammunitions has remained high on the agenda of the organisation, leading to the CBSS and HELCOM also increasing focus on the issue. In that regard, President Schraps highlighted a recent decision of the German federal government and parliament to provide more than 100 million euros for urgently needed trials of the innovative robotic technology needed to salvage the ammunition from the seabed. He hoped that this would be the initial spark for more investments needed to clear the Baltic Sea from the toxic threats of discarded ammunition Mr Jann Wendt , CEO of north.io, explained that munitions in seas was a worldwide problem . Beyond the Baltic and North Sea, the phenomenon occurred in the Australian and Japanese coast as well as nearly everywhere else. Most of the munitions did not come from active warfare but had been dumped after the end of World War II. While there were no exact numbers, estimate saw the amount in German waters alone at 1.6 million tonnes. Among others, this had an economic impact as shallow coastal areas were developing into hubs of economy. For windfarm foundations, additional costs of 100 million euros were estimated to ensure safe construction. Another aspect – as yet under-researched – was how the toxicity of the munitions affected aquafarming. Over the last seven years, research on the European and national levels had ramped up to create a basis for decisions like that made by the German government. His company, north.io, was involved in a number of projects, such as GEOMAR and DAEMON. He underlined that the toxicity was affecting the environment including marine fauna. By measuring TNT content in water samples, a map of the Baltic and North Seas roughly highlighting the problem areas could be created. One hotspot was the Lübeck area, with little water exchange and a high concentration of ammunitions. Mr Wendt explained that there was a lot of data, generated by sensor stations but also by various ships in the area. Now, systems were being developed to bring together and analyse that data. Problematic aspects included that there were so many munitions in the water they could not be precisely detailed but also that some of them were on the surface while others were buried. Regarding the political level, Mr Wendt noted several activities and projects on the European level launched since 2019, including the first EU-wide study on the phenomenon. Interreg-financed projects were common on the regional level. He underlined the role of the BSPC as a frontrunner in this field, citing the 2021 report on sea-dumped munitions. The German government not only had passed the € 102 million budget for pilot projects but was also envisioning long-term engagement for the removal of the munitions. The federal state level was also active, such as Schleswig-Holstein which was facing the problem on both its Baltic and North Sea coastlines and had been addressing it for fifteen years now. The industry, on the other hand, was currently focusing on improving its detection processes to make them safer but also more efficient. As an example, he showed a system using a ten-metre-long device towed by a ship to detect munitions magnetically – a tedious process that nevertheless represented the state of the art. Improvements were vital. As for the planned extraction processes, Mr Wendt presented a crawler system with a robotic device that would crawl over the sea floor more or less autonomously. The German investment money would primarily go into the construction of large-scale platforms installed on the ocean floor where disposal of the munitions could be undertaken, safely away from land. All of these efforts represented strategic investments, Mr Wendt explained, as they would build a foundation for a market of industrial services. Giving his outlook on the future, the speaker emphasised that the erosion processes made it necessary to complete the massive removal processes within the coming 30 – 40 years. This was indeed a problem that could be solved in time – if the requisite political and financial will was there. Moreover, recent research and technological development had provided the tools allowing the issue to be handled. He also highlighted the urgency to act in the Baltic Sea which was extremely sensitive and already affected more heavily than other seas. To the questions from Ms Hanna Katrín Friðriksson and Mr Staffan Eklöf , Mr Wendt replied that the awareness of the issue was highest in the Baltic Sea region as a whole. That was likely due to the sensitive nature of the sea and the early start of cooperation to restore a good status. Thus, research had also included the munitions topic which had drawn the attention of the media. Nordic and Mediterranean countries were also becoming more aware. On the grant of € 100 million by the German government, President Schraps added that this was the sum experts had stated as the minimum to develop a functional prototype. He harkened back to a BSPC demand in its resolution for a common fund for the Baltic Sea region, ensuring that efforts were coordinated and not individually separated. Prof Jānis Vucāns and Secretary General Bodo Bahr asked further questions. As for other national activities, Mr Wendt cited Poland as a hub of such efforts as well as pushing the issue on the EU level as did the Baltic countries. Most of these activities concerned research and removal if connected with navy mine extraction. As for wind farms affecting the munitions issue, he saw it as going both ways. For their construction, autonomous drone technology was being developed that could also be used in the extraction process. In return, the research and mapping undertakings also helped with wind farm planning. Frequently, cables from farm to grid had to be rerouted around ammunition clusters. Thus, their extraction would allow cheaper cable laying. Regarding toxicity, Mr Wendt warned that not only chemical weapons had a toxic effect but also conventional weapons were leaking dangerous substances. They were equally threatening. Mr Torsten Frey , Deep Sea Monitoring Group, GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research, Kiel, explained that he had also been an editor of the HELCOM Submerged Assessment and wanted to talk about its main conclusions. Starting with the issue of finding sea-dumped munitions, he presented a map showing the distribution along the German coast. As major hotspots, he named Lübeck and Kiel. As GEOMAR was located in the latter city, this gave them easy access to a testing and research ground right on their doorstep. However, Mr Frey stressed, munitions could be found anywhere in the Baltic Sea. For Germany, some 300,000 tonnes of conventional munitions were expected to be distributed in the seas as well as 5,000 tonnes of chemical ordnance. This was based on the historical records but could not yet be reproduced in current-day assessments. Moving on to the risk of mines, he noted that today, mines were retrieved from the waters after the conclusion of the conflict. In prior times, though, they were simply disarmed and left to sink to the bottom of the sea. As an example, he noted that several naval mines had been discovered during the construction of the Nordstream pipelines. To find munition sites, magnetic means could be employed, but GEOMAR was focusing on using sonar to examine the sea floor in detail. Once a site was identified, an underwater autonomous vehicle (UAV) was sent there to take extensive pictures. These could be combined into extremely large continuous images. In example pictures, Mr Frey not only showed mines and munitions but also guncotton containing TNT out in the open. In fact, ordnance had been taken apart after the war to harvest the steel while the TNT was dumped without any casing, unfolding its toxic effect. With a video, he showcased the messy, complicated arrangement of these dumped munitions, underlining that nobody had any experience in clearing such sites yet. Thus, this was another area where research and learning were needed. Moving on to the HELCOM Submerged Assessment, Mr Frey noted that – as part of the permanent working group Pressure – a sub-group called Submerged had been established in HELCOM. The sub-group’s goal was to contribute to regionally coordinated actions on submerged munitions and explosives of concern as well as other submerged hazardous objects. He pointed out that there was another sub-group working on shipwrecks. Based on a three-year assessment of the situation across the Baltic Sea, the report featured a chapter on each country bordering the Baltic Sea, describing its history concerning munitions. There was a lot of information on the risks posed by munitions as well as protection and management. Finally, for all the bordering countries – with the exception of Latvia and Russia –, there was a list and short description of the respective national and international activities. That report would be published early in 2023. As conclusions, three major areas of concern had been identified: explosive hazard which was increasing as the ordnance was becoming more fragile; potential direct contact such as white phosphorus; the environmental hazard. Despite the great efforts in the past years, research gaps remained. For example, there was no science-based roadmap on where to start clearances nor was there continuous monitoring of the munition hotspots. Neither had toxicological thresholds been established nor was the effect of the leaking toxins in the food web fully explored. Mr Frey stated that a Baltic Sea-wide data set had not yet been put together either as all the gathered information was stored in national databases. He went on to note that the countries of HELCOM had been invited to invest in clearance and disposal technologies, such as the crawler mentioned by Mr Wendt earlier. Mr Frey underlined that the current state of the art was good at finding munitions, okay at clearing them, but there was no good way of disposing them as of this point. The further one went up the process chain, the less developed were the capabilities. Mr Frey summarised his presentations by noting that munitions had to be expected throughout the Baltic Sea, although contamination hotspots were known from historical records. Yet further – and more detailed – mapping was necessary. Research was ongoing but had to be continued and intensified to fill knowledge gaps and create region-wide data. As for technology, clearance and disposal tools had to be fully established. He cautioned that at the current speed, it would take centuries to clear the sea. Thus, to meet this challenge in the 30 – 40 years left at maximum, financial and political will were needed to accelerate the process appropriately. Mr Bahr asked whether the clearance process could be completed in the 20-year span demanded in the BSPC resolution. Mr Frey answered that a focused effort on the dumped munitions in German waters could clear the area within ten years and deposit them on land. But that would represent a bottleneck and inherent security problem, so that offshore disposal – ideally with more efficient methods still to be fully developed – should be the goal. Thus, this aspect should be the focus. Even for the German munitions, he expected that disposal would take longer than twenty years. To the question by Mr Schraps about international efforts, Mr Frey noted his side’s good connections to Poland, adding that Finland was also research-driven. He stated that there was no overview of who was responsible for the research and disposal processes in the various countries, whether it was the military or civil organisations. Prof Dr Edmund Maser , Director of Toxicology and Pharmacology for Natural Scientists at the University Medical School Kiel, recapped that massive amounts of ammunition had been dumped in the North and Baltic Seas after WWII. Now, they had corroded and were leaking toxicological substances into the environment. Thus, they were entering both the sediment but also the habitat as the source of the food chain of marine life. By itself, TNT was already toxic, yet it was metabolised into an even more threatening substance, also affecting the nervous system and raising the mutagenic potential. The marine food web also included fish caught for human consumption, carrying the toxicological problem straight to people’s dinner plates. This made monitoring and risk assessment crucial. Several projects on this were underway, for instance through mussels. As a sedentary species, they were the ideal organism to measure the entry of toxic compounds into seafood. Prof Maser picked Kiel as an example with the already mentioned dumping site, more specifically a cluster of 70 British mines measuring one metre in diameter and containing 250 – 300 kg of TNT. At that site, his team had built a mooring on which to anchor mussels and expose them to the chemicals. After several weeks, the mussels were collected and analysed in the lab to find that every single mussel had metabolised TNT. Moreover, the amount taken up was the same, no matter the distance of the animals from the mines and whether they had been located directly on the sea floor or one meter above on the mooring. That indicated a cloud of toxic substances surrounding the mines. Another example from the same spot concerned the craters that had been blasted into the sea floor by exploding mines, leaving behind open TNT remains. In the same fashion, mussels were planted there. The scientists had been surprised in their analysis to find that not only had TNT been metabolised but that they had found 50 times higher concentrations of these munition compounds in the animals. This yielded two important messages: First, any operations disturbing the sea floor had to be avoided – such as “blast in place” – because they would scatter the ordnance and thus further distribute the toxic substances. Second, the metal casings currently provided a barrier to entry for the TNT. But the metal was corroding and would be gone in a few decades’ time. Then, the TNT would freely distribute, creating 50 times higher concentrations and vastly more severe effects. Prof Maser contextualised this by noting that the mussels in the first case – around still intact mines – could still be eaten safely by a human being but that the mussels themselves were already ill from the exposure. The second case of free-floating TNT loaded the mussels up so much that consuming them would bear a carcinogenic risk to humans. These must not be eaten. The team had moved on to investigate the effect on fish, finding evidence of explosive substances in flatfish in the area. While the amounts were not so high to prevent safe consumption by human beings, they had affected the health of the animals, with a quarter of them having developed liver tumours. These findings had been compared to their North Sea investigation of a shipwreck where they had detected up to 9 nanograms of TNT in fish fillets. Even here, 60 % of the fish had presented liver tumours. In principle, both sites showed the same phenomenon. In laboratory experiments, they had found that a concentration of 3 mg per litre proved fatal for infant fish. In the wild, areas with many clefts and hiding places were preferred places for sea animals to lay their eggs – such as the messy dumping sites. But in the areas with free-floating TNT, the saturation of the water was exactly at the lethal dose of 3 mg per litre. At a time when fish stocks were already threatened, this posed an additional pressure on fish species, on top of other contaminants, e.g., from medical or pesticide runoff. With the ongoing corrosion of the casings, the exposure to TNT would increase and spread. Thus, it was vital to begin the clearance as early as was possible. Ms Annette Lind asked about Denmark’s involvement and awareness, to which Prof Maser confirmed that his side was cooperating with Danish scientists and navy. The situation was similar. However, the professor had witnessed a “blast in place” operation by the Danish navy, taking measurements before and after to see that the concentration of the explosive compounds was 2000 times higher afterwards. President Schraps added that public awareness in Germany was mostly limited to headlines like a navy explosion accidentally killing numbers of dolphins. Even though the topic was drowned out by the many crises raging around the world, that only reinforced the need for the BSPC among others to focus on the topic. Ms Anna Kassautzki pointed out that this topic was not as visible out at sea but that there was still more awareness among the coastal regions’ population. Mr Staffan Eklöf asked about the carcinogenic baseline and possible retardation of the corrosion. Prof Maser explained that the baseline in other waters was below 5 %, but he stressed that TNT and TNT derivatives had been measured all across the Baltic Sea, so there were no non-contaminated control figures. As for corrosion, he knew of no way to reinforce the individual casings. The metal strengths differed; some were only two centimetres thick and had mostly corroded away entirely while others would last longer. Assessing the speed of the corrosion was difficult. Mr Frey confirmed that corrosion could not be stopped. The idea of covering the sites had been put forward, but that was physically not possible due to, among other factors, the dispersion of the ordnance. Mr Wendt pointed out that magnetics were often used to find munitions but that these were targeting the shells. Thus, that was no longer feasible once the shells had corroded away. On the other hand, that meant those munitions about to lose their corrosive shells were the ones that should be removed first before it was too late. Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle inquired about the best method of clearing mines and whether best practice examples were available. Mr Wendt underlined that there had not been any financing for these projects before and also that the clearance had to be a joint effort since sea-dumped munitions were not a national concern. They went beyond the Baltic Sea as well, affecting the entire planet. Mr Frey noted that in Norway, mines were taken to fjords and exploded there, but that was not applicable to other countries. Disposal methods had to be adapted to the geographical circumstances and the types of munition in question. Prof Maser pointed to the Skagerrak in Norway as an example of ships filled to the brim with chemical munitions having been sunk purposefully. Given the added danger of chemical weaponry, such as mustard gas, the Norwegian side was currently limited to monitoring with RUVs. BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity President Schraps noted that the chairmanship had been transferred to Mr Philipp da Cunha , after the previous chair, Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby , had left parliament. Mr Wille Valve informed the Standing Committee that the current vice-chair of the group, Ms Liz Mattsson , was taking her maternity leave and that a successor, Mr Jesper Josefsson , had been appointed. who was also prepared to take on the position of the WG Vice-chairman. A possible digital meeting of the working group for December or January was still being considered. Regarding the next in-person meeting of the working group, Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle notified the group that it would take place in Tromsø, in northern Norway, with the presentations concerning the Arctic Circle and its interaction with the climate. Mr Jarosław Wałęsa explained that the meeting after that in Poland would be held in Gdańsk on 14 – 15 May. 32 nd BSPC Conference in Berlin in 2023 President Schraps outlined the planned schedule for the conference. The opening session would be introduced by the President of the German Bundestag, Ms Bärbel Bas . The following sessions were based on the current Strategy and Work Programme of the BSPC, with the first dealing with Peaceful and reliable neighbourliness and intense cooperation based on shared fundamental values, also in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The German Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ms Annalena Baerbock , had been confirmed as keynote speaker. The second session would deal with Boosting democratic resilience and promoting digital resilience, featuring Mr Paul Nemitz , Principal Advisor of the European Commission, as a keynote speaker. For the third session on Strengthening the resilience of maritime ecosystems, Ms Steffi Lemke , German Federal Minister for Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection, would give the keynote speech. On the evening of the first day, the German Federal President, Mr Frank-Walter Steinmeier , would invite the BSPC to a reception at the Official Presidential Residence in Bellevue Palace. The fourth session, on the second day, was being considered to deal with synergy effects with the German presidency of the CBSS. Following that, a general debate would allow the participants to react to all current issues and challenges. The president invited proposals for further speakers as well as resolution topics to be discussed at the Conference. Prof Jānis Vucāns and Mr Wille Valve submitted considerations and announced suggestions for possible speakers to contribute. Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum President Schraps appreciated both the Swedish delegation having organised it in 2020 and 2021 as well as the young people contributing to the debate and the resolution, also at the Conference and in the Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity. Youth work had been intensified, also in partnership with the BSSSC and, as traditionally, the CBSS. Prof Jānis Vucāns appreciated involving young people in developing the solutions for the future. In 2023, the forum would be held again, also back to back with the Annual Conference. Equally, it would be implemented once more in close cooperation with the CBSS. This time, though, it would be held on-site from 25-27 August 2023, with 50 young people whose costs of travelling and accommodation would be covered by the German Bundestag. The event would include networking sessions on specific topics, a panel discussion with experts on a specific topic and round table group discussions to elaborate recommendations. As at previous forums, members of parliament from the BSPC would take part in these sessions as well. To that end, President Schraps asked for proposals from the Standing Committee. The young people would elaborate their recommendations on the final day of the forum. Immediately afterwards, all of the participants were invited to the Annual Conference where their representatives would present the recommendations. Mr Staffan Eklöf , Mr Bodo Bahr and Ms Johanna Ingvarsson , spoke about the modalities of recruitment for the forum. BSPC Finances The Standing Committee continued its discussion on the future financial structure of the BSPC, beginning with the budget for the present year. Despite the loss of the fees from the Russian parliaments, costs could be kept below the initially estimated figures inter alia because of the active support from the hosting parliaments and that translation in the Standing Committee and the Working Group was no longer needed. However, the amount of contributions had shrunk significantly. The Standing Committee approved the present state of the budget as well as the still outstanding amendment to paragraph 11 of the Statutes and Rules of Procedure. The latter will be confirmed at the next Annual Conference. The Standing Committee also spoke about the first raise of the parliamentary contributions since 2009, in particular with regard to the procedural aspects of parliamentary budgeting. Given the loss of the Russian legislative assemblies contributions as well as the overall rise of costs, the Standing Committee agreed to raise the contributions of the BSPC parliaments. A letter detailing the new contributions would be sent out by the secretary general to the individual parliaments. Prof Jānis Vucāns , Mr Staffan Eklöf , Ms Hanna Friðriksson , President Schraps , Ms Carola Veit , Mr Jarosław Wałęsa , Ms Annette Lind , Mr Joonas Könttä , Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle and Secretary General Bahr participated in the discussion. Following that, the Standing Committee spoke about the continuing question of once again establishing a permanent office of the BSPC. Several options were considered. Ms Annette Lind , Mr Wille Valve , Ms Hanna Friðriksson , Mr Staffan Eklöf , Ms Carola Veit contributed to the debate. President Schraps suggested forming a small group of representatives from both the delegations and the secretariat to develop the possible options in order to present them in comparable form to the Standing Committee at its next meeting for a decision. The Standing Committee agreed to this proposal. Further Matters President Schraps informed the Standing Committee that the materials on the 31 st BSPC Annual Conference had been published on the website. He added that the Conference in Stockholm had been outstanding, with high-level speakers and in impressive surroundings. With Russia no longer part of the BSPC, conversations had been more unrestrained than ever before, exploring topics – such as security – more deeply than had been possible earlier. Ms Hanna Katrín Friðriksson , Prof Jānis Vucāns and Mr Wille Valve confirmed this experience. For the governmental answers to the 31 st BSPC Resolution, a deadline of 15 April 2023 was set. Ms Beate Schlupp reported that the parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern had already agreed to the resolution. Regarding future presidencies of the BSPC, President Schraps noted that the Danish parliament had confirmed it would take over the organisation’s chair in 2023. Ms Annette Lind of Denmark reiterated the welcome of the Danish parliament to the BSPC, outlining the current political situation in her home country after the election and the need for further time until concrete personnel decisions can be made. The new head of the Swedish delegation of the BSPC, Mr Staffan Eklöf , was nominated and appointed vice-president of the organisation as the representative of the preceding presidency. Mr Wille Valve from the Åland Islands and Ms Kristina Herbst from Schleswig-Holstein stated their home parliaments’ interests and willingness in hosting the BSPC in 2025 and 2026, respectively. The Standing Committee further considered in which upcoming events participation would be possible and took note of the BSPC schedule.

At the 41 st Session of the Baltic Assembly in Riga, Johannes Schraps, President of the BSPC, underscored how vital it was in the wake of the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine for democratic societies to stand together. In particular, he highlighted the long-standing cooperation between the BSPC and the Baltic Assembly that would continue to deepen ties and build trust when unity was most needed. President Schraps noted the personal connections between the two organisations. During a time of fundamental challenges, such close togetherness was of great value. He pointed out how important it was that the democratic states of the Baltic Sea region and their institutions underlined the continuation of their close cooperation and sent signs of unity and commonality. BSPC President Schraps stressed the great importance of signals of such close cooperation to be sent by freely elected parliaments representing the people in their countries to strengthen the parliamentary dimension and the democratic foundations. An even more intensive and open exchange of views and joint results in the current cruel situation was crucial, he said. Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, the ongoing war, the shameful referendums in Ukrainian regions along the Russian border, the renewed, deeply shocking bombing of cities and infrastructure across Ukraine without any regard for civilians and the associated blatant Russian threats of an escalation of the war were a threat to democratic values as a whole and would mark a watershed for cooperation in the Baltic Sea region. Mr Schraps fully supported the statement by the Baltic Assembly from 22 nd September regarding the recent outrageous activities of the Russian Federation. In line with that, the BSPC had from the start strongly condemned the cruel and horrible war in the middle of Europe and suspended the Russian parliaments. The organisation had strengthened its Rules of Procedure to underline the BSPS’s united ambition to continue to fight for peace and democracy as well as environmental sustainability. More vital than ever, the BSPC had maintained and intensified the parliamentary dimension of international cooperation in the Baltic Sea region. Mr Schraps offered his hope that the new situation would allow the democratic countries and regions to work on issues which could not be addressed before, particularly security issues. However, this was a fundamental turning point in history, confronting this generation with its most significant challenges and their consequences: first the pandemic; now the cruel war in the middle of Europe; an upcoming catastrophic global famine; and before that, alongside it and in the future, the climate crisis and its effects were becoming ever stronger and were now additionally combined with a fundamental energy crisis. That required long-standing, close, reliable and trusting cooperation to find adequate solutions for such demanding challenges. President Schraps underscored the intensive and efficient cooperation between the Baltic Assembly and the BSPC for many years. Their cooperation was based on mutual trust, on reliability and friendship. That was exemplified by the same people in both organisations, their common goals and similar priorities. Both enriched each other and delivered synergy effects on a broader level. The keywords of the Baltic Assembly’s presidency – partnership, prosperity, protection – suited the work of the BSPC: The guiding principles of the current BSPC Presidency of the German Bundestag were strengthening democracy and promoting peace. The BSPC saw it as indispensable to continue to cooperate as intensively as it is possible on the international level and to keep up the dialogue with each other, frankly and trustfully. Despite growing polarization in societies and party groups, dialogue among each other must not be cut. Disunity and permanent dissent between the democratic states weakened them and would only favour the aggressor. For that reason, Europe’s most important answer to this turning point of history was: unity. Therefore, collaboration and trust had to be deepened, dialogue and cooperation had to be maintained and intensified – for the benefit of the people whom the parliaments were representing. In the margins of the session, BSPC President and BSPC Secretary General discussed a range of issues with representatives of the Baltic Assembly, the Nordic Council, the Parliamentary Assembly of the OECD, the Benelux Parliament, members of the attending parliaments, the European Commissioner for the Environment, government members, as well as with laureates of the Baltic Assembly prizes.

In a digital meeting, the Standing Committee of the BSPC continued to discuss revisions to its Statutes and Rules of Procedure in the follow-up of the Annual Conference. The future structure and financial basis of the organisation were considered, and the Strategy and Work Programme 2022 – 2023 was adopted. BSPC President Johannes Schraps voted the thanks of the BSPC on the farewell of the previous BSPC President Pyry Niemi and the Chair of the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity, Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby, from their long-standing and dedicated commitment and functions in the BSPC. The meeting included participants from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, Finland, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Iceland, Latvia, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden. Introduction BSPC President Johannes Schraps opened the first Standing Committee meeting under the new BSPC Presidency of the German Bundestag. Despite the difficult times and equally complex issues, he was looking forward to good cooperation and reaching beneficial solutions. He underscored the gravity of the unprovoked and unjustified Russian invasion and war in Ukraine that had marked a watershed for the BSPC cooperation. This watershed had brought about the departure of the Russian legislative assemblies from the BSPC as well as the need for a revision of the organisation’s Statutes and Rules of Procedure. As the president explained, there had been fundamental discussions in the run-up and during the Annual Conference in Stockholm in June to reach unanimous consent. Given the delicate nature, it had not been possible to discuss all of the issues in sufficient depth, for which reason the present digital meeting had been convened. President Schraps underlined that this gathering would serve to facilitate discussions and an exchange of opinions. Further Amendment of the BSPC Statutes and Rules of Procedure and the BSPC Joint Financing Mechanism The Standing Committee discussed and agreed to some amendment proposals for paragraph 11 of the BSPC Statutes and Rules of Procedure and reflected on the current situation of the Joint Financing Mechanism and a possible revision. The latter was in light of the changed funding situation without the Russian delegations as well as the financial contributions not having been changed since 2008. The discussion also included reflections on securing funding for the organisation of the BSPC, its representatives and its secretariat. Remarks to the discussion were contributed by BSPC President Johannes Schraps, Prof Jānis Vucāns, Mr Jaroslav Wałęsa, Vice-President Pyry Niemi, Ms Carola Veit, Mr Christian Juhl and Mr Bodo Bahr . The Standing Committee will continue this discussion aiming for decisions at its next meeting. BSPC Strategy and Work Programme 2022-2023 BSPC President Johannes Schraps presented the draft of the Strategy and Work Programme 2022 – 2023, including the Rules of Procedure and the priorities of the current Presidency, as well as the decision to appoint a new rapporteur on sea-dumped munitions in the Baltic Sea. The Standing Committee meeting unanimously adopted the Strategy and Work Programme 2022 – 2023 . Further Matters President Johannes Schraps highlighted a recent event, the Baltic Sea Region Future Forum in Kiel, with the goal to modernise input and provide future-oriented impulses beyond 2030 in the Baltic Sea region cooperation. Its results were in line with those of the BSPC and the CBSS, namely, to empower the Baltic Sea cooperation politically and in visibility as well as to become a forerunner of the Green Transition in Europe. The Standing Committee furthermore discussed upcoming meetings of the BSPC, including a possible additional digital meeting of the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity. On behalf of the Standing Committee, BSPC President Johannes Schraps relayed his gratitude for her long-standing service to the chairwoman of the present BSPC working group, Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby. She would be invited to the Annual Conference in Berlin to present the final report of the said working group together with her successor in the chair, Mr Philipp da Cunha. On behalf of the Standing Committee and the BSPC in total, he also extended his deep gratitude to Mr Pyry Niemi. He had rung in this new age of the organisation, presided over two high-profile annual conferences, represented the BSPC at many events, and had been a lighthouse in the BSPC cooperation for many years. BSPC Vice-President Pyry Niemi pointed out it had been an honour to work with his friends in the BSPC. BSPC President Johannes Schraps invited theStanding Committee to its next meeting on 20-21 November 2022 at the German Bundestag in Berlin.

Across two days, the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity assembled in the German federal state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, visiting sites and listening to expert presentations. Topics on the first day included an eco-certificate programme, the state of the forests, ocean research as well as green hydrogen production, storage and transportation along with wind farm planning and implementation and the needed development of the electric grid. The second day dealt with peatland restoration efforts in biosphere reserves, at the European scale with a view to changing agricultural practices as well as a small start-up company growing medicinal plants on peatland. About 40 participants from the Baltic Assembly, Finland, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden attended the two days deliberations. Introduction The BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity was welcomed to Schwerin Castle in the German federal state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern by the Landtag’s president, Ms Birgit Hesse , noting the timeliness and urgency of the topic of the working group. In that respect, she pointed out Mecklenburg-Vorpommern setting an all-time heat record for the first time since 1994 but also stressed the recent environmental disaster in the Oder river with mass fish deaths. Ms Hesse highlighted the state parliament’s engagement in international efforts, particularly those of the BSPC. In her own welcome, Chairwoman Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby underlined the deep historical ties between Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and her own home country of Sweden. She further stressed the importance of youth work and that the BSPC had incorporated recommendations of young people in their annual resolutions. The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Conference Regarding youth participation, Ms Aline Mayr from the Secretariat of the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) and coordinator of the Baltic Sea Youth Platform underlined the cooperation in implementing this year’s Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, its success and a return of the format in 2023. She further spoke about the great success of the youth platform of the CBSS which had been and would be holding several events providing youth input. The primary goal was the integration of young people into policymaking in a meaningful way. Their recommendations should be taken up in the work of both the CBSS and the BSPC. Two representatives of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, Mr Andreas Schoop from Germany and Ms Simona Jakaitė from Lithuania, also members of the Baltic Sea Youth Platform, presented the recommendations of the forum . On forests, wetlands and biodiversity, the young people called for the protection of biodiversity, in particular for increased carbon sequestration through restoration of forests and wetlands as well as natural rivers. Furthermore, strategies for dealing with transboundary emergencies caused by climate change or pollution had been seen as necessary; the present Oder river disaster spanning Poland and Germany underlined the urgency. The innovation topic had been connected with the energy topic with the call for the fulfilment of the Paris Agreement and phasing out fossil fuels. More investments should go to renewable energy sources. Mr Schoop stressed this importance in light of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine and its effects. Furthermore, the young people viewed the circular economy as the best choice in the face of climate change and should thus be implemented, with the entire lifecycle of a product to be considered from the start. On the topic of resilient cities, young people wanted them to be green, more affordable, healthier and allowing free movement, albeit with car-free zones. Future design processes of resilient cities should involve minority groups from various backgrounds. The final topic of the recommendations was the resilience of the sea and coastlines. Here, they called for legally binding quotas for fishing which should incorporate a wide view rather than focus on single species. Furthermore, the removal of sea-dumped ammunitions – a priority area of the BSPC German Presidency – was important to young people. The influx of nutrients from agriculture into the Baltic Sea should be curbed, with a unified water deposit system for the whole Baltic Sea region, the regulation of single-use plastics and pesticides as well as investments to make shipping greener. BSPC President Johannes Schraps underlined that the recommendations would find their way into the BSPC annual resolution. He further noted the wealth of recommendations by the young people at the Youth Forum and the difficulty in compressing these into two for each topic. The president agreed that cross-border cooperation was crucial, in light of forest fires but particularly with the Oder river disaster. Presentations on Forests and the Sea Dr Sandra Kleine , Ministry for Climate Protection, Agriculture, Rural Areas and the Environment of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, spoke about climate protection and conservation in the German federal state . Dr Kleine noted the carbon sequestration benefits of forests, peatlands and even hedges. Such ecosystem services had to be translated into economic value, by making them visible, assessable and investable. In 2007, the federal state in conjunction with academic institutions had developed eco-securities, i.e., certificates enabling private investments into ecosystem services, such as 1 tonne of CO 2 per certificate. As voluntary investments, eco-securities complemented the mandatory market in climate protection. With the government providing the framework, this allowed rural areas to funnel in urban money for their ecosystem services. Moving on, Dr Kleine highlighted functional peatlands as the most powerful terrestrial carbon storage, yet drained peatlands were greenhouse gas emitters. Peatland restoration of the vast drained areas in the state thus was a highly effective mitigation measure. The so-called peatland futures were the respective certificate, based on the mitigated emissions of rewetted peatlands. All in all, the various eco-securities represented a strong regional brand in climate mitigation that could be easily communicated to the public. In particular the peatland certificates were also traded in three other German federal states – Lower Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein and Brandenburg –, comprising two thirds of all the peatland areas in Germany. The primary benefit was that rewetting of peatlands immediately stopped greenhouse gas emissions, but the restoration also aided in preserving biodiversity as well as improving water management, including flood regulation and retention of nutrients. Chairwoman Tenfjord-Toftby wondered what the peatlands were currently used for. Dr Kleine confirmed that most were in agricultural use; farmers were compensated through selling their land. At a question by Ms Silke Backsen , Schleswig-Holstein, Dr Kleine reported an interest of landowners to cooperate with the process. Ms Anna Kassautzki contributed that farmers were open to selling land and cooperating as long as they could continue their business, amidst changing regulations and demanding times. Johannes Schraps saw these eco-securities as another example of a best practice that could be transferred to other regions. To his questions, Dr Kleine explained that after the shift from Kyoto to the Paris Agreement, the certificate system was currently under revision so that sales would resume at some point in the future. Then, they would be sold as helping the public good rather than serving as compensation. Mr Alexander Mohrenberg asked if the project could be expanded to the national level and who the investors were. Dr Kleine saw increasing interest from companies all across Germany. She underlined the communication aspect of the futures, carrying the message into new target groups. As for the national level, she noted their connection to the German Emission Trade Authority. Secretary General Bodo Bahr asked for a clarification of the ratio between emissions generated in the state and the sequestration potential of the peatlands. Ms Mai Kivelä, Finland was interested in the working of the carbon market in Germany. Dr Kleine explained that compensation was no longer possible. To her knowledge, there was no regulation of the market. Mr Marcus Kühling , Team Leader, Competence and Information Centre Forest and Wood, Agency for Renewable Resources, spoke about the forests in Germany . Covering 32 % of the territory, Germany was one of the most-forested countries in Europe. Since WW II, more than 1.5 million hectares of forest had been restored, showing the identification of the German people with their forests. For the most part, the ownership lay with the citizens and the municipalities. The relative paucity of tree species – only 76 compared with more than 200 in the US – made adapting to the changing climate difficult. Spruce, pine, beech and oak were the most common, accounting for 76 % of the forest area. Without human impact, Germany would be covered almost completely by primarily beech forests. Sustainable forest management had ensured Germany’s forests to have the highest growing stock in Europe. Climate change-triggered drought had killed off 220 million m², most of them spruce trees. Apart from drought, windstorms were the leading abiotic cause of damage to woods, followed by snow and ice. Traditionally a minor factor, forest fires had recently become a greater danger. The drought had also promoted insect infestation, leading to nearly 60 % of harvested trees having suffered insect damage. As in all of Europe, air and soil moisture in Germany had decreased significantly in the past three decades, despite locally stronger rainfall. By 2100, all spruce and most beech trees were projected to have died off. To help sustain the forests, the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture had instituted several aid packages to forest owners, among them a forest sustainability premium and an investment program for climate-friendly wood construction. Currently, a 900 million euro funding instrument was being worked on, to reward the ecosystem service of the forest and climate-adapted forest management. Another dimension of aid was provided by research, development and demonstration, looking to find practical solutions. The difficulty lay in the very long-term nature of the forests, so that results were only visible after several generations. Mr Kühling noted a few example projects, such as one against forest fires, dealing with abandoned military proving grounds as well as deadwood in forests, and another assessing the future viability of different tree species. Other efforts introduced new species like Douglas firs and redwoods, analysing their survivability and effect. There were also European-level projects on developing a research and innovation roadmap as well as on innovating a forest-based bioeconomy. Mr Kühling pointed out the wealth of information generated by research institutes, but it had to be reworked to fit the scope of a forest owner so the latter could make use of the information. This was a task the speaker’s agency was working on, through brochures, field trips and the like. Mr Kühling concluded by noting the wide range of ecosystem services provided by forests, going well beyond timber and including water, biodiversity, food and the more. He underlined that it was necessary to use the forest, so that the key point was how to use the woods sustainably. Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle , Norway asked about the reception by local politicians. Mr Mohrenberg wondered if the rising timber prices had changed private forest owners’ reaction to these projects. Ms Tenfjord-Toftby noted the different views on how to use forests across Europe, asking for reflections on that. For Mr Kühling , politicians were – perhaps – not sufficiently focused on what tasks should be prioritised, although he agreed that most measures were vital. He further preferred timber as a construction but also heating material in the present energy crisis. As for rising timber prices, he noted that raw wood prices – due to die-offs – had been low while processed timber had garnered higher prices. As raw wood prices were rising, forest owners were proud of earning their living with the work of generations, so that more than just money was needed to involve them in state projects. Mr Kühling pointed out that forest management systems differed even within Germany, for one thing between private and state-owned woods. The forests themselves were also different across the continent so that clear-cutting – forbidden in Germany – could be beneficial for biodiversity in other locations, simulating the effects of forest fires. Therefore, a diverse mix of measures was the right choice in his opinion. Prof Dr Uwe Freiherr von Lukas , Ocean Technology Campus Rostock (OTC), focused on Co-Innovation for Smart Ocean Technologies . Blue growth was an important factor for science as well as the economy, concerning maritime tourism, shipyards, fishing and aquaculture. Renewable energies in the Baltic Sea region generally meant offshore wind farms. Here, the new German government had set ambitious targets for increasing the number of installations from around 8 at this point to 30 in the coming six to eight years. Prof von Lukas noted the growing awareness of sea-dumped ammunitions, a problem that urgently had to be tackled. After a thorough survey, the most crucial sites would have to be cleared. To that, state-of-the-art technology and innovation was needed. To be precise, an innovation ecosystem would have to be established, bringing research scientists together with politicians and companies. Following a Canadian template, the professor’s OTC was creating such an environment, starting with a focus on skill development to provide education both on the academic and practical level. Another aspect was creating the necessary infrastructure and environment for companies and other partners. One start-up at the OTC was working on autonomous underwater vehicles while the Fraunhofer organisation would be setting up a new research centre on this campus. Prof von Lukas pointed out that the OTC received support from both the federal as well as the state level, through funding but also international cooperation. The OTC focused on the sustainable use of the oceans through various pilot projects in the Baltic Sea. Currently, they were developing an infrastructure called the Digital Ocean Lab, a large water area near Rostock where sensors and communication equipment had been set up in an underwater lab. This was an efficient environment for experiments, e.g., on unexploded ammunitions but also cable connections to shore, as well as training, to speed up innovation processes. Expanding to the European perspective, the OTC had set up an innovation platform on sustainable subsea solutions, ISSS, bringing together partners from Spain, Portugal, France, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland and Germany to push forward international projects. R&D activities had to be supported in the future, and the professor saw it as crucial to do so not just on the national but rather on the international level. Presently, the OTC was preparing a workshop on unexploded ordinance for companies in September 2022, offering a very interesting commercial opportunity. BSPC President Schraps pointed out a Polish project of interest on decommissioning chemical weapons. Prof von Lukas confirmed that the OTC already was in touch with the group, noting that he had only mentioned the larger organisations involved in the ISSS. He was nonetheless keen to connect that open network with other applied research organisations in the region. Ms Tenfjord-Toftby commented that the permit process was a frequent bottleneck for wind farm projects, wondering what the situation in Germany was. In Sweden, there was also a discussion on who would be paying for the connection between offshore wind farms and the grid on land. She further asked about research on the negative or positive effect of wind farms on sea-based life. Prof von Lukas agreed that permission was indeed crucial, pointing to a German initiative to give this process a higher priority over other relevant perspectives. But even for their OTC, they were in the third phase of marine planning and had not even reached the permission stage after three years. As for the grid, he believed an interregional grid across the Baltic Sea region was required. Finally, he referred to Mr Kühling’s remark on clear-cutting having a diverse impact. With a complex ecosystem like the sea, negative impacts were likely for marine mammals, but grounding structures like the offshore installations could provide anchor points for other lifeforms. It was important to be aware of the impact of human changes to the system and being open to course corrections, if necessary, also on the legal level. Presentations on Energy Dr Peter Sponholz , CRO (APEX Group), explained that the APEX Group dealt with hydrogen projects on the one hand as well as hydrogen storage on the other . The projects dealt with hydrogen as a source of heat, mobility or electricity as well as the molecule itself for e.g., chemical needs. Renewable energies were used to create the respective hydrogen. The task of APEX was to provide the machinery for the processes from energy source to usable hydrogen, including electrolyser, hydrogen storage and fuel cell systems or refuelling stations. He noted that hydrogen was indispensable for steel manufacture; a change-over from gas to hydrogen in the process was comparatively simple. In general, any kind of high-heat environment needed for production would end up using hydrogen. APEX had built its industrial park near Rostock airport, in a so-called hydrogen valley. The energy used in the hub was produced directly on site. Hydrogen produced there could be re-electrified but also used to power vehicles. For the company Amazon, APEX was producing and transporting hydrogen to the former’s warehouse facility to be used in forklifts. Plans were in place to build a 135 electrolysis system, creating hydrogen to be pumped into a dedicated grid to power various targets in Berlin and the Leipzig area. Dr Sponholz pointed out that electrolysis generated a great deal of heat which APEX was planning to use for heating and powering nearby industries. The research group he was leading dealt with hydrogen storage itself, a forgotten piece of the energy puzzle: At the end of the day, after all the electrolysis processes, it had to be stored and transported. He highlighted energy density: While one litre of ordinary hydrogen could power a light bulb for about half an hour, a compressed kilogramme of hydrogen could keep the same bulb shining for about half a year. Accordingly, the form of storage was crucial. Together with partners, APEX was developing compressed storage solutions – both stationary and mobile – up to 500 bar of pressure. Even more massive amounts could be stored through chemical conversion. As for mobility, the company’s current experiments were based on a car, although Dr Sponholz was quick to note his doubt about hydrogen being viable on this platform. Instead, larger-scale transport solutions were the target, including those concerning the transport of hydrogen itself, e.g., from Canada to Germany. Although the hydrogen economy had already been mentioned 150 years earlier by Jules Verne in The Mystery Island , it was now time to implement it. Henrich Quick , Head of Offshore, 50Hertz Transmission GmbH, explained his company was the transmission system operator in five German federal states, covering about 20 % of the German population. The Baltic Sea had been a pioneer in offshore wind production, having seen the early installations as well as grids. In particular through interconnected systems like Bornholm, the Baltic Sea offered a great potential for future energy production in a Europe-wide system. Increasing efficiency had seen production rise from a paltry 48 megawatts over mid-sized systems producing 500 – 1,000 megawatts to the next generation representing huge wind farms at 2 gigawatts a piece. Furthermore, the number of cables had shrunk to just requiring one, thus reducing not only costs but also the environmental impact. The same applied to foundations, obtaining more power from the same investment and impact on the environment. Dr Quick underlined efforts to further reduce the impact but also to speed up the permission process. However, he underlined the value of the permits, balancing the various needs, uses and effects. In the German model, the TSO built the grid connection while the wind farm developer was responsible for just the generator. The cost for the connection was borne by the grid user. He raised an example of two wind farms which ordinarily would have been connected by 4 full-size cables. Thanks to the TSO-driven planning process, a 3-cable solution could be implemented instead, with a minor cable between the farms. He saw the TSO model as preferable in creating standardised connections optimised not for the energy producers but recipients. Chairwoman Tenfjord-Toftby asked how much the energy price would rise because of the grid connection and if there was opposition, given the already high prices. Dr Quick replied that it was about the entire grid costs, from the offshore facility and then distributing the energy to the customers. The grid costs in Germany from the TSOs was about 3 cents per kilowatt hour; the offshore surcharge two years before had been ca. 0.5 cents. Compared to the pure cost of energy, that was a bargain. He conceded that the energy transformation away from fossil fuels was not cheap but worth the investment since it would ensure reliable power for the next 30 – 40 years. The goal for his company was that 100 % of the energy in their control zone would be available from renewable energy sources in 2032, allowing for some flexibility. He noted that key here was sharing the various tasks, comparing the availability of land for onshore wind farms in comparatively empty Mecklenburg-Vorpommern with the densely built Berlin. Industrial companies were also interested in investing in renewable power sources. Dr Quick underlined the inherent complexities in creating such a system through finding smart solutions as the stable energy facilities like nuclear or coal were being phased out. He further pointed out that 10 years before, the present share of renewables in his company’s stable grid had been considered impossible. Solutions could be found by working hand in hand with science, institutions, politics and engineering. Politics in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in particular had created the pathway that now returned on that investment through jobs and new enterprise settling in the federal state. Mr Thomas Murche , Technical Director, WEMAG AG, Schwerin, spoke about the challenge of reaching climate neutrality by 2045 . In line with the global targets, Germany had raised its 2030 reduction goal to 65 % of 1990 carbon emissions. To that end, concrete expansion paths had been established for solar and wind power plants, specifically adding 10 gigawatts annually of wind power from 2025 on and 22 GW per year of solar power from 2026. A 2022 legislative package paved the way for further subsidies for innovative and storage technologies as well as an accelerated planning and approval procedure. This could only be achieved through sector coupling by integrating energy systems. More flexible grids and added storage solutions were needed to offset the fluctuations from weather-based and decentralised power generation. Moving to the federal state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Mr Murche noted its primary targets to achieve greenhouse gas neutrality by 2030 and to cover the entire energy demand (electricity, heating and transport) to be covered by renewables by 2035. Currently, a respective climate change act was being developed. Already, the state was the first in Germany to generate more renewable power than was consumed, thus targeting the provision of 6.5 % of the country’s power by 2025. He noted challenges on that path in terms of the expensive restructuring of the grid, developing needed storage solutions to ensure the stable supply and the public acceptance of new renewable power plants. Opportunities, though, also arose through the development of a hydrogen industry and the provision of inexpensive green electricity, making the federal state more attractive for industry. He went on to talk about the WEMAG Group with its focus on e.g., power supply grid, project development and telecommunications, employing about 800 people. Their networks covered a total area of 8,060 km². Since 2015, the amount of green electricity generated exceeded the consumption of all the customers in the grid. However, consumption and generation were often not perfectly matched, so that energy storage technologies would have to be developed and the installed renewable energy capacity in the grid would have to be doubled or even quadrupled. That was the challenge for the WEMAG Group which planned to expand their wind power capacity by 742 megawatts and solar power by 576 megawatts by 2030. Thus, the company was supporting the energy transformation. He saw the move away from fossil fuels driven by the transition towards electric vehicles, with an expected 7 million electric cars in Germany by 2030, consuming an additional 25 terawatt hours. The bottleneck in the transformation was the network itself, with the challenge being the synchronisation of power plants and the network. BSPC WG Vice-Chair, Mr Philipp da Cunha , Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, asked about the approval process. Dr Quick explained that the entire industry had learned a lot, not least in the dialogue with the population to quell worries about e.g., noise from transformer substations. This was the major hold-up in the process which could not be shortened by a lot. However, this could be implemented in parallel with the remaining development and investigation processes. Mr Jens-Holger Schneider, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, asked about grey and green hydrogen prices. Dr Sponholz answered that ca. 50 kilowatt hours were needed to produce one kilogramme of hydrogen. 60 – 80 % of the hydrogen costs were due to the price of electricity, so that determined the price of grey and green hydrogen. Mr Johannes Schraps was interested in the competitiveness of products like green steel but also public fears of pressurised hydrogen explosions. Dr Sponholz believed there should be a carbon price tag on products, making green supply chains more competitive. As for possible dangers, he noted that all kinds of fuels posed their own kinds of hazards, but hydrogen was well enough understood to enable safe handling. Mr Schraps wished to know more of the impact of offshore wind farms on marine life. Mr Quick reiterated that impacts and benefits had to be balanced. Furthermore, the industry had progressed technology to drastically minimise negative impacts on marine mammals during construction. Importantly, the established foundations served to increase some sea life in the area. Mr Alexander Mohrenberg asked about the various systems of hydrogen transportation. Dr Sponholz said they were developing type 4 tanks, using pressures up to 60 bar. For transportation, pressures went up to 350 – 500 bar. Regarding hydrogen carriers, there was no clear answer to whether methane, ammonia or methanol were superior. His company was using catalysts to bind the hydrogen in transport. Development was still needed to make a more precise assessment of the overall costs. Ms Tenfjord-Toftby mentioned the development of local hydrogen grids for energy and heating that would reduce the number of customers in the national grid. She further asked about the plans for a hydrogen grid around the Baltic Sea as well as whether stored hydrogen should be used for conversion back to electricity, cars or as a raw resource. Dr Sponholz said that decentralised hydrogen hubs were a good way to work with the gas. Hydrogen should be used where the energy was most expensive; currently, that was mobility. However, the bottleneck was still in the network of refuelling stations, although several German bus companies were switching diesel for hydrogen engines. For heavy-duty mobility, i.e., buses or trucks, hydrogen was of great interest. He agreed that the re-electrification process was very costly, so that local use was best. Steel and ammonia production, though, would benefit greatly from a renewable basis. Mr Quick mentioned the versatility of electricity on the one hand, yet for some uses, hydrogen was better suited, such as heating. Both applications had to be used in order to decarbonise the entire system. Using hydrogen for electricity generation might be useful as a back-up when solar and wind power are not being produced, along with batteries and other storage facilities. Ms Silke Backsen commentedthatthe loss of species was not due to renewable energy but rather due to agriculture and other causes. Mr Johannes Schraps clarified that public fears had to be understood in order to be countered. He also stressed that the streamlining of the permission process was something that politicians could tackle directly. Mr Bodo Bahr underscored that pressure was driving the needed innovation and that the current crises were providing a great deal of pressure. He noted a project of the STRING initiative, aiming for 5,000 hydrogen-powered heavy trucks going from Hamburg to Oslo by 2025. He also referred to the “IPCEI Hy2Tech”, the first ever Important Project of Common European Interest in the hydrogen sector, approved by the European Commission on 15 July 2022, involving 35 companies and 41 projects from 15 member states and including under the state aid rules up to €5.4 billion of aid which will be crowded in another €8.8 billion of private investments. Nevertheless, he worried that the many projects – national and regional – were too isolated, pursuing their own advantage over the others. Mr Bahr wished for more cooperation across borders. Dr Sponholz agreed that new technologies should be pursued, without looking too closely at the economics at the beginning. Dr Quick saw a lot of momentum in the development of storage technology as well as renewables. He cautioned that political outlooks – and industry responses – could change: Offshore wind power had not been high on the agenda some four years earlier but now was dominating many European countries as well as the USA. The industry had to catch up with the change, having to ramp up its manufacturing capacity. There would be difficulties to meet the set goals until 2030, though. To get going before that time, compromises might be necessary rather than looking for the best solution. Tour of the WEMAG Battery Storage Facility on 29 August Before the meeting in the State parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the members of the BSPC Working Group took the opportunity to visit the WEMAG battery storage facility in the state capital Schwerin. WEMAG storage expert Mr Tobias Struck underlined during the tour that “The 10-megawatt lithium-ion storage system stabilises short-term fluctuations in the grid frequency fully automatically with operating reserves. This allows wind and solar power to be integrated into the existing grid.” At present, the renewable energy plants from the WEMAG grid area supply a total output of just under 2,300 megawatts (MW). The largest share is accounted for by wind turbines at 1,125 MW and photovoltaic systems at 1,000 MW. Just based on the figures, it would already be possible to supply all customers in WEMAG’s grid area with electricity from renewable energy: measured in terms of end customers, the Renewable Energy Act (EEG) feed-in quota in 2021 was 283 percent. Mr Thomas Murche , technical director of WEMAG who also gave a detailed presentation during the meeting pointed out “that means we are already above the targets set by the German government for the year 2050 and would be able to supply our customers only with electricity from renewable sources.” For photovoltaic systems alone, the amount fed into the WEMAG power grid in the first half of 2022 was almost 500,000 MWh, compared to 283,000 MWh in the same period last year. During the tour of the battery storage facility Mr Tobias Struck answered numerous questions from the working members. More detailed information about the visit and the WEMAG can be found here and here . Presentations on Peatland on 30 August in the Biosphere Reserves Schaalsee Ms Anke Hollerbach , Head of Administration of the Biosphere Reserves Schaalsee and Elbe, explained that she was responsible for two biosphere reserves, based on a UNESCO programme. Starting in the 1970s, a worldwide network of now 738 biosphere reserves had been created. A dialogue with nature, poverty reduction and human well-being were at the heart of the global approach. An international coordinating council handled the designation process approving an area as a biosphere reserve and confirming the status every ten years. In Germany, there were 18 such reserves. Schaalsee was dealing with bog protection; aside from mesotropic lakes like the Schaalsee itself, there were also swamp areas. The reserves had to involve the local population and all interested stakeholders in planning and management. Their three functions were compiling natural diversity, economic development with social and environmental sustainability as well as logistics support for research, monitoring, education and training. Nature conservation and the development of the landscape was a particular focus, with the restoration of bog areas the primary concern of the last 30 years. 1,000 years ago, there had been a lot of wetlands in the area many of which had been drained to allow for agriculture, transportation ways and the like. A canal had been dug to connect the Schaalsee to the Baltic Sea, also lowering the water level. Ms Hollerbach differentiated several types of bogs, such as raised and intermediate bogs. Peatland restoration assisted in climate protection, in terms of carbon sequestration, water and soil protection as well as biodiversity. The process of rewetting the areas was still in progress. The speaker underlined that this was a difficult and long-term undertaking, requiring studies on impacts to surrounding areas – including agriculture and forestry – and planning. The most complex aspect was the implementation. Normally, the respective area was privately owned so the land had to be purchased or compensated. To that end, owners’ resistance and lack of comprehension had to be overcome. Public relations thus were vital throughout the process. Financing was equally relevant. Ms Hollerbach also stressed the importance of having experts on site, networked with the local population – such as the Schaalsee Biosphere Reserves. Only these contacts allowed them to tackle each following project. On the question if there was a national coordination authority, Ms Hollerbach noted that peat restoration was handled at the level of the federal state rather than the federal government. Mr Andreas Schoop asked if the compensation was long-term which Ms Hollerbach confirmed as a thirty-year time frame. That applied mostly to forest areas while agriculture lands were usually purchased outright. With respect to the Oder river pollution, Mr Johannes Schraps inquired about Ms Hollerbach’s contacts to Poland. The speaker pointed to the biosphere reserve network, noting that they were in touch with others on special topics. Apart from that, there were other contacts within Germany but also with e.g., Ghana and along the Elbe river. She cautioned there could be no preparation for disasters like the Oder. Dr Franziska Tanneberger , landscape ecologist at Greifswald University, Director of the Greifswald Mire Centre and Chairwoman of the “MV Future Council“ 2020/21, said that the Mire Centre was preparing the global peatland maps for the first ever global peatland assessment . She defined peatland as an area with a naturally occurring accumulated layer of peat at the surface that can be several metres thick, some up to 160 metres. In Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the average thickness was 10 metres. Peat was formed from the lower parts of plants, thus binding carbon. If drained, CO 2 was released. A mire was a “living” peat where new layers of it were being formed. A thorough survey of peatlands in Europe had been compiled over the course of 26 years. She highlighted the biodiversity of peatlands, not just at the species level but at that of the ecosystem. Sadly, many of the peatlands were in bad condition all over the continent: 25 % of the area was degraded. Often, this was due to agriculture. After Indonesia, the European Union was the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world from this source, with Germany leading in peatland emissions. Roughly 5 % of the total greenhouse gas emissions of the European Union came from drained peatlands, making it an important issue. Dr Tanneberger stressed that peatland conservation was most cost-effective: The peats that had not yet been drained needed to be protected. Rewetting the degraded peats stopped the subsidence and substantially reduced greenhouse gas emissions as well as nutrient release, with nitrogen of particular relevance. If peat had to be used for agriculture, that had to be adapted for it being wet. She pointed out that for most countries, peatland rewetting and paludiculture were the most important climate protection measure in this sector. Although peat only accounted for 3 % of the agricultural area of the EU, it produced 25 % of the greenhouse gases. Changing agricultural processes on a small proportion of the land thus could have a substantial effect for climate protection. Implementing this change and the rewetting of most peatlands would help achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 but would require massive state funding. The German government had assigned two billion euros for peatland protection in the current legislative period, half the overall climate protection budget. Furthermore, the establishment of a peatland rewetting authority was being discussed, following the example of Indonesia. Dr Tanneberger underscored the importance of involving the private sector which was keen to achieve climate neutrality. She further suggested alternative land uses, such as building solar panel installations on highly degraded peatland. The harvest from peatlands could serve such uses as construction or insulation materials. For Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, agriculture and land use were by far the leading greenhouse gas emitters, culminating in the federal state having the highest per capita emissions in Germany. The federal state had instituted a group from various backgrounds to develop a programme for the future of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern to start the transformation across all sectors as soon as possible. Mr Bodo Bahr was interested in Dr Tanneberger ’s view of the present implementation of that future programme. The speaker said that some areas were going well, but more discussion would be needed in others. To questions by Mr Alexander Mohrenberg , Dr Tanneberger replied that some bogs were fed water through rain, others through ground water. Peatlands only developed in areas with excess water. Agriculture on rewetted peatlands became possible after one year, though monoculture crops would take a while longer. Ms Tenfjord-Toftby noted that agriculture was very conservative. Dr Tanneberger confirmed her side’s frequent discussions with farmers’ associations from the European to the German level. She pointed out that farmers understood the importance of curbing carbon emissions but wanted some freedom to do what they wanted on their wetlands. That should be reflected in legislation. Dr Jenny Schulz , CEO, PaludiMed GmbH, worked on medical applications of plants grown in peatland. In particular, she was focusing on sundews , a plant group that had been used to treat asthmatic bronchitis and the like for centuries, dating back at least to the Middle Ages. She pointed out that plant medicine commonly did not have just one active ingredient but a combination of several. Such plants were also imported from China although it had been found that many of those had very little or no pharmacologically active substances left after having dried out. The sundew species native to Germany though had a much higher content and were available fresh or frozen. These were protected, though, making trade across borders difficult. At the same time, that also made the supply unstable. When collecting in the wild, it was difficult to control the circumstances. Cultivation trials so far had proven unsuccessful or very expensive. Given the high market potential, paludiculture could stabilise the supply under controlled conditions. The peat layer was conserved and did not degrade any further. The moss layer could even expand and form new peat. Paludiculture areas provided a habitat for many species. She explained that her own field was within the biosphere reserve, in a former peat mine so that the area was bare and thus not protected. Conflicts with nature conservation had to be avoided in such efforts. Although her company was a private enterprise, it had been supported as a start-up with a state loan. Dr Schulz underlined that the conditions in peat areas differed, so much that their early attempt to adopt a cultivation method from Saxony-Anhalt had failed at this site. Rainwater should have been enough to supply the field, but precipitation had been below average the last few years. Chalk prevented the construction of a well. Ditches had been dug to channel water into the area and retain it. The sundew population was planted through seeds. Frogs, grass snakes and adders as well as cranes and other birds had come back to the area. Wildlife in general, including plants, had increased. Regarding research, she mentioned that the species had different active ingredients, with one species providing antibacterial qualities. It was necessary to make sure phytotoxins would not remain in the final product. Ms Simona Jakaitė asked about the scaling up potential. Dr Schulz noted that sundew did not grow in many areas, and most of those were currently protected. Their field was a peat mine on state land; other possibilities were former sand mines. Lower Saxony had plenty of dried peatland for this purpose, though. She cautioned that harvest was costly as it was done by hand and resulted in only three kilogrammes per day. Furthermore, the economic inflation was one obstacle, exacerbated by the lengthy permission process for medical use. Mr Johannes Schraps wondered about the federal protected species list and whether a special permission had been needed for cultivation. Dr Schulz confirmed that. Her project was paludiculture – as opposed to wild growth – wherefore she was allowed to collect the sundew. Mr Bodo Bahr asked the three experts about the intensity of cooperation in the Baltic Sea region. Ms Hollerbach replied that her exchange was very limited. Dr Tanneberger had intensive contacts through the international mire conservation group, although there was space for more cooperation. Dr Schulz ran her own little company so there was not much call for exterior nature conservation contacts. Further Matters The Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity had conducted a survey among governments on important questions, receiving very informative answers from Denmark, Estonia, Hamburg, Germany, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden. These have been published on the BSPC website. The Working Group forwarded an additional question to governments to the Standing Committee regarding the impact of the war in Ukraine and related changes in political priorities on climate policy goals and their implementation. Mr Jarek Wałęsa extended an official invitation to host the Working Group in May 2023 in Gdańsk. Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle of Norway suggested hosting a meeting in her country in February/ March 2023 but further out in the wintry countryside rather than Oslo. This would mean additional travel time, though. Ms Anna Kassautzki , Mr Johannes Schraps , Ms Silke Backsen , Ms Tenfjord-Toftby and Mr Bodo Bahr discussed the issue. BSPC President Schraps proposed another meeting of the Working Group in-between this one and the next scheduled one in March, perhaps in digital form at the end of 2022. Secretary General Bahr agreed that this was a possibility, especially as a digital meeting, and could be discussed further. Since Chairwoman Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby will be leaving parliament after the autumn elections in Sweden, Mr Philipp da Cunha has been appointed her successor by the BSPC Standing Committee as per the wishes of the Working Group. Ms Tenfjord-Toftby said her good-byes to the group, pointing out that many of the members were young people representing the future. She was sure they would deliver a good report. With all that they had heard in the group, now it was time for the politicians to implement these measures. On behalf of the members, Secretary General Bodo Bahr and Chairman-to-be da Cunha thanked Ms Tenfjord-Toftby for her work.

The BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity (CCB) adopted on 4 October 2021 an intergovernmental survey to inquire the Baltic Sea region governments about their efforts and plans regarding climate change and biodiversity. In the meantime – mostly during the spring 2022 -, 11 governments have sent their statements and answers to their respective parliaments. The detailed questions concern general information on the measures and strategies on climate change and biodiversity in the BSPC member states and regions, the legal basis of the measures and strategies in the BSPC member states, specific areas and aspects such as maritime areas and protected zones, eutrophication, sea-dumped munitions, efforts towards zero pollution, the economy, innovation, international cooperation, adaptation and the involvement of citizens and stakeholders. Intergovernmental survey Adopted by the BSPC WG CCB on 4 October 2021 The answers provide a deep and unique parallel insight into the relevant activities of the governments in the Baltic Sea Region. The Working Group is considering updating the positions on the strategies and approaches since numerous energy policy measures are being initiated in the member countries because of the Ukraine war, also affecting the respective climate policy strategies. Therefore, it is important to explore: To what extent do the war in Ukraine and related changes in political priorities have an impact on climate policy goals and their implementation? It is envisaged that governments comment on this as part of their statements on this year’s BSPC resolution. The compilation will be updated as soon as further statements are received. You can download the current statements of the governments here.

In its second day, the BSPC Annual Conference talks about the challenges brought about by this latest wave of migration, now from Ukraine, to housing, education, health and child care. In its traditional General Debate, parliamentarians reinforce their support for Ukraine but also for dissidents in Belarus and Russia and look forward to Baltic cooperation without Russia. Finally, after an eventful and very successful two-year presidency in tremendous challenging times, Sweden hands over the baton to the incoming German Bundestag presidency of the BSPC. Fourth Session on Demographic challenges in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine; migration, labour market and the social welfare model Chair Carola Veit explained that the Russian war and the movement of refugees were deeply affecting the other countries, raising questions and challenges to which answers had to be found, in addition to the measures already taken: housing, education, child and health care, the labour market and the attitudes towards newcomers. Ms Ylva Johansson , the European Commissioner for Home Affairs, explained that while the Russian attack had taken many Europeans by surprise, the Baltic Sea region had lived in the shadow for many years. Just as well, the fast, united response by Europe had also been a surprise. She highlighted the volunteer work to assist the refugees from Ukraine as well as the citizens welcoming refugees to their homes. Ms Johansson reminded the Conference how divisive migration had been, stressing the unanimous decision by the EU. At the same time, challenges had arisen, among them human trafficking as a major problem that had been tackled from the very first week. A 10-point plan had been instituted to handle the challenges. Solidarity had been huge, with Poland, Estonia and Lithuania in the top six countries giving shelter to refugees. More support was needed, and Ms Johansson referred to the new EU Initiative Safe Homes to help those opening their homes. Some 400,000 Ukrainian children were going to schools in EU member states, of those 200,000 in Poland and 130,000 in Germany. The EU had set up a talent pool pilot to match refugee skills with employer needs at the European level. Around 6.5 million Ukrainians had entered the EU since the start of the war, of which about 2.5 million had returned. Approximately 4 million refugees were left, making up the largest refugee crisis since World War II. Of those, 3.2 million had applied for temporary protection and could now be registered on a shared EU platform. A solidarity platform had been established at the EU to bring, e.g., children with disabilities to regions where they could be supported, to help raped women and other such cases. The EU funds had been used as flexibly as possible and in a rapid manner, such as one billion euros from the Care Package, 3.5 billion euros in pre-financing. Ms Johansson had presented a new Pact on Migration and Asylum two years ago on which there had finally been agreement the preceding Friday on three important parts. This showed that member states were now ready to set up a much-needed European system to deal with migration and asylum. She cautioned her listeners that this was not over yet as Russia was fighting a war of attrition. Persistence and endurance were necessary for the future. Mr Kai Mykkänen of Finland asked about the Commission’s estimates of how many Ukrainians would stay longer term in the EU and how a repeat of the Belarus-Polish border situation of the previous year, also at other borders, could be legally prevented. Mr Johannes Schraps of Germany highlighted it was important to think beyond the EU borders regarding the solidarity, especially countries like Moldova. Mr Kacper Płażyński of Poland was disappointed that the EU was paying much more to Turkey to maintain those migrants than to Poland. Ms Ylva Johansson replied that the migration flux was different to ordinary refugees, with women and children coming first and many people heading back to Ukraine. There was also circular movement, especially in the border regions. So, there were no estimates for long-term stays, but registrations and school enrolments would provide more information over time. She approved of the Finnish emergency plans. Furthermore, she agreed that the outreach to and support for countries like Moldova was vital. As for the Polish comment, Ms Johansson underlined that the Commission could only use money that was already in the budget. They were at the beginning of the MFF, though, and that some 63 billion euros were slated for Poland, with the precondition of judges being reinstated and the judicial system brought back in line. She further underlined that the migration funds were not intended for housing and the like, so that cohesion and other funds could be used for the longer-term refugee situation. Ms Alske Freter of Hamburg pointed out the other refugees from places such as Syria or Afghanistan that received different treatment by EU countries, wondering if the Ukrainian crisis was changing that. Ms Anne Shepley of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern asked why the temporary protection had not been applied in 2014. Mr Jarosław Wałęsa of Poland pointed out that Ukraine, as the largest exporter of grain, could not supply its grain to northern Africa. He asked about contingency plans for the people about to escape this impending famine, putting additional pressure on the migration system. Ms Ylva Johansson acknowledged differences between refugees from Ukraine and those from, e.g., Afghanistan and Syria. She underlined that the former were receiving temporary protection rather than asylum. At most, it could be extended to three years. Asylum allowed longer protection. Different kinds of regulations were applied to different groups, Ms Johansson stressed. She regretted that the temporary protection had not been applied to Ukrainian refugees in 2014 and considered that a lesson learned, along with a more pragmatic approach in the present. As for famine refugees, she saw it important to reach out support along the routes before they would reach European borders. The countries had to be supported early on, also in terms of security issues as famine might reinforce terrorist activities. Ms Johansson underlined that this was a threat to people’s lives. Mr Hans Wallmark, former Chair of the BSPC working group on migration and integration and together with Ms Carola Veit BSPC Rapporteur on that issue – chairing the following part of the session – thanked EU Commissioner Ylva Johansson for her valuable input to the 31 st BSPC. Ms Justina Jakštienė , Vice-Minister for Social Security and Labour, Republic of Lithuania, noted that her country had been occupied by Russia for fifty years and could still recognise the propaganda from Russia. At the same time, they valued her friendship with Ukraine and supported their EU membership. She outlined Lithuania welcoming the third biggest share of refugees per capita, providing for them as if they were Lithuanian citizens. Housing was a challenge, she conceded. Nearly half of the refugees were children; out of ca. 20,000, some 1,200 were unaccompanied minors. Lithuania had signed a contract with Ukraine on the protection of children, focusing on their psychological status. All levels of education, up to university were open to them, currently in both Lithuanian and Russian, although efforts were underway to add Ukrainian-language classes as well. Although all Ukrainian children in Lithuania were registered, some of them were continuing remote schooling from their Ukrainian teachers at home. As for employment of the adults, Ms Jakštienė saw them as easily integrated into the labour market. 30 % of working age refugees already had jobs. Some two thirds of those were in medium-skilled jobs, 1 % was in high school jobs. Most Ukrainian worked as accountants, marketers, in manufacturing, social/health assistants, sanitation specialists etc. The support for disabled people would have to be extended, she expected. Furthermore, Lithuania was offering treatment for Ukrainian soldiers. She moved on to NGOs such as the Red Cross that had become close partners of the government during the recent crises. Regarding the challenges, Ms Jakštienė pointed out that demography was determined by mortality, fertility and migration. War migration was complicated and hard to define for the future. In one week, 1,000 refugees would reach Lithuania, and 500 would be going back. She saw housing, integration, education and special social support as measures to convince people to stay in the country until Ukraine would be rebuilt after the war. Professor Maciej Duszczyk , Centre for Migration Research, University of Warsaw, reiterated that the war was not over as refugees kept arriving from Ukraine. From the migration point of view, the war had begun in 2014, having tripled the number of Ukrainians living in Poland in the last four years. Exact data were available only on border traffic. The professor estimated 3.5 million Ukrainians had fled the war across the Polish border, although not all had stayed in Poland; using several methodologies – such as phone data or water usage -, there were presumably now about 1.5 or 1.6 million Ukrainians in the country plus 1.3 million people who had already lived there before February 2022. That came out to about 3 million Ukrainians in Poland. With movement back and forth, the question was how many would stay. 600,000 of them were children, 200,000 had been enrolled in Polish schools while the rest were following the Ukrainian curriculum remotely. The pyramid of challenges started with education, expecting to enrol 600,000 children in the Polish system within the next three months. The professor called this impossible, both in terms of the availability in schools but also because the children should not suffer trauma. The challenge, in his view, was to prepare the capacities to help and to keep helping, especially in learning as the pandemic had shown that remote learning was not a good option. Housing was another problem that needed urgent solving since 600,000 people were still staying in other people’s homes. Healthcare would become a concern in the autumn when children got sick more often. Compassion fatigue was a psychological reality, he said. That was why a systematic approach from the national government as well as the EU level was needed. Prof Duszczyk noted that there was yet another refugee crisis still ongoing since people fleeing more distant wars – Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, to name a few – were still trying to cross the border between Belarus and Poland. He posed the question if they could help everyone and stressed that the answer was no. However, capacities had to be expanded, although that was still not enough and necessitated different solutions had to be found. Prof Duszczyk underlined the importance of human rights as the top priority. Mr Maciej Koneczny of Poland agreed that there is fatigue among countries and especially families helping Ukrainians. Institutional solutions had to be found for the future. Clear and equal rights had to be enacted for Ukrainians and Polish or Lithuanian people as well as equal working conditions. The same had to apply to housing and healthcare. After the war, in the rebuilding effort, he called for Ukraine not to continue to be saddled with having to repay foreign debts. The European Union and other entities should cancel these debts. Moreover, in future contracts, the interests and benefits of multinational companies should not be prioritised over the best interests of the Ukrainian people. Instead, unconditional help should be given to the people. Mr Kacper Płażyński sarcastically commented on European Commissioner Ylva Johansson’s remarks about Poland using other funds for refugee aid and asked Ms Jakštienė about her and Lithuania’s opinion. Ms Justina Jakštienė conceded that helping the refugees, in particular assisting children and disabled people, was very expensive. As for Lithuania, the country had amended its budget right at the beginning of the war to create reserves. As for the European funds, they had already been allocated, and they were already working on using the funds of the next financial period. In particular, some present-day aid for refugees would be provided from Lithuania’s share in the following financial period. Their focus was on housing, education and the health system. Mr Sayed Amin Sayedi of Germany, representative of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, picked up on the Polish delegation distinguishing between so-called “real refugees” from Ukraine and other refugees. Mr Sayedi presented his own story of hardship in fleeing Afghanistan that had been compounded by six years of staying in Finland and Germany without any perspective for the future. He had not been allowed to go to university or work during that time. He found it disappointing that refugees received such diverse treatment. Furthermore, Mr Sayedi raised the point that the people who had fought and worked alongside and for the European and Americans in Afghanistan had essentially been forgotten. Instead, help should be given to them. General Debate Prof Jānis Vucāns chaired the debate session with Mr Jarosław Wałęsa , continuing a format that had been a part of the Annual Conference since 2018. Very well received, the debate offered delegations the opportunity to provide their perspectives on issues dear to their hearts. Prof Jānis Vucāns saw the BSPC in a new position, after suspending the Russian parliaments. Open discussion could now deal with topics that had been impossible with Russian participation, among them economic, energy and security questions. Energy would prove crucial for the Baltic Sea region. He underlined that “together” was a vital concept for their cooperation, also in the long-term support of Ukraine. Mr Jarosław Wałęsa encouraged the attendees to contribute to the debate from different perspectives. Mr Axel Eriksson of Sweden, representative of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, saw the security issue also as one of climate change and biodiversity loss, mentioning that for example water stress could trigger security conflicts. If the fundamental roots were not addressed, they could not be solved in the long term. He asked for fundamental roots of conflicts to be treated in addition to their consequences. Mr Simon Påvals of Åland considered the interface between first-hand experience of climate change and scientific research to be crucial. Only that way could it be understood what the future would bring. The effects of human interaction were difficult to predict, he said, citing the example of the stickleback fish’s stock numbers exploding with their natural predator, the herring, a favourite target of human fishing. The food chain was changing, but scientific institutions had yet to take notice. He stressed that the local people were the key to success against climate change and to preserve biodiversity. Mr Jarosław Wałęsa agreed, suggesting a return to a 1970s treaty limiting the sizes of the ships that could operate in the Baltic Sea. Ms Inese Voika from Latvia concurred that support for Ukraine had to extend beyond military help to reconstruction of the country, both in physical terms but also rebuilding its democracy. She further touched on Belarus and Russia and giving support for the democratic opposition. That had been much as the Baltic States had nurtured their sense of democracy during the Soviet occupation and been able to become independent. Ms Iveta Benhena-Bēkena , also from Latvia, quoted, “ Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you want peace, prepare for war.” Peace had to be the foremost goal on every level, and she believed that all sacrifices would be worth preserving their democracy. Mr Kacper Płażyński raised the idea of reparation payments for Ukraine from Russia. He insisted that one could not go back to business as usual once the war was over at some point in the future but that reparations would have to be demanded. Mr Ola Elvestuen from Norway saw the BSPC Annual Conference as sending a strong message of unity. At the same time, it was necessary to increase the military support with heavy weapons and ammunitions to make Ukrainian forces advance again, while also increasing sanctions and continuing support for refugees. Greater coordination was also necessary to tackle the wider crises across the world. Mr Hans Wallmark of Sweden found this conference to be relieved and free compared to previous ones, because there were no Russian delegations. The lack of restraints on discussions should lead to them investigating during the coming year what other challenges – in the security area, posed by Russia – should join the established topics. At the same time, this cooperation of free and independent countries and regions could find new opportunities as well. They could now create their own Hanseatic League of the present day. Ms Hanna Katrín Friðriksson of Iceland highlighted the role of a free and independent press and the fight against strategic propaganda as well as fake news. She stressed a suggestion made by Ms Valentina Shapovalova that the international news should be translated into Russian and made available to the Russian people to actually understand what was happening. Mr Wille Valve from Åland referred to the European ban on seal products for reasons of animal welfare. This created an awkward situation in everyday life for coastal life. Legally, the hunting of seals was allowed – and necessary due to the damage seals caused -, but it was not permitted to generate products from the small quantity of killed seals. While he approved of the overall ban, he called for a limited exception for artisanal local products. Closing Session BSPC President Pyry Niemi and Vice President Johannes Schraps chaired the final session of the 31 st Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference. The reports of the Rapporteurs began the session. Ms Beate Schlupp , BSPC Observer at HELCOM, said that the brutal Russian invasion had disrupted the work of multiple regional cooperation organisations that had taken decades to create. HELCOM was among those severely affected by the war waged by one of its founding members. All physical meetings had been put on hold until 30 June 2022. Yet the crises continued and demanded their joint efforts continue towards a safer and more sustainable Baltic Sea. The BSPC had confirmed its revised Rules of Procedure as well as its principles and objectives at this conference. For 20 years, the BSPC and HELCOM had been working together towards their shared goals. She outlined the recently adopted Baltic Sea Action Plan of HELCOM, in particular its cross-cutting goals. This should send a strong signal in the area of marine environmental protection. She wished the new Latvian presidency of HELCOM the best of success. Mr Philipp da Cunha spoke as Co-Rapporteur on Integrated Maritime Policy considered the impact of the war on maritime business, such as cruise tourism and supply chains. He noted that the former had already been deeply affected by COVID-19. Supply chain problems were visualised by maritime traffic jams, among others triggered by China’s zero-COVID policy banning harbours. Inland transport had suffered from a lack of truck drivers as well. He highlighted the role of the blue economy in the green and energy transition. Economic growth had to be decoupled from the use of resources. Currently, there were military, economic, energy and food uncertainties. Market expectations had changed dramatically, altering prices for all commodities. He highlighted a shared European approach to curb Russian fossil fuels and replace them with other reliable energy sources. BSPC President Pyry Niemi moved on to the adoption of the Resolution of the 31 st Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference. This had to be done unanimously, as per the old and new Rules of Procedure. Before that, the Conference adopted an amended version of paragraph ten of the Statutes and Rules of Procedure which had been unanimously proposed by the Standing Committee in the margins of the conference. The Conference adopted the 31 st BSPC Resolution. President Niemi hoped that the contents of this resolution would be acted on by the governments, ministries and other institutions around the Baltic Sea. In good BSPC tradition, BSPC President Pyry Niemi passed the baton of the presidency to the incoming president of the BSPC, Mr Johannes Schraps of the German Bundestag. Incoming BSPC President Johannes Schraps underlined in his outlook on the focal issues of the German Bundestag’s presidency the difficult times they were living through: Instead of showing signs of division, it was essential to underline togetherness. The 31 st Resolution did just that. Tremendous challenges continued to lie ahead of them, so that close and reliable cooperation were even more important than ever. Strengthening democracy and promoting peace accordingly would be the headline of the new German presidency. Reinforcing democratic resilience against challenges was vital, as was the promotion of good neighbourliness, peace and the sovereign integrity of all states. The vulnerability of democratic states to conspiracy theories had been revealed in recent years, so that democratic processes had to be made more transparent and a stronger, more diverse civil society had to be encouraged. Media literacy was a challenge for the whole population. On top of that, the climate crisis remained the overarching challenge, so that the German presidency had put the protection of the marine environment at the forefront. This included cooperation in energy aspects but also the topic of sea-dumped ammunitions. With regard to the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, Mr Schraps said that another instalment was planned in conjunction with the 32 nd BSPC Conference in Berlin in 2023. In closing, he said that each generation had and wanted to find its own answers for their age. The President of the 31 st BSPC and further BSPC Vice President Pyry Niemi thanked all who had participated in the Annual Conference and had contributed to its particular success in challenging times, the Drafting and the Standing Committee, all delegations, parliamentarians, governmental representatives, experts, guests and supporters in the background as well as the staff of the Swedish parliament, the Secretary General and the interpreters.

In the second half of the BSPC Annual Conference’s first day, the focus was first placed on democracy and the invaluable role of free and independent media, especially in light of disinformation and propaganda campaigns. The second focus considered climate change and biodiversity, with representatives from the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum as well as experts in a panel discussion. Second Session on Democracy and freedom of expression – how do we secure free media in the Baltic Sea Region? The chair of the session, Ms Bryndís Haraldsdóttir of Iceland, highlighted that free media and their working conditions played an all the more crucial role in these challenging times for our democracies. After the 30 th BSPC had mostly dealt with the issue of disinformation and fake news, this year would focus on the value of free media and good working conditions for journalists, particularly in the light of the new media law in Russia. Mr Michael Jarlner , journalist and international editor at Politiken , was primarily concerned with the task of understanding the role of the press. He cited Thomas Jefferson’s preference for newspapers over governments and Walter Cronkite’s declaration that freedom of the press was democracy. The Baltic Sea region numbered 90 million people, with so many resources and resourceful people, yet it was vulnerable to the presence of autocracies. Challenges to press freedom were posed by Belarus not allowing in reporters as well as Russia’s new media law which made journalists not feel safe. Mr Jarlner regretted the short attention span in both media and politics, especially with regard to the war in Ukraine. Yet the war affected the rest of Europe as well, and the media had to stay aware this was a long-term war. Mr Jarlner’s newspaper Politiken was seeking to counter this trend by keeping the topic alive and by identifying progressive journalists in Russia and Belarus to support them. Moreover, they had established a Russian-language version of their newspaper. Mr Jarlner insisted that what applied in peacetime still was true in wartime. In this regard, he pointed out that Reporter Without Borders had criticised Poland for increased state control of media while Denmark and Finland were prosecuting journalists over covering intelligence matters. This had to be taken seriously. Russia was a reminder what European nations did not want to be, he stated. Mr Kacper Płażyński from Poland said he considered free science to be as important as free media when its subjects countered popular opinion. Mr Michael Jarlner responded by saying he hoped for a diversity of views. Yet there was the difficult problem of where to draw a line. For Mr Jarlner that was when dubious science – such as the flat earth belief – was granted the same standing as established science. Mr Ola Elvestuen from Norway wondered what share of the Russian population could actually access outside sources, such as those Mr Jarlner had outlined, but also the role of the media in the spread of Russian and Chinese fake news. Regarding access, Mr Michael Jarlner explained that they were using channels such as Telegram, noting that they had to keep finding new ways of circumventing Russian censorship. As misinformation would be tackled later, he pointed out his biggest problem, namely that there was no good grasp of what was really going on in Russia. Opinions had to be separated from misinformation. Furthermore, checks had to be made on both sides, making sure that western media did not see any faults on their side. Ms Valentyna Shapovalova , PhD fellow at Copenhagen University, spoke about Russian disinformation and propaganda. To illustrate the current domestic climate in Russia, she mentioned that the world had been taken by the horrific images in Bucha. The Russian state-aligned media on this day, 4 April 2022, a very different coverage of the events had been presented: Instead of portraying the story as a tragedy and example of the Russian war crimes, it had been shown as a staged event created by the Ukrainian troops as a provocation to Russia. The presenter on a popular talk show claimed that the corpses were actually actors. The same opposition to reality was spread across other Russian state-aligned media. Fake fact-checking was one of the main strategies to turn reality on its head and fit the Kremlin narratives. Information and media control was one of the main pillars of authoritarian rule in general. Disinformation and propaganda had been used by Russia both domestically and abroad as tools of information warfare for years. Other examples cited by Ms Shapovalova were the war in Georgia in 2008 as well as the Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea in 2014. She outlined the disinformation and propaganda system, containing traditional and social media in Russia and abroad, controlled in a nuanced and multi-layered way from the Kremlin. Since 24 February, the magnitude of lies and manipulated facts had increased, along with Orwellian prohibitions on words like “war”. Before that day, Russia had already been in 150 th place in the press freedom index, but there had been a few independent outlets with wide reach to challenge the state narrative. The surviving ones had to move abroad and were not easy to access over VPN channels. Their present-day reach into Russian society was unknown, Ms Shapovalova underlined. She had identified a number of narratives in the disinformation sphere, such as the “special military operation” not targeting civilians in Ukraine; rather, NATO was indicted as waging war there with Ukraine a puppet state; the “operation” was supposedly conducted to counter threatened NATO expansion; Ukraine was claimed to be a Nazi state implementing genocide in the Donbas region; Russia was said to have the right to annex previously Russian territory; sanctions were presented as hitting the West harder than Russia. Russian further media ridiculed western leaders, institutions and values and also claiming western media were “Russophobic” and spreading disinformation about Russia. Ms Shapovalova mentioned three of the central goals of the disinformation: Firstly, it was to undermine the existence of factually verifiable information; secondly, to undermine the legitimacy of democratic institutions in the West; and lastly, to promote the Kremlin’s political and geopolitical as well as military interests. She considered it crucial that the leaders in the Baltic Sea region and the West in general understood that this was deeply rooted and widespread. Russian disinformation and propaganda had to be taken very seriously. Ms Anne Shepley of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern wondered about the development of the disinformation system in the future. Ms Valentyna Shapovalova was pessimistic, noting that it was increasingly difficult to get information through to Russia, with some VPN tools blocked by the state. She agreed that Western media should continue trying to funnel articles translated into Russian into the country, but they were only targeting the opposition. Getting through to the large core of people watching Russian television was very difficult. Ms Shapovalova stressed the danger of Russian propaganda which, when watched at length, could even affect her as a Ukrainian. It was her belief that the disinformation system would keep amplifying, along with an even more severe block on outside information. Mr Krzysztof Walczak of Hamburg asked about the speaker using disinformation and propaganda synonymously and the benefits of banning rather than countering narratives. Ms Valentyna Shapovalova explained that she had simplified her presentation; disinformation was defined as intentionally malicious and/or factually unverifiable, false information whereas misinformation was unintentionally false, malicious or misleading information. Propaganda did not have to be false, but it was information framed or manipulated to influence the public, was often polemic and played on feelings. As for banning, she considered this difficult and could not provide a clear answer. Mr Gennaro Migliore (PAM) pointed out the difficulty of getting social media operators to block malicious content. Ms Valentyna Shapovalova agreed that the platforms had a responsibility for countering disinformation and propaganda and also that legislators had to exert more pressure to curb their spread. The chair of this part of the session, Mr Wille Valve of Åland, introduced Ms Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark, Associate Professor, LL.D. and Director at the Åland Islands Peace Institute. Ms Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark noted that the major defenders of free speech in the late 18 th century in the Nordic area had come from Finland. As a result, Sweden had enacted a progressive freedom of press law in 1765. She saw these actions as precursors to modern minority rights. In the present day, Ms Åkermark saw a reflection in a marginalisation of minority groups in the western world. She mentioned Russian-speaking minorities in Nordic and Baltic countries that felt disconnected, but a similar kind of othering had been levelled against the people of Åland. Ms Åkermark referred to the Copenhagen School’s terminology of securitization when a situation was presented as an existential threat by taking measures beyond what was considered normal. She stressed her fear that minorities in the western world were also depicted as stupid, illoyal, problematic and dangerous. Here, she quoted UN Secretary General António Guterres’ “tsunami of hate” and the Tallinn Guidelines asking politicians to distance themselves from polemics. Ms Åkermark underlined that she did not have any answers but could only ask questions, such as how these tendencies could be countered. Co-chair Wille Valve continued to the open debate of the session. Mr Himanshu Gulati from Norway believed that the issue of free media would become ever more important in the coming years. This concerned not only the safety of journalists but also the independence of media. In light of disinformation, the interpretation was changing, raising questions such as whether free media should allow the unchecked spread of false information. Aside from authoritarian states like Russia, Mr Gulati pointed to the United States where many people were living in completely separate, parallel realities. It was necessary to understand how people in the same society, with access to the same range of information could live in separate realities, based on the news they choose to watch and the echo chambers they selected for themselves. He stressed that protecting the free media had to include the combat against disinformation and lies. Mr Simon Påvals from Åland underlined the importance of supporting the “other” Russia and Belarus, i.e., the ordinary people looking for a different future and liberal, democratic powers in those countries. It was crucial to remember that the target of the sanctions was Putin and the Russian regime rather than the people. He further highlighted the need to secure safe and free journalism in the present day and in the future. Ms Hanna Katrín Friðriksson from the Nordic Council agreed that free media was one of the most important pillars of democracy because people had to be fully informed to make their decisions, whether voting, protesting or supporting. She strongly believed that the defence of free media had to be at the top of the priorities to focus on. In that respect, she mentioned the Nordic Journalistic Centre as one of the tools to fight fake news and disinformation. Mr Wille Valve of Åland reflected that what one was allowed to say and when was a classic question. The current issue was massive propaganda, particularly in the Baltic States, the purpose of which was to destabilise the countries. Recently, Russian lawmakers had claimed Lithuanian independence illegal. This underlined the need to support the Baltic States by limiting the information warfare against them. Mr Aron Emilsson from Sweden saw the issue of media freedom also as a question of equal treatment of the people. The challenge lay on the one hand, in the support of the digital revolution and new media as the new opinion square while, at the same time, be able to defend free speech. Internet giants had the power to reinforce or block opinions, had more influence than small states. However, it required regulation to keep their power in check while defending free speech and free media. Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby of Sweden wondered who defined fake news, disinformation and propaganda. That was always subjective, depending on where one was. The situation in Russia was clear to outsiders, yet she posited a scenario of another government declaring an angle of discussion as disinformation that it does not agree with. All of them at the Conference were sure they were on the right side, but she wondered what history’s judgment would be. Mr Johannes Schraps of the German Bundestag considered free media a two-fold issue between those spreading propaganda and disinformation and those open to such disinformation. It was good for freedom of speech to be constitutionally protected, yet that also protected disinformation even though it threatened discourse and democracy itself. Mr Schraps pointed out the growing number of people believing fake news in their societies, despite having access to other information. Media literacy was a concern in his view. Responding to the remarks, Mr Michael Jarlner picked up on Ms Shapovalova’s commenting who could access the Russian-language news on Politiken . He confirmed that not every VPN client could reach information outside Russia, but he insisted that providing alternatives was necessary, not least to show that the “other” Russia and Belarus had not been forgotten. Concerning censorship and disinformation, he noted that some countries had forbidden Russia Today as propaganda. On the other hand, he wondered if that was not responding with the same toolkit, adding that he preferred marking state media as such. On who should decide what was disinformation, he pointed to responsibility laws in several countries applying to newspapers. This did not apply to social media platforms where one could say whatever one wished. That meant, Mr Jarlner underlined, that such statements had to be countered and confronted. In that respect, he pointed to American media fact-checking statements by Donald Trump. Unfortunately, there were no clear-cut solutions. Third Session on Mitigating Climate Change, Preserving Biodiversity and Adapting to Climate Change Chair Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby began by noting that climate change was the driver behind the dramatic increase of extreme weather events around the globe. It was obvious that efforts against climate change had to be speeded up if their sustainable development goals were to be met. She referred to the IPCC Climate Report. Mr Anders Grönvall , State Secretary to the Minister for Environment and Climate, Sweden, spoke about the Stockholm +50 conference, highlighting the importance of multilateralism in these matters, harkening back to the original Stockholm conference of 1972. 155 countries were represented with over 4,000 people in total. States and stakeholders were calling for urgent action. He noted one conclusion, the call for a phase-out of fossil fuels. Collaboration and solidarity had to be reinforced so as to build trust. Mr Grönvall considered trust-building as perhaps the most important outcome. He added that young people had been included in all aspects of the conference, with intergenerationality being recognised as a cornerstone in international policymaking. Moving on to the Swedish priorities in the Baltic Sea region, he stated that climate change was a threat to their forests, oceans and cities. At the same time, the region offered great opportunities for mitigation: More resilient forests could continue to provide biomass in the future. The Baltic Sea was stressed by deoxygenation, acidification and fast warming, severely impacting the ecosystem but also human populations, yet it could contribute to mitigation measures through wind turbines or coastal restoration. Shipping, agriculture and fishing had to be made sustainable. Climate change affected biodiversity, primarily through eutrophication by creating anoxic areas and algae blooms. Nutrient influx from agriculture had to be prevented as had pollution through microplastics, pharmaceuticals and other hazardous substances. The application of the ecosystem approach to fisheries was vital, in Mr Grönvall’s view. In light of the recently updated Baltic Sea Action Plan, he voiced his confidence that all of the necessary measures could be implemented. That had to be done right away. Mr Kacper Płażyński asked why nuclear energy wasn’t mentioned. Mr Kai Mykkänen of Finland inquired how the Baltic Sea protection projects were to go on without Russian participation for the next decade. Mr Simon Påvals of Åland inquired if Sweden planned to change its trawling borders. To that, Mr Anders Grönvall answered that industries were implementing the green transition, e.g., to green steel. Sweden was using 35 % nuclear power, but building nuclear power plants took a long time, and the urgently growing energy need would be supplied by wind power as a more lucrative power source. Regarding HELCOM and Baltic Sea protection, the State Secretary saw an important discussion ahead on how to continue. Trawling rights were intended to secure the herring in that area, so Sweden was looking at many aspects, among them moving the border. Chair Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby moved forward to the panel discussion on climate change and biodiversity, best practices and initiatives with Ms Inger Melander , Expert Fisheries and Market, WWF Sweden, Representative of the Baltic Sea NGO Forum; Mr Dennis Hamro-Drotz , senior programme manager at NEFCO; and the representatives from the Baltic Sea Parliamentarian Youth Forum, Mr Andreas Schoop and Ms Simona Jakaitė . The participants introduced themselves: Ms Inger Melander explained the background of the WWF. As best practices, she presented harbour porpoise, coastal and archipelago areas, the Baltic Sea Farmer of the Year Award, projects trying to limit nutrient run-off, data gathering and monitoring of sea birds, fish stocks, nutrient overloading and a seafood guide for consumers. Mr Dennis Hamro-Drotz said that NEFCO was the Nordic green bank. There were many good ideas how to combat climate change, but financing was often lacking. Founded by the five Nordic countries in the early 1990s, NEFCO was to address the environmental problems in the Baltic Sea, a mandate that had been extended to a global reach over time with link to Nordic countries. They had financed many wastewater solutions in the Nordic region but also Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. With respect to the various projects mentioned by Mr Grönvall earlier, Mr Hamro-Drotz said all of these areas had been covered by NEFCO and the Baltic Sea Action Plan. Every euro spent on such funds had resulted in seven euros coming in from other sources. More innovative projects were looking into nutrient reuse from animal husbandry; how to address greenhouse gas emissions from the seafloor in eutrophication areas; nutrient removal from the sea by fishing and processing low-value fish. Mr Andreas Schoop and Ms Simona Jakaitė presented the final recommendations of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum. After two days of deliberations of sixty young people, they were asking for increased biodiversity and carbon sequestration efforts; conservation of forests, wetlands and natural rivers; stopping clear-cutting; countering forest fires and pathogen spreads; research into emergency causes; common monitoring programmes. On innovation, their recommendation was to phase out fossil fuels and investing more in renewable energies; to support businesses in their transition. For greener cities, they were asking for greener and cheaper transport accessible not only in city centres; more car-free zones, more space for bikes or pedestrians; more diverse cities; more involvement of youths in city planning; legally binding quotas for fishing and determining what fishing nets could be used; regulating single-use plastics; restricting agricultural wastes before reaching the waters. Mr Gennaro Migliore applauded the commitment of young people, noting that the PAM also had a youth platform. He stressed that the Mediterranean was the region most affected by climate change and therefore most interested in developing the blue economy. He seconded the Stockholm +50 conference’s call to intensify efforts against climate change. Furthermore, reinforcing renewable energy sources would help the phase-out of Russian fossil fuels and contribute to the green transition. The PAM would hold the first-ever Euro-Mediterranean Forum in Tangiers in early December 2022, with environmental issues surely a focus of discussion. Mr Kacper Płażyński from Poland conceded that his country was also investing in renewable energies, such as wind farms, but insisted that renewables were unstable energy sources, but only coal and nuclear were stable and reliable. He talked about nuclear power plants as zero-emission and competitive and wanted more of them. Mr Kai Mykkänen pointed out that eutrophication was common in Finnish archipelagos as well as the benefits of the circular economy. In that respect, he wondered if NEFCO was already investing in such projects. Prof Jānis Vucāns, President of the Baltic Assembly , believed the topic of resilient cities from the youth forum should also be considered in the working group. The best definition described them as aggressively and practically designing strategies to be able to cope with future shocks to the infrastructure system. Self-sufficiency and energy efficiency were crucial in future-proofing. In the course of the Russian-induced energy crisis in the Baltic States, the Baltic Assembly had looked into stabilising the energy supply. Their solution was hydrogen; although currently very expensive, it was getting cheaper and cheaper. It could serve as an energy storage solution for wind and solar power. Energy storage – beyond hydrogen – was a major issue that the Nordic and Baltic countries should explore. Mr Dennis Hamro-Drotz considered many of the Baltic Sea problems as transboundary and thus more difficult to solve. He personally did not see any need to import any more chemical fertiliser from outside when the circular economy could exploit the excess of nutrients flowing into the water. There were novel technologies experimenting here as well as regenerative agriculture and forestry. NEFCO did finance Nordic SMEs and start-ups but mainly projects of an international nature, although they were interested in more projects within the Nordic region. He pointed out that there also were the Nordic Investment Bank and the Baltic Sea Action Plan Fund for financing opportunities in piloting projects. The most urgent action for policymakers in the view of Ms Inga Melander was marine conservation management. It was crucial to implement what was written in legislation and conventions. She called for an ecosystem-based management approach and a precautionary approach rather than waiting for new research and reacting too late. Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby mentioned that most projects examined by the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity were at the local level because the whole society needed to be a part of it to make the project successful, from governments down to the local people. To the question of how to achieve this involvement, Ms Inga Melander reiterated that a project had to be implemented and not put-upon individual citizens’ responsibility to choose what to consume or to recycle. Best practices were good, but she placed the focus on policymakers. Mr Dennis Hamro-Drotz reflected that financially viable projects related to the Baltic Sea were hard to find, compared to climate change-focused projects. He saw a need, also for legislation, to force a way in a certain direction and to funnel soft money, such as grant financing or cheap loans, into such efforts. They would need a lot of time to become financially viable and attract private capital. Mr Andreas Schoop pointed to sea-dumped ammunitions as a vital challenge to be resolved, requiring policy decisions. Ms Simona Jakaitė Ms Jakaitė believed in education to shape the next generation’s minds and opening them to finding solutions. Mr Wille Valve was interested in the future of industrial fishing, specifically regarding herring. Ms Inga Melander highlighted economic and environmental sustainability, while an ecosystem-based approach was necessary to manage herring stocks with regard to size and age but also other species and habitats. The Swedish consideration of an expanded trawler border could provide more shelter for marine animals, primarily cod. Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby asked a final question to the panel on how to keep the focus on climate change in these troubling times. Ms Inga Melander said one had to remain hopeful, reiterating the ecosystem-based approach. Mr Dennis Hamro-Drotz noted that crises such as the pandemic and the war in Ukraine had shown that financial means could quickly be provided to solve them. Prevention was far cheaper than solution but much harder to finance. Mr Andreas Schoop agreed about prevention, even on the small scale. Ms Simona Jakaitė hoped that more creative approaches could be found for prevention.

The 31 st Annual Conference of the BSPC gathered over 160 participants in Stockholm – delegates from 20 parliaments and parliamentary organisations, guests and experts from the Baltic Sea region and beyond. The Conference was the final highlight of the Swedish BSPC Presidency from 2020 to 2022 and took place in the second chamber of the Riksdag. The situation in the region shaped the programme. The delegates, the experts and guests discussed the Future of the Baltic Sea region in a time of fundamental upheaval. They firmly stated that the answer to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is strong democracies, protection of human rights and sustainable development. The Conference reaffirmed the decisions of the BSPC Presidency and the BSPC Standing Committee to suspend the Russian parliaments. The Conference also discussed how the current situation might affect future cooperation within the Baltic Sea Region. The delegates adopted amended Statutes and Rules of Procedure to reflect the new historical circumstances considering Russia’s suspension from the Conference and its subsequent decision to withdraw as a member. The high-level speakers reinforced the united front of democratic nations – parliaments, governments and civil society. The opening of the Conference featured speeches by the Speaker of the Swedish Parliament, the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs and the President of the BSPC. The keynote speaker in the first session was former UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson, who spoke about the importance of international cooperation in times of crisis, followed by an open debate. Addresses by the Norwegian and the German Foreign Minister as current and future presidents of the CBSS and speeches by partner organisations followed that. Opening BSPC President Pyry Niemi opened the Annual Conference 2022. The speaker of the Riksdag, Dr Andreas Norlén , welcomed the Conference, noting that this was the fourth time it had been held in Sweden and the first physical Conference since 2019 because of the pandemic. After COVID-19’s shadow had hung over the previous two digital Conferences, another threat dominated the present event, namely Russia’s war against Ukraine, with a huge impact on cooperation in the Baltic Sea region and the BSPC itself. The present times would affect the world for generations to come. On 24 February 2022, they had felt horror at the human suffering and rage at the unjustified war. At the same time, they had realised that the European security was undermined by Russia. The democratic countries had swiftly imposed sanctions on Russia and moved to support Ukraine. The Swedish government had provided military support and three months after the invasion had made the historic decision to apply for membership in NATO, in close partnership with Finland. Dr Norlén stressed the importance of parliaments in safeguarding democratic values and international law. Democracy and freedom of speech were prerequisites for peace. Since 1980, there had been a positive trend of more and more nations moving towards democracy. However, the past two years had seen a reversal towards authoritarianism. The BSPC Conference addressed the vital question of freedom of expression and free media. It was deeply worrying that these aspects had also suffered from backsliding. Threats against journalists were threats against democracy, Dr Norlén stressed. In these troubled times, cooperation, especially among parliaments, was becoming increasingly important, underlined by the 31 years of BSPC history. Parliament was at the heart of democracy, as the Baltic Sea was for their region. He highlighted the BSPC’s youth work, with the second Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum accompanying this conference, to give a voice to young people’s engagement, passion and courage. The Swedish presidency of the BSPC’s theme of democratic sustainability was reflected by the 100-year anniversary of Swedish democracy. In 1918, the first parliamentary decision had been universal and equal suffrage, and the country’s yearlong celebration would end in 2022, 100 years after the first five female members of parliament had taken their seats. Democratic events in the past always seemed assured outcomes, but they should never be taken for granted. Democratic values, participation, equality before the law and trust in the democratic system had to be protected and developed. Ms Ann Linde , Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, highlighted the serious backdrop of Russia’s unjustified aggression, a flagrant violation of international law. Sweden and the democratic community demanded that Russia cease its invasion and unconditionally withdraw immediately from the entire territory of Ukraine. The repeated attacks by Russians against civilians were appalling. All violations of international law had to be systematically documented and investigated. Respect for the fundamental role of international law was at the core of all international and regional cooperation. Russia had for the foreseeable future disqualified itself from all such cooperation. The democratic nations’ support for Ukraine had to continue during and after the war. Ms Linde pointed out the increased repression within Russia, restricting freedom of expression and other human rights, with Russian state media offering a distorted image of reality. Whenever the respect for democracy was compromised, the risk of armed conflict around the world increased. Where there was accountability through free media, freedom of speech, an independent judiciary or the risk of being voted out of office, there was restraint for governments’ use of violence. Therefore, cooperation to protect the region’s democratic institutions was of the utmost importance. They had to unite behind those whose voices had been silenced by the Russian aggression – free media, independent journalists and human rights defenders. In 2019, Sweden had launched a Drive for Democracy as a foreign policy priority that should be taken up around the Baltic Sea. Russia’s break with cooperation came at a time when climate change and other global threats had increased the need for collaboration. Sweden was determined to continue the important work of the CBSS through its Action Plan, highlighting three vital areas: firstly, supporting Ukraine through combating human trafficking; secondly people-to-people cooperation, not least with the young people; thirdly, the environment where the Stockholm +50 conference had given new impetus to the green transition. The democratic countries of the Baltic Sea region had to work together to preserve their freedom and open societies. In his opening remarks, BSPC President Pyry Niemi reflected on the hope a year before that the vaccine would bring better days. Now, though, they were facing a brutal war in Europe. As proud as he had been the year before of the BSPC’s continued cooperation, he highlighted this year’s fast and united response to the horrifying situation. On 25 February 2022, President Niemi, Vice President Johannes Schraps and Secretary General Bodo Bahr had at once adjourned the Standing Committee meeting planned for 28 February. In a statement of that day, they had condemned the Russian military attack, appealing to Russia to cease its aggression and arrive at a peaceful solution. On 12 March, the heads of the BSPC delegations had reiterated this. Furthermore, they had decided to freeze all their relations with the Russian member parliaments of the BSPC. In April, the Standing Committee had reaffirmed the statement and the suspension of the Russian parliaments as well as amending their Rules of Procedure to underline the BSPC’s peace-oriented core values based on international law. Earlier that morning, the Conference had adopted these revised rules. The BSPC’s main goal for thirty years had been to overcome the Cold War and contribute to stability and prosperity in the whole Baltic Sea region. The current war had energised the need for cooperation. The BSPC had to remain to promote democratic development in the region. The current Swedish presidency followed the headline of sustainable democracy and had focused on common challenges in a changing world. Preserving the democratic cornerstones of the BSPC had been their priority throughout the year. These were also connected to the Swedish parliament’s celebration of 100 years of democracy. That reminded them that the right to equal representation, the right to vote and democratic values could not be taken for granted but had to be defended every day. Trust in the democratic system, inclusion and participation were further vital pillars of the presidency, as evidenced by the second Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum the Saturday before. The sixty participants represented the future of the Baltic Sea region – the title of the current conference. President Niemi mentioned the efforts of the BSPC towards a closer cooperation with the Baltic Sea NGO Network and highlighted the preceding November’s statement voicing the BSPC’s concerns about the situation at the Belarusian border with Poland. The war in Ukraine had dominated the April meeting of the Standing Committee in Warsaw, with a focus on the migration of refugees out of Ukraine. Climate change and biodiversity had been on top of the BSPC’s agenda through their working group. The BSPC’s cooperation with partner organisations had been further deepened, among them the CBSS and HELCOM as well as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean, the Nordic Council and the Baltic Assembly. It had been said that the Baltic Sea was not just a sea but a bridge between neighbours. The cooperation was largely built around concrete issues concerning the sea, the heart of their region. More than that, it was about political democratic dialogue between neighbours and friends. The Russian invasion of Ukraine had wounded the work of the BSPC. However, with new strength and revised Rules of Procedure, the BSPC would continue to fight for democracy as well as environmental sustainability, in many ways stronger than before. First Session Peaceful and reliable neighbourliness and intense cooperation in times of crisis BSPC President Pyry Niemi introduced the incentive speaker, Mr Jan Eliasson, the former deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations and former minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden. In light of the greatest challenges of this generation – the pandemic, the cruel war in the middle of Europe, an upcoming catastrophic global famine as well as the ongoing climate crisis, made the speaker’s input all the more valuable. Mr Jan Eliasson saw the world at a crucial moment in history, with their actions of great significance for their countries, the region, Europe and the world. In light of Russia’s brutal aggression, he highlighted Ukrainian resistance and resilience. He saw this as a challenge for all of them to show courage and resilience in standing by Ukraine. The stakes were high – the sovereignty of Ukraine, the European security order, the cohesion and strength of the EU and of NATO, the respect of international law and principles and norms for international cooperation, global food safety, and most importantly, the standing of democracy. Democracy was fighting an uphill battle today, in light of backsliding from democracy or authoritarian systems becoming totalitarian. All of this made for a serious agenda for all of them. The people of the Baltic Sea region could look back at a very long period of collaboration, for reasons of geography, history, interests – economic, political, social – and today, the shared values. Mr Eliasson stressed how the outcome of the Second World War, with the UN Human Rights Charter, the Charter on Refugees, had shown the world another direction history could take. Yet the Cold War was another outcome, a dark time that came to end with the Fall of the Wall, bringing independence to previously Soviet-controlled nations. After that, there was a period of hope and expansion of possibilities. The current Russian move was trying to change everything in a drastic manner, yet Mr Eliason saw several positive aspects on which could be built: Democratic nations were united more than ever by interests but also by values. Multilateralism could be strengthened to fight three major battles in the world: the existential issue of the climate crisis, the fight for democracy and international cooperation. In his view, the most important word in the world was “together”. Mr Himanshu Gulati from Norway raised Sweden and Finland’s application for NATO membership, asking Mr Eliasson about further paradigm changes in the European security system. The speaker saw particular potential in the future of the Arctic which could be a playground for power interests, but he saw it important to maintain principles, such as environmental concerns, in that regard. The primary result, though, was that the Nordic countries were now unified and could play a much larger role vis-à-vis the EU and NATO. Ms Bryndís Haraldsdottír noted a change of the dynamic in the Arctic Council in which Russia was faced by all-NATO countries now. Mr Jan Eliasson stressed that international rules had to be enforced in an active approach by the other countries of the Arctic Council. Mr Johannes Schraps of Germany wondered how a lack of communication could be overcome in the long run. As former deputy secretary general of the UN, Mr Jan Eliasson pointed to the principle of universality in that organisation. He believed in a strong reaction to a blatant breach of values, yet it was up to every organisation to determine how to improve conditions. Mr Kai Mykkänen of Finland and Prof Jānis Vucāns of Latvia and the Baltic Assembly wondered about the future protection of the Baltic States. Mr Jan Eliasson did not see the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO making a significant difference as Sweden had already cooperated in security affairs with the Baltic States. He highlighted the united popular front of Poland and in particular Germany as well as the regional parliaments in their military support of the Baltic States. There was a tremendous potential in Baltic Sea cooperation, despite the ongoing war. Mr Kacper Płażyński from Poland called for more heavy weapons to be transferred to Ukraine to prevent the war from lasting many years. Mr Jan Eliasson agreed that if the Russian aggression was not meant with credible military opposition, Russia could meet its goal. On the other hand, he cautioned against escalation that might spill over the boundaries of the current conflict. As a life-long diplomat, compromise in this conflict likely meant ceding territory and thus breaking international law. This dilemma was extremely complicated to resolve. BSPC Vice-President Johannes Schraps explained that the following speeches would focus on their work in general, their values and fundamental challenges. In a video message, Ms Anniken Huitfeldt , the Minister of Foreign Affairs from Norway, pointed out that the Russian war against Ukraine had changed the map of Europe, not least through Finland and Sweden’s likely joining of NATO. Both the BSPC and the CBSS had suspended the membership of Russia in their organisations, allowing the democratic countries to move forward. In the Kristiansand Declaration, the foreign ministers of the CBSS member states had stated that Russia bore full responsibility for the war, acknowledging Ukraine’s enormous suffering and sacrifice in defence of their sovereignty and freedom. Ms Huitfeldt underlined that the CBSS regional networks against trafficking in human beings, for the protection of vulnerable children and the civil protection network were active in their support of the Ukrainian refugees. Yet the issues that had been of importance before the war continued to be crucial and had to be tackled to keep the Baltic Sea region globally competitive. Some 30 years of history of both the BSPC and the CBSS had shown the value of integration and cooperation in accelerating the region’s rapid development. The European Green Deal and REPower EU would provide speed and direction for the next step, the green and digital transformation. German Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ms Annalena Baerbock , spoke via a video message to the Conference about the value of cooperation among the democratic countries around the Baltic Sea. As upcoming president of the CBSS, she reflected on that organisation’s renewed importance in the present time of upheaval, highlighting its strategic value, not least in terms of energy. To that end, the German government had set three priorities for their presidency: firstly, a massive expansion of offshore wind power in the Baltic Sea in order to secure the energy supply, supported by a Baltic Offshore Forum with stakeholders from the public and private sectors to initiate concrete wind power projects; secondly, the intensification of youth work by turning the Baltic Sea Youth Platform into a permanent institution, accompanied by a Youth Ministerial Meeting in the run-up to the Ministerial Session of the Council, dealing with digitalisation, the climate crisis and the green transition; thirdly, the removal of the vast amount of sea-dumped ammunitions from the Baltic Sea through bringing together relevant experts to accelerate the recovery of these munitions. Ms Baerbock reiterated the need for Europe to stand together against Russian aggression, both at the moment and in the recovery period. The current chairman of the CBSS Senior Officials from the Norwegian presidency, Mr Olav Berstad, was on hand to answer questions. BSPC Vice President Johannes Schraps wondered if the topic of sea-dumped munitions had already been deepened at the Kristiansand meeting. Mr Olav Berstad spoke about the Kristiansand Declaration with its strong message of unity, highlighting also the safe and secure CBSS priority as well as a move away from fossil fuels, Russia withdrawing from the cooperative framework after the Cold War, the 30 years of progress since the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the Vilnius II Declaration providing a roadmap until 2030, with the hope that Russia would catch up and meet the goals in the future. The topic of ammunitions had not been raised; Mr Berstad pointed out the presence of sea-dumped munitions in the North as well as the Baltic Sea. BSPC Vice President Johannes Schraps moved forward to the addresses from other parliamentary assemblies and BSPC observer and partner organisations. The President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean (PAM), Hon Gennaro Migliore , highlighted the long-standing friendship between the PAM and the BSPC, as evidenced by their Memorandum of Understanding signed in November 2021. The Russian aggression had led all of them to reconsider what was the most secure environment for their countries. It represented a turning point in world history. PAM had condemned the invasion as early as 24 February 2022. International law and the UN Charter had been broken by a member of the UN Security Council. Around 15,000 suspected war crimes had been reported in Ukraine in the course of a cultural genocide, reminiscent of Nazi Germany before World War II. PAM had worked to establish a regional distribution hub for aid for refugees in Romania. Mr Migliore pointed out the food crisis triggered by the Russian war that could lead to famine and new conflicts in the Euro-Mediterranean area as well as Africa. He believed that interparliamentary work would contribute to ensuring the necessary political commitments to address these challenges and pave the way towards future actions. The PAM stood with Ukraine not just for their but also for the democratic countries’ survival. Ms Cecilia Widegren , the Vice President of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), noted that the IPU and the BSPC shared the same aim and mission – stability, peace and security, democracy, freedom, sustainability and prosperity. The IPU was the parliamentary dimension of the UN. She noted that the IPU had received a total of 8 Nobel Peace Prizes. Moreover, Ukraine was also a distinguished member of the IPU, receiving support from that organisation. She pointed out that there were more than 70 conflicts around the globe at this moment, more than there had been after World War II. Members of parliament had a task to fulfil in pursuing peace, alongside governments and civil society. In that regard, she highlighted the role of dialogue between opponents that could be opened by parliamentarians. Ms Josefin Calring , the secretary-general of the Baltic Sea NGO network, explained that a closer and deeper cooperation between sectors of society was necessary in a time after a pandemic and during a war. Civil society had worked tirelessly to meet the needs of refugees, mostly women and children, proving the role of NGOs in acute measures but also as civil defence both within and across borders. Trust was generated through people cooperating but could not be taken for granted, as had been shown during the pandemic. Ms Calring underlined that it was the people who were responsible for shaping the future they wanted to live in. Rather than talking about visions, urgent actions were required among and between people, civil society, business, academia and politics. A strong and vital civil society was the foundation for a strong democracy, the protection of human rights and sustainable development. It had to be involved, invited and prioritised in decision-making, provided with long-term funding and political will. The Baltic Sea NGO network stood ready to do its part for a more integrated Baltic Sea region. Ms Annika Annerby Jansson , President of the Regional Assembly, Region Skåne, also pointed out that the Russian aggression against Ukraine was an attack on shared values such as democracy, peace and cooperation. It showed the world that these values were fragile and had to be protected; moreover, it also showed them the strength and willpower of coming together in cooperation. She highlighted the incredible actions by NGOs, cities, regions and their national and European associations in Europe and beyond, providing shelter for refugees and emergency support for their Ukrainian neighbours. But it was also important to begin thinking about how to go forward in supporting the recovery and reconstruction of Ukraine. Ms Jansson highlighted the importance of cooperation. This was reinforced by the upcoming launch of the initiative European Alliance of Cities and Regions for the reconstruction of Ukraine, an international coordination platform, co-led by the European Commission and the Ukrainian government. It would serve to facilitate peer-to-peer cooperation and twinning partnerships between cities and regions within the EU with counterparts in Ukraine. Furthermore, it created a more secure framework to minimise the risks that local and regional authorities could expose themselves to by undertaking individual initiatives with Ukraine in an ongoing context of conflict. The official launch was planned at the next CoR plenary at the end of June. Ms Janssen reminded the Conference that multi-level governance was even more important in times of crisis, recalling the migration crisis of 2015 when regions and municipalities had dealt with the unprecedented flow of refugees. She hoped that this multi-level cooperation would be just as important in the future of Ukraine. Earlier than her planned participation in a later session, Ms Lilian Busse , outgoing chairwoman of HELCOM, addressed the Conference about biodiversity. The German presidency had been dominated by the corona pandemic as there was only a single in-person meeting, ending in a difficult geopolitical situation. However, the new Baltic Sea Action Plan had been adopted in the preceding October, with 199 actions and measures to be implemented by 2030. At the same time, a regional action plan on marine litter had been adopted as well as one on underwater noise and the HELCOM Science Agenda. The Baltic Sea Action Plan dealt with biodiversity, eutrophication, hazardous substances and litter as well as sea-based activities. The horizontal or cross-cutting issues were monitoring, marine-spatial planning, economic and social aspects, knowledge exchange and awareness-raising, hotspots, financing and climate change. Ms Busse pointed out that all the 199 actions and measures fed into the overarching concern of climate change. A large number directly affected biodiversity, such as the implementation of the Science Agenda, closing the knowledge gap on blue carbon, developing a strategic approach on ocean acidification but also developing work under HELCOM to limit the greenhouse gas emissions. Under the header of sea-based activities, she mentioned sustainable shipping, with an eye on the greenhouse gas discussions of the IMO. HELCOM and Baltic Earth had produced the Baltic Sea Fact Sheet as a summary for policymakers on the latest scientific knowledge on how climate change was currently affecting the Baltic Sea. It provided information on existing knowledge, what had yet to be determined and the political relevance in several indicators. The actions and measures of the Baltic Sea Action Plan had to be implemented on an ambitious level while the knowledge gaps outlined in the Fact Sheet had to be filled. The present geopolitical situation was making this difficult, Ms Busse conceded. Since 24 February, HELCOM had postponed all meetings and instituted a strategic pause until the end of June when the chairmanship would be handed over to Latvia. They were currently in discussions how to move forward during these difficult times. Pre-Session on administrative matters BSPC President Pyry Niemi welcomed the attendees to a special session devoted to approving the decisions made in the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. In light of the unwarranted Russian aggression, the BSPC Standing Committee had decided to suspend the memberships of the Russian parliaments in the BSPC and to change the BSPC Rules of Procedure to reflect the historical importance of the moment and to allow for the suspension or expulsion of members violating the fundamental principles of the BSPC. President Niemi noted that the ongoing efforts to track a new course for the BSPC without Russia had proceeded at a fast pace. That also concerned that the Russian parliaments had withdrawn from the BSPC. Therefore, the Conference approved the suspension of the Russian parliaments from the BSPC. The amendments to the Rules of Procedure mainly concern fundamental additions. These are also expressed in the new name ‘Statutes and Rules of Procedure’. These include the fundamentals and core principles to which the BSPC has unanimously committed itself in a series of resolutions as defined foundations of its cooperation. Furthermore, now the procedure is regulated if a Member State blatantly violates the foundations and core principles by the flagrant violation of the rules of international law. Further regulations result from the suspension and withdrawal of the Russian parliaments. Additionally, administrative adjustments to the decisions on the BSPC strategies and work programmes have been made on this occasion. BSPC Vice-President Johannes Schraps underlined that it was crucial for the BSPC to express the reasons behind their decisions to the public in a declaration. BSPC Secretary-General Bodo Bahr read out a draft declaration to explain the changes and the historical context in which the amendments were made. Prof Jānis Vucāns and Ms Bryndís Haraldsdottír contributed to the debate. The Conference adopted the new Statutes and Rules of Procedure which were supplemented the next day by an adaptation of a further rule on administrative matters and agreed to publish the mentioned declaration in conjunction with the publication of the new Statutes and Rules of Procedure .

The Future of the Baltic Sea Region The answer to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: strong democracies, protection of human rights and sustainable development In a time of fundamental upheaval, the conference will discuss the Future of the Baltic Sea region. The Swedish capital sets the ideal scene for the meeting of delegates from 20 parliaments and parliamentary organisations and their guests from the Baltic Sea region and beyond. The 31 st BSPC is taking place in Stockholm, Sweden. The themes on the agenda for this conference are peaceful and reliable neighbourliness and intense cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region in times of crisis; democracy and freedom of expression; mitigating climate change; preserving biodiversity and adapting to climate change as well as demographic challenges in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine; migration, labour market and the social welfare model. On Saturday, 11 June, the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum of 2022 will take place in connection to the Annual Conference of the BSPC, in an effort to promote dialogue between young people of the region and policymakers. The purpose is also to capture input from the young generation. Their representatives will discuss with parliamentarians how to strengthen democracy and peaceful original cooperation in times of crisis, ways towards a greener, stronger and more biodiverse Baltic Sea as well as climate change. On Sunday, the first day of the conference, the BSPC Drafting Committee and the BSPC Standing Committee will hold their first sessions in the Riksdag building. They will deliberate possible compromises in difficult policy areas and discuss the core principles of the BSPC in light of the current crucial challenges. In the afternoon, the delegates will visit the Baltic Sea Science Centre. On Monday, the conference will be opened by the Speaker of the Riksdag, Dr Andreas Norlen, the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ann Linde and BSPC President Pyry Niemi, followed by a speech by the former Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations and former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, Jan Eliasson, as well as addresses from the Norwegian and German Ministers for Foreign Affairs. Until Tuesday at noon, the delegates will intensively deepen in four sessions the themes of the conference. More Information here.

The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) – gathered digital – unanimously passed on 30 August 2021 the following 30 th BSPC resolution: Conference Resolution 30 BSPC 30 BSPC Resolution DE 30 BSPC Resolution LT 30 BSPC Resolution RUS The priorities of the 30 th annual conference and resolution so far relate to the – Cooperation in the Region, Peaceful and reliable neighbourliness and intense cooperation built on inclusive participation and trust in the democratic system, – Democracy in a changing media landscape as well as – Climate change and biodiversity. It is customary that the delegations to the BSPC – or the parliaments as a whole based on an appropriate decision – inform their governments about the outcome of the respective annual conference. Furthermore, with the BSPC resolution, the delegations call on the governments in the Baltic Sea Region, the CBSS, the EU, and other pertinent actors to implement a range of actions or measures. The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference and its Standing Committee appreciate very much that the governments from the Baltic Sea area again sent statements on the implementation of calls for action in the 30 th resolution. Many comments were very detailed and essential for political development in the areas addressed. Some parliaments explicitly decide that their governments implement the resolution within their competencies and report to Parliament on its implementation. To receive a comprehensive overview of the actions taken by the governments in the Baltic Sea Region in response to the resolution of the Digital 30 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference, the members of the Standing Committee have asked their government to inform as far as possible on the following: Which measures, projects or actions have been a) planned, b) initiated, and c) implemented in support of the 30 th BSPC resolution, especially regarding the calls for action? The statements and information provided by the governments form a unique and valuable overview of developments in the respective policy fields in the Baltic Sea Region. Based on these statements and comprehensive information, parliamentarians can track progress in different policy fields and identify further action needs. The compilation will be updated as soon as further statements are received. You can download the statements of the governments here .