News

The BSPC Rapporteur on Sustainable Tourism, Ms Birgit Hesse, President of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, has published her comprehensive 2022 –2023 Report on Developments in Sustainable Tourism. This fifth BSPC Report on Sustainable Tourism in the Baltic Sea Region follows the established tradition. It provides an overview of the region’s recent political trends and projects connected to sustainable tourism. In addition, it presents the main developments in sustainable tourism, informs about the core meetings and events of the past two years, and contains prospects and outlooks. The introduction provides comparative figures on the development in this policy field. It includes information on the current and further impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine on the tourism sector and further crises. In this respect, it serves as a basis for discussing tourism development in the Baltic Sea region, considering the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the current and future challenges but also offers a reflection on the prospects aiming at raising the sustainability and resilience of Baltic Sea tourism in the future. The report can be downloaded here and on the Rapporteur’s webpage.

The Standing Committee of the BSPC met in the Ozeaneum of Stralsund, Germany – face to face with the ‘population’ of the Baltic Sea. They engaged with presentations on ocean science and literacy, the protection of the Baltic Sea, and its meaning for the region. Another presentation highlighted the importance of peatland restoration in climate change mitigation and strengthening the region’s resilience. After that, the Standing Committee was informed about the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity’s results after three years of work, agreed on the subsequent working group and discussed possible contents of the 32 nd BSPC Resolution. About 35 participants, representatives and delegations of the BSPC members from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, Estonia, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Iceland, Latvia, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the Nordic Council, Norway, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden participated in the meeting. Introduction BSPC President Johannes Schraps opened the meeting, praising the UNESCO World Heritage site of their host city, Stralsund, and its long history in Baltic cooperation, from the Hanseatic League over having been part of Sweden. He also noted that the CBSS Foreign Ministers’ Summit and the VASAB Ministerial Conference had just occurred in Stralsund’s sister city of Wismar. President Schraps had participated in the CBSS summit. Presentations Prof Dr Burkard Baschek , the Scientific Director of the Ozeaneum, welcomed the Standing Committee to the facility. He explained that the German Ocean Museum consisted of four museums: the now fifteen-year-old Ozeaneum, the old Marine Museum, the Natureum, and the Nautineum. He underlined that the task of a museum, such as the Ozeaneum, was to educate, in this case, to bring across knowledge and understanding of the oceans. He said there were many daunting tasks ahead of the Baltic Sea region, such as climate change, the war in Ukraine, and the many stresses on the ocean itself. The need to act was very urgent. Resilience was key in what had to be implemented – in preserving democracy and giving the people a perspective for the future but also in strengthening ecosystems on land and in the sea during climate change. Only a truly healthy ecosystem could make it into the future. The problem was that, on the one hand, ecosystems had already been under duress before climate change, and, on the other, no one really knew what a healthy ecosystem actually looked like. They had lost the baseline of what that was. It was easy to destroy something but much harder to recover. Decision-makers had to keep in mind that protection was vital. At the German Ocean Museum, their work dealt much with marine mammals, such as the harbour porpoise. There were western and eastern populations, with the western still healthy but the eastern facing extinction. Among others, by-catch in fishing was a problem. There was also good news as the grey seal was returning, although fishing conflicts had to be tackled. Prof Baschek himself was a physical oceanographer rather than a biologist. His field brought together much of the Ozeaneum’s tasks, both biological and physical processes. In particular, he worked on small ocean eddies – currents transporting nutrients, oxygen, and energy. They were meandering back and forth, moving around. Science was only now realising how important the small ones were in stirring up the ocean and fuelling the water’s life. Very short-lived at around 12 hours, up to a few kilometres in size, they were everywhere and were estimated to provide half of the global phytoplankton production. Phytoplankton generated half of the world’s oxygen; thus, small ocean eddies created every fourth breath a human took. Prof Baschek stressed that this process had long been overlooked and thus was not included in ocean modelling. Likewise, many other unknowns in the oceans had major impacts on the world. At the same time, he stressed that having such unknowns could not be an excuse not to act against climate change. The museum’s job was to explore the oceans in their many facets and to supply facts. Decision-makers had to consider these facts but also demands from the population and other aspects. He closed by pointing out that even to the informed observer, it was difficult to picture what was going on in the oceans below the surface. If that devastation were happening on land, there would be a huge outcry. Thus, he called for fully protected marine areas. Just because something was hidden from view did not mean that it did not need protection. Ms Anna Kassautzki remarked that the lack of borders in the oceans made cooperation as in the BSPC so necessary. Ms Eka von Kalben asked if complete protection was possible. Secretary General Bodo Bahr wondered if closer cooperation with the polar ocean researchers could benefit work in the Baltic Sea. He further asked if recent climate change and biodiversity treaties would include enough measures or if more was needed. Prof Baschek stated that the ocean could not be fully protected, with zero impact of any sort. Even in the Mariana Trench, plastic waste could be found; climate change would eventually reach every part of the ocean. However, the immediate impact from, e.g., fisheries, tourism, or construction could be barred. He added that many impacts were not even considered, such as wind farms churning up the ocean and mixing the two-layer structure of the ocean, thus affecting the transport of nutrients. Furthermore, much could be done locally to improve the ocean’s health, such as the recovery of seagrass beds. Whether enough had been done in ocean protection, far strides had been taken, but more should be protected especially the coastal ocean. As to the different roles of science and politics, he found it crucial that science not step towards opinions but stick to facts. That would not preclude being pushy. Looking for joint solutions by all stakeholders for sustainable oceans was indispensable. Such solutions, found by the wealthy and well-educated nations of the Baltic Sea region, had to be simple enough to be translated to other regions of the world. Bodo Bahr noted that the intended BSPC’s calls to action to the governments included the protection of coastal regions and ecosystems. Representing the Interdisciplinary Centre for Baltic Sea Research at the University of Greifswald (IFZO), Prof Dr Sebastian van der Linden , one of the Speakers of the IFZO, and Dr Alexander Drost , the Academic Manager of the IFZO, said that the h umanities, social sciences, and biology came together in their studies of the Baltic Sea . All their teaching and networking were focused on this region, seeking to understand what kept the region together and what challenges lay ahead. Key was to transfer this knowledge and make it applicable. Dr Drost said that in 2019, the Centre had launched its conceptual phase. Financed by the Ministry of Science and Education, they had seven research clusters working in all fields, looking to integrate all the Baltic Sea region research at the University of Greifswald and make it more visible. One of the main elements of the IFZO was the annual conference which served to engender a dialogue between science and politics. The latest dealt with predictable futures and the impact of insecurity, with an eye to systemic risks. One finding was that crises rippled through other systems, with social responses amplifying some effects. The round table discussion, featuring representatives from several countries, considered the “Zeitenwende” (so-to-speak the sea change) in politics, society, trade, and science. He highlighted the idea of critical junctures, such as the present one, where the re-securitisation of the Baltic Sea region was part of an ongoing process, requiring new identities, changing policies, and the effects of the war in Ukraine. Here, early warning systems and guiding principles for national security efforts were needed. The issue of trust towards Russia had been addressed, along with the historic divide in western and eastern views. Dr Drost underscored that the war in Ukraine had not been the intended topic of the discussion but had dominated, nevertheless. Interdisciplinary research in the Baltic Sea region involved the sustainability transformation and other aspects requiring multiple points of view. By disseminating this knowledge through events, articles, and podcasts, the IFZO aimed to guide the transformation efforts. Examples of the IFZO’s work were presented, such as a paper on Lithuania proactively driving its energy independence from Russia which also strengthened the country’s resilience in terms of security. Another article dealt with the NATO expansion and the new role of Germany in the region, with a renewed willingness to engage militarily in the region’s defence. Thirdly, the idea of ocean literacy was the topic of a third publication, i.e., that people had to be enabled to act sustainably on the shores of the Baltic Sea, by teaching them the effects of their actions on the waters. Next, their research on health systems and innovations therein were mentioned, e.g., the respective digitisation. Cultural impacts on these transformation processes were also investigated, such as the meaning of the “Z” symbol in Russia. Humanities research on the region, as in the past 20 years of the centre’s work, had looked, for instance, into keeping the Baltic Sea region in the global context, such as in artistry. Recently, the IFZO had expanded its interdisciplinary range, now including natural sciences and geography. The latter supplemented the humanities and social sciences approach. For instance, a repository of geo data had been put together as basic information for further research. This was intended to be developed into an atlas. An example was looking into the massive forest fires in Poland between 2015 and 2021, analysing not only the damage but also the composition of tree species, post-fire recovery, or the impact of former Soviet military bases on the event. The IFZO was accompanying the transformation of the Baltic Sea region with relevant knowledge for the societies to cope with these processes. Their research was to promote further investigations. Moreover, the Baltic Sea region was to be perceived as a global area rather than the periphery of Europe. Finally, their data was to help preserve the natural space of the area. BSPC President Schraps noted that the discussion in the BSPC had changed since the departure of the Russian delegations. He wondered what opportunities the IFZO representatives saw in the new situation, e.g., to discuss new topics. Ms Bryndís Haraldsdóttir asked about the science community’s reaction to the severed ties with Russia. Ms Eka von Kalben contributed. Mr Enn Eesmaa asked if there were studies on possible harm that Russia could inflict on the west, such as the pollution in the St Petersburg area. Dr Drost noted that the block of Russia had forced scientists to remap their work into new networks, sometimes even stop projects altogether because there no longer was access to Russian archives. On the other hand, they could now evaluate how past decisions had been taken or not and what path dependencies had existed and could now be reformed. Furthermore, Dr Drost underlined that Russia’s actions would continue to impact the environment in the Baltic Sea region, regardless of diplomatic status. He concurred that the security issue, in particular with regard to Kaliningrad, had to be addressed. A respective policy brief had been produced by Polish researchers. Regarding cooperation with Russia, that was very difficult. Some countries forbade all official collaboration, although some individual contacts were continued, even though this had become more cumbersome. Moreover, a large number of Russian scientists supported their regime, making them and their information less trustworthy. Prof van der Linden added that the security issues had come to dominate the discussions at the centre, but his field of natural sciences allowed him to speak about the intentional flooding of the Kakhovka dam in southern Ukraine. His side was not analysing possible similar incidents, admitting that the idea of such warfare frightened him. Even more devastating processes were conceivable, such as intentional pollution or emissions. He doubted that something like that or, e.g., intentional forest fires could be stopped. Mr Enn Eesmaa painted a scenario of a staged terror attack on a nuclear site. Mr Staffan Eklöf asked if the IFZO also studied the shifts in domestic attitudes towards topics such as Russia. Dr Drost confirmed the latter. One of their clusters focused on new nationalism in the Baltic Sea region, dealing with the last 10 – 15 years and thus populism, right-wing movements, and the latter’s reach into youth. This was affecting the crises as well as the implementation of resilience patterns. The IFZO was organising its second summer school on anti-feminism and antisemitism this August. Mr Eklöf wondered about the root causes being studied rather than the responses, mentioning that cohesion and trust were diminishing, especially in areas with high numbers of immigrants in Sweden. Dr Drost noted that the roots were part of their social and humanities research, but responses were used in this field to determine the root causes. Data was first collected, then provided for analysis. At this point, they were still in the former stage in their cluster. As an example, he explained that in Latvia and Estonia, questionnaires were distributed in schools to determine the various attitudes between speakers of Latvian, Estonian, and Russian, looking for which terms were used to describe certain phenomena. This was analysed by historians, linguists, and political scientists, together with legal scientists. Mr Jan Peters , Managing Director of the Succow Foundation, spoke about peatlands and their key role in the European Green Deal policies. The Succow Foundation was one of the partners of the Greifswald Mire Centre, a science-policy interface, joined by the University of Greifswald. Their goal was to disseminate their findings into politics but also into society for a better understanding of peatland’s importance. An area was called peatland when the peat layer was at least 30 centimetres thick. Peat was organic soil formed in situ from died-off subsurface biomass under constant water conditions. With water, peat accumulated but decayed without. Functioning as a carbon sink, it was also key to biodiversity as well as nutrient and water retention, increasing climate change resilience. Drying peat emitted CO 2 , nitrous oxide, and methane. Thus, the carbon footprint of dairy products from drained peatlands was 4 – 5 times as high as that from other areas. Based on the extensive maps from the Greifswald Mire Centre, the Baltic Sea region was the most important peat area in Europe. This also included vast peatlands in Russia, Mr Peters noted. Unfortunately, 25 % of all peatlands in Europe were degraded, rising to 50 % within EU member states. In Germany, 95 % were drained. This was primarily due to agriculture and forestry but also peat extraction. The result was that a quarter of all agricultural and land use emissions in the EU stemmed from peatlands, despite taking up only 3 % of the area. Globally, the EU was the second-largest emitter of peatland carbon dioxide, right after Indonesia. Thus, it was necessary to rethink and restore peatlands. To that end, new ways of utilising and managing peatlands had to be developed. At the same time, the social component was required, visualising the end result and making it liveable. Alternative income options from wetted peat included paludiculture – wetland crops – or carbon farming schemes – rewarding emission reduction through private or public payment schemes. The products from peatlands could be used in construction, insulation, bioenergy and bio refinery. Mr Peters said that major rewetting efforts could turn the Baltic Sea region into an innovation cluster for paludiculture. Looking at the European Green Deal, peat was crucial to fulfilling the targets set in various policy directives, such as the carbon removing framework or the soil health law. Research, such as Horizon 2020 programmes, were supporting these efforts. Counteracting the Green Deal, though, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was unfortunately still the main driver of peatland degradation due to payments for drained areas. A new standard for good agricultural practice had been established in the CAP, including the protection of wetlands, but this was delayed in many member states until 2025. Even with the reforms, Mr Peters criticised the soft regulations and that little support was given to climate benefits such as rewetting efforts. He moved on to the EU Nature Restoration Law, the instrument for the 2030 Biodiversity Strategy, which focused on alternative uses of peatlands such as paludiculture rather than renaturalisation. The Succow Foundation had analysed what these measures meant in terms of meeting the climate targets in peatlands. By 2050, when the EU was planning to be climate-neutral, there would still be quite substantial emissions from peatlands, up to 25 – 30 megatons in Germany and up to 25 in Poland. The current plans failed to fully exploit the carbon reduction potential from rewetting peatlands. There were specific projects funded by the EU under the Horizon Green Deal call, the largest of which was the Waterlands Project, implementing action sites for rewetting as well as knowledge sites for research and data sharing. They were developing better practices for rewetting. Further projects were Alpha Wetlands and Wet Horizons generating data while OrgBalt dealt with organic soils and peatlands in the Baltic States. Mr Peters closed by saying that rewetted peatlands were still islands within drained seas. Conceding that paludiculture was more expensive than conventional land use, he hoped that the Green Deal policies would allow a return to living landscapes of benefit beyond the area itself. Ms Hanna Katrín Friðriksson asked how political support for rewetting purposes should exactly be implemented. Mr Staffan Eklöf recounted highly varied results of rewetting forest areas in Sweden, wondering how geology determined the most suitable sites. He further asked if carbon sequestration in wood was included in the calculation of CO 2 emissions. Ms Anna Kassautzki underlined that rewetted peatland could not catch fire as was currently the case in Germany, adding that the water retention of peatlands was highly desirable. Mr Peters agreed that support for farmers was crucial as individuals could not easily rewet their land alone. It was most important to find consensus among landowners and land users in one region, with a caretaker appoint to advise on and coordinate the process. He referred to a Dutch model of farming collectives. Here, he highlighted the concept of living labs which gave scientists and practitioners safe spaces to test their methods. Aside from farmers, the industry also had to be taken into account as they had to buy the products and thus finance the efforts. Regarding forest rewetting, Mr Peters concurred that it was a delicate and complex problem, adding that forestry, after all, was inherently a long-term business. At the same time, life-cycle analyses had to determine how the carbon originally sequestered in trees, whether in short-term products like paper or long-term storage such as construction. This was a knowledge gap, he conceded, that e.g., the University of Greifswald was currently working on. He cautioned that the long-term storage of peat should not be sacrificed to the short- or mid-term storage of wood grown on that land. He cited Finland’s continuous cover forestry as an excellent model which allowed the forest to remain while raising the water level. There was no one-size-fits-all solution, he underscored. Mr Peters went on to warn that wildfires, including peat fires, were accelerating at an alarming rate, releasing huge amounts of carbon. Thus, it was crucial to keep the water as long as possible in the land, establish local cooling measures and have good growth conditions for plants. Again, this pointed to Russia: His side had had a large-scale project on peat fires in European Russia which had been abandoned over the war in Ukraine. He called this a catastrophe for peatland protection. Mr Himanshu Gulati asked if recent behaviours had made the trends worse. Mr Enn Eesmaa stressed the importance of drinking water, wondering if the vast reservoir of fresh water in the Baltic Sea region might save southern regions in a future disaster. Mr Bodo Bahr pointed out that tropical forest countries used the continued large-scale CO2-emitting use of peatlands as an argument to maintain their behaviour concerning the use of tropical forests and wondered whether this argument continued to be significant in the international climate debate. Mr Peters did not see any change in the situation in recent years but cautioned that drained peatlands continued to emit carbon dioxide without there having to be new drainage operations. However, knowledge had changed, precisely the huge amount emitted by peat. Awareness had grown, but there was a long way to go before it was widely known by the public. Regarding drinking water, he underlined peatland’s sponge-like behaviour that could maintain water even in drought conditions. That helped keep the water level high in other regions. He pointed out that the German capital of Berlin received most of its drinking water from peatland. Similar rewetting efforts were pursued by Scottish water companies. He could not predict the future but stressed the manifold benefits of restoring peatlands. Considering the international sphere, he confirmed that this argument was still being made. Mr Peters called peatlands the Baltic Sea region’s rain forests. He noted their connections to Indonesia, citing the raging peat fires there and the government’s strict efforts to restore peatlands, already having restored two million hectares in two years – more than the EU had restored in its entire history. As the second-largest emitter, the EU also had the obligation – and the money – to act on a large scale. Policies had to support these efforts. Ms Kassautzki underlined that farmers were open to rewetting but needed guidance on how to do this and how to continue living with – and using – that land. On the other hand, the peat industry threatened that stricter regulations in Germany would make them harvest the peat in the Baltic States. Thus, she argued for joint efforts and regulations across borders to preserve peatlands. BSPC President Schraps joined in that, as a German politician, he did not appreciate seeing his country stand out on a map as the place that needed to do the most. The follow-up to the 31 st BSPC President Schraps announced that responses had been received from the governments of Åland, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden. Because of their elections, the answer from Finland would be sent later. All would be included in the compilation on the BSPC website. Considerations about the future accommodation of the BSPC Secretariat President Johannes Schraps summarised the previous considerations, developments and investigations into possibly establishing a future headquarters of the BSPC Secretariat, including possible options and diverging opinions by the members of the Standing Committee. After the completion of the Presidium in Brussels and the recent announcement of the agreement of all members to the increased contributions and thus the now available clarity about the financial basis, the working group could deepen now the previous discussions on the basis of further information, particularly about financial aspects that have been provided in the meantime as already envisaged. The Standing Committee agreed to the proposal of President Schraps to includethe former BSPC presidents Prof Jānis Vucāns and Ms Carola Veit, with their long-standing experience in that group. After further contributions by Ms Hanna Katrín Friðriksson, Prof Jānis Vucāns , Ms Carola Veit , Mr Enn Eesmaa , Mr Staffan Eklöf and Mr Jarosław Wałęsa on the consideration of the practical aspects, the secretariat, the financial side, the Rules of Procedure and the time frame of the process, Mr Schraps explained that the plan was for the Presidium’s working group to meet on 13 July 2023 and to present their findings to the first Standing Committee meeting under the Danish presidency in November 2023. The Standing Committee agreed with that procedure . Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity BSPC President Johannes Schraps noted that the working group had completed its three years of work at the meeting in Gdanśk on 15 May 2023 with 25 unanimously agreed calls for action to be included in the 32 nd BSPC resolution. BSPC Secretary General Bodo Bahr submitted a proposal to shorten the final report to a more manageable size, along with a political executive summary. The Standing Committee agreed to the proposal . New BSPC Working Group after the 32 nd Annual Conference President Schraps explained that the Latvian delegation, with support from the Baltic Assembly, had submitted a comprehensive proposal for a working group on energy security, self-sustainability, and connectivity. The Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein, represented by Ms Eka von Kalben , asked for the topic of Resilience to critical infrastructure to be added to the Latvian design. Mr Himanshu Gulati fully supported the Latvian proposal. Mr Staffan Eklöf equally agreed with the proposal, suggesting that interconnectivity and electricity prices also be included. Prof Jānis Vucāns clarified that this was a proposal from the Baltic Assembly, adding that the propositions from Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden were already part of the submitted range of topics but agreed to put more focus on these. The Standing Committee agreed to forward the proposal from the Baltic Assembly to the Conference for final approval. BSPC Rapporteurs BSPC Rapporteur on Sea-Dumped Munitions, Ms Anna Kassautzki , had attended an expert roundtable on the topic in December 2022, organised by the CBSS. They had discussed with researchers and representatives from NATO and the European Commission. Ms Kassautzki had submitted the proposals of the BSPC Working Group in this respect as well as the German government’s grant of 100 million euros to build a prototype mobile disposal platform. It had been consensus that enough data had been collected for action. The Baltic Sea should serve as the pioneering site for these technologies and processes. The EU was interested in funding further such disposal platforms once the prototype would prove successful. She underlined that several countries around the Baltic Sea were pursuing this topic. Prof Jānis Vucāns noted that the Baltic States would provide further reflections on this issue as part of the considerations on the draft resolution. President Johannes Schraps added that the topic of sea-dumped munitions had also been deepened at the Ministerial and VASAB meetings of the CBSS in Wismar one and a half weeks earlier. This proved that the parliamentary efforts of the BSPC worked and affected the government level. The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum President Schraps informed the Standing Committee about the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum in conjunction with the Conference. The topic would be Democracy Under Siege – How Do We Make Democracies More Resilient? 8 members of parliaments would work closely with the young participants to elaborate the recommendations of the Forum. The organisers were still looking for further experts and high-level speakers. A fireside session was intended for Saturday, featuring former BSPC President Franz Thönnes, who would talk about the history of the BSPC. The Secretariat and the CBSS were currently reviewing the applications. A virtual pre-meeting was planned to inform the youths about the BSPC’s workings and the Forum’s plans. Mr Staffan Eklöf suggested another member of the Swedish delegation to join the roundtable discussion. The 32 nd BSPC, Berlin, 27-29 August 2023 The title of the Conference was Strengthening the Resilience of the Democratic Baltic Sea Region – Boosting the Democratic, Maritime, and Digital Resilience and Reliable Neighbourliness and Close Cooperation. The propositions from the preceding Standing Committee meeting had been incorporated into the programme. The Standing Committee went on to discuss the contents of the Resolution for the Berlin Conference as well as the procedure to finalise the text in the run-up to the Conference. Mr Staffan Eklöf suggested regarding invasive species, lower fishing quotas, and that the many conflicting interests had to be balanced. Ms Anna Kassautzki commented on fish stocks, recommending a study on pike under various aspects. Ms Eka von Kalben addressed the further procedure. President Schraps underlined that amendment proposals could be submitted in writing by the end of the month. Ms Bryndís Haraldsdóttir noted that she would provide a proposal regarding human rights. Prof Jānis Vucāns presented some wording changes and a proposal on how to present an abstract on sea-dumped munitions. President Schraps and Secretary General Bahr were grateful for the text and agreed it would be shaped into the final form. Prof Vucāns stressed that it was important to show results achieved from the BSPC’s efforts, especially in this field. Further Matters At the Standing Committee meeting in Berlin, it had been agreed that the contributions from the members of the BSPC would be increased to make up for inflation since 2007 and considering the current composition of the membership. The SC was informed that the transfer of the increase in the membership fees to the BSPC from all members was expected soon. This provided the financial underpinning of the budget decided in Brussels. President Schraps noted that parliaments hosting BSPC meetings in the current year had already felt beneficial effects. BSPC President Johannes Schraps remarked that he had been invited to the CBSS Foreign Ministers’ Summit in Wismar, where he gave an impact statement on offshore wind, providing insight into the BSPC’s discussions and the parliamentary dimension, particularly on sea-dumped munitions. There had been the opportunity for additional conversations in the margins of the meeting with high-level representatives. Regarding the first Standing Committee meeting of the Danish presidency, upcoming President Henrik Møller stated that it would take place on 12-13 November 2023 in Maribo, where they could visit the Fehmarn Belt construction site. This was Denmark’s largest infrastructure project which would immensely shorten travel times between Scandinavia and Central Europe. Ms Jessy Eckerman confirmed that the Åland parliament would take over the presidency of the BSPC after the 33 rd annual conference in Denmark and hold the 2025 Conference in Mariehamn.

Statements of the Governments in the Baltic Sea Region to the 31 st BSPC Resolution The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) – gathered in Stockholm – unanimously passed on 14 June 2022 the following 31 st BSPC resolution: https://www.bspc.net/conference-resolution-31-bspc/ https://www.bspc.net/final-resolution__lv/ https://www.bspc.net/31-bspc-resolution-de/ https://www.bspc.net/conference-resolution-31-bspc_pl/ The priorities of the 31 st annual conference and resolution relate to: Peaceful and reliable neighbourliness and intense cooperation – how do we go forward in the Baltic Sea Region in times of crisis? Democracy and freedom of expression – how do we secure free media in the Baltic Sea Region? Mitigating climate change, preserving biodiversity and adapting to climate change Demographic challenges in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine; migration, labour market and the social welfare model 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 various actions or measures. The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference and its Standing Committee highly appreciate that the governments from the Baltic Sea area again sent statements on implementing calls for action in the 31 st resolution. Many comments were 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 31 st 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 31 st BSPC resolution, particularly regarding the calls for action? The statements and information the governments provide 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 .

The BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity met for the final time in Gdańsk, Poland, to complete its intensive three-year-long work. Once more, the group listened to and discussed three expert presentations, two on nuclear power as part of the Polish strategy of transitioning away from fossil fuels and towards low-carbon energy systems and one on the Slovinski National Park and Biosphere Reserve. Afterwards, a lively discussion ensued to put together the group’s calls to action to the governments of the Baltic Sea region. The calls found unanimous approval in the end, underlining the excellent status of Baltic Sea parliamentary cooperation. About 25 participants from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Poland and Sweden attended the deliberations. Introduction Working Group chairman Philipp da Cunha welcomed the members to their eighth and final meeting in Gdańsk, highlighting the city’s long and varied history and merits in Baltic Sea cooperation. Working Group vice-chairman Jarosław Wałęsa , member of the hosting Polish parliament, also underlined his hometown’s tradition of jointly finding solutions but pointed out the new geopolitical reality demanding that the Baltic Sea countries pave the way towards the future together. The sustainable transition also had to be viewed within the social dimensions. United in solidarity, the Baltic Sea region could provide a strong example to the world in these measures. Mr Kacper Płażyński , also member of the hosting Polish parliament and member of the Working Group, introducing the experts, noted the importance of nuclear power plants, particularly for the Polish strategy of transitioning away from fossil fuels and towards low-carbon energy systems. Presentations Professor Dagmara Strumińska-Parulska , PhD, Assoc. Prof., Faculty of Chemistry, Laboratory of Toxicology and Radiation Protection, University of Gdańsk, spoke about natural radioactivity and radioactive contamination, which should be treated differently . She took the Polish point of view, mentioning that it equally applied to Europe. Poland’s energy policy until 2040 had three pillars: fair transition, zero-emission energy – including offshore wind energy and nuclear power –, and good air quality. The plan called for 25 % of the country’s future energy supply to come from six nuclear reactors. Despite some concerns, the population’s support for nuclear power was increasing and was already the highest in Europe. She insisted that nobody had died in the accident at the Fukushima power plant in Japan but only in the causing earthquake and tsunami. As for the planned Polish power plant near Gdańsk, Prof Strumińska-Parulska noted that her university was uniquely suited to overseeing the environmental effects. She explained the radiation dose limits set by Polish law, allowing 20 mSv for employees but only 1 mSv for other persons. These applied to natural radiation. Much lower legal limits were used for nuclear power plants, permitting 0.3 mSv per year. The professor addressed the Chernobyl nuclear accident, noting that its fallout had mostly avoided Poland, despite the proximity, and that recent studies had shown its impact to be much lower than initially expected. She cited that the impact of plutonium and caesium in, e.g., fish or mushrooms was very low. Furthermore, she pointed out that natural radiation was often forgotten in the discussion, reminding the audience that it was always present, e.g., in water or food. About half the radiation absorbed by a typical person in the UK originates from natural radon gas. Nuclear medicine accounted for 16 % and growing. The impact from other manmade radionuclides was very small, she said. Prof Strumińska-Parulska stressed that natural radiation accounted for the vast majority of the impact, listing as sources air, water, food, supplements, and cigarettes. She repeated that natural radiation in everyday food and drink was not mentioned in the debate about nuclear power. Listing several foodstuffs or supplements that her department had tested – such as algae or calcium pills –, she concluded that these carried much higher doses from natural sources, although she still described these as safe. Going back to radon gas, this was by far the greatest radiation source, as it was also emitted from walls. Moreover, it could concentrate in buildings, increasing human intake. Thus, the Euratom guideline limited indoor intake to 300 Bq/m 3 . The natural radiation made it difficult to calculate the dose absorbed by an individual, harkening back to the legal limits mentioned before. While the background radiation was comparatively low in Poland, in Iran, for instance, it amounted to 200 mSv. These had to be removed from the equation to determine the manmade effect. The problem in general here was that regulations targeted artificial radionuclides but did not measure the naturally occurring ones, even though they had a huge impact on humans and other biota. This led to a knowledge gap in science and also lacking awareness of the natural radioactivity in materials used in industry. Mr Płażyński inquired about the Chernobyl radiation and at what point it became dangerous for human health. Prof Strumińska-Parulska said the exclusion zone around the Chernobyl reactor was 30 kilometres. While humans were not supposed to live there, animals did – yet they did not suffer from cancer or other diseases connected with radiation. She further said that the Chernobyl accident had been connected to the experiment rather than the proper operating facility. In the case of the Fukushima accident, there had been less harmful agents involved and contamination had been contained. Prof Jānis Vucāns noted a visit of the BSPC Standing Committee to a nuclear facility in Belarus in 2016 and a Minsk hospital for children suffering from Chernobyl-caused diseases. Given that the wind had spread radiation, he wondered about analyses of wind directions for the planned Polish power plants and what countries would be affected. Prof Strumińska-Parulska conceded that this was part of the discussions with neighbouring countries before stating that the new plant would be very different from Chernobyl, precluding a similar accident to an extremely high probability. Even if such an accident occurred, the effects would be local only. Ms Claudia Müller noted that the Chernobyl effects might have avoided Poland but had affected vast swaths of other countries where e.g., mushrooms were still not allowed to be eaten. Prof Strumińska-Parulska said that they could be safely eaten. Ms Müller further pointed out that the Fukushima plant had been built to withstand earthquakes yet had suffered the accident. Moreover, there were higher cancer rates in the region than typical. Prof Strumińska-Parulska remarked that humans had evolved within average radiation and had accommodated that. As for cancer cases, she said there were many possible sources, such as toxic substances. It was very difficult to determine what was the actual cause. Moreover, she reiterated that the natural radiation was much higher. Prof Gudowski interjected to note that there were regulations for the safe construction of nuclear power plants which would be followed, provided an explanation for the sick children in Belarus, and assured Ms Müller that mushrooms were safe to eat. Ms Emma Nohrén pointed to the problems in Sweden with cooling water for the power plant and the expected warming of the water. Prof Strumińska-Parulska said that this had been taken into account in the planning. Prof Dr hab. Wacław Gudowski , National Centre for Nuclear Research – Świerk and Royal Institute of Technology – KTH, Stockholm, Senior Advisor to Orlen Synthos Green Energy – OSGE, spoke about small nuclear reactors (SMRs) which he explained were a worthy investment . The discussion of nuclear energy was biased towards the negative – due to Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and other incidents – but ignored the benefits. Medium-sized energy plants dominated Poland’s energy system, but most of these units were already forty-plus years old and would have to be shut down for age anyway. Gas had been seen as the solution before the war in Ukraine, yet it had been known since the early 1990s that leakage of natural gas of more than 7 % was more damaging to the environment than coal or oil. He pointed out that Russia’s leakage was double that. So, gas was a poor environmental choice, to begin with. The question was with what to replace the ageing energy infrastructure, specifically how to provide a base level of stable energy rather than the uncertain renewables. Even with the large nuclear programme of the state, there was a gap of 10 gigawatts, though, which would have to be filled. He noted the excellent district heating system of the country, although the same system was releasing large volumes of particle matter into the atmosphere. The choice of nuclear power instead of fossil fuel sources was evident to Prof Gudowski because it was highly efficient in its chain reaction. As for waste products, he noted that plutonium could be reused. 95 % of this material could be easily recycled. A few grams of uranium produced the same energy as one tonne of coal, corresponding to the needs of one person per year and creating just as little waste. That radioactive waste was kept under control all the time. He said that nuclear energy was the only low-emission energy source, even lower than geothermal or hydro power. In addition, small nuclear reactors in particular required less real estate to provide equivalent power than all other energy sources. Regarding the waste, he spoke about intermediate storage but insisted that most of the material that would go into a final storage was still recyclable. He further said that an area the size of two Olympic-size pools was enough to store all the nuclear waste from forty years of production in Sweden for up to 200 years in intermediate storage. Prof Gudowski spoke about the succeeding generations of nuclear power types, leading up to the generation four which he had been involved in devising. This should ensure the recycling of most fuel and be sustainable. Normal light water reactors employed uranium enriched up to 5 %. Waste was currently not being recycled. In the 2000s, interest in nuclear energy picked up enormously, producing several new designs that would be smaller and more efficient. Looking at the current needs of the country, Poland decided that the VWRX 300 model was the best choice, fitting the grid and being a mature design. The OECD had also rated this model as the most mature technology. Deploying small nuclear reactors of this type would save a great deal of CO 2 equivalent. Prof Gudowski highlighted the safety mechanism which did not require pumps and could easily shut down the reactor in case of a most serious accident. Furthermore, they did not require a lot of space, just about the size of a football pitch. Equally, construction time was a great deal shorter. As for costs, estimates ranged from 1 to 1.5 billion US dollars until starting energy production. This, though, applied to the first unit. Economies of scale and serial production would bring costs down to about half of that for the final power plants. He underlined that the deployment process was in full swing, including discussions with the licensing bodies, the government, the research community and the potential industrial customers. Site selection had been based on safety, environment, and economics. He concluded by asking whether nuclear energy was safe. The death rate per unit of production was 0.03, much lower than fossil fuel. He further underlined that nuclear power was not expensive at all. Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle noted that in her home country of Norway, hydro power dominated so that a nuclear plant had recently been decommissioned at a cost of 2.5 billion Euros. In line with that, she wondered about Prof Gudowski saying nuclear waste was easy to dispose of. Regarding SMRs she was interested in the maturation timeline. Prof Wacław Gudowski believed his chosen model would be ready to be built in 2030. As for the costs, he noted that Sweden had started a decommissioning fund when building the reactors, decades ahead of time, so that was already covered. Furthermore, money earned during operations should be set aside to take care of dismantling costs. Mr Simon Påvals asked whether the CO 2 costs of nuclear power included the mining of uranium. Prof Gudowski explained that his data were taken from the International Panel of Climate Change, including the whole lifecycle analysis. To a second question about storage, the professor explained that geological storage would be needed for nuclear ashes, but he expected recycling capabilities for uranium and plutonium. Ms Claudia Müller deepened the topic of the economic viability of SMRs and the necessary protection of nuclear sites from terrorism and theft. Prof Gudowski said that the stakeholders should not be the deciding factors. Conceding that security was needed, he put the responsibility first on the political level, second on the building level. Furthermore, SMRs distributed any risk from a single strike disrupting the energy supply. Prof Jānis Vucāns wished for clarification on the economy of scale which would be of greater importance to the Baltic states. Prof Gudowski answered that the solution had to be tailored to the needs of the customer, adding that costs had come down in other countries for large-scale reactors. Mr Philipp da Cunha wondered if nuclear energy would curtail renewable power in Poland. Prof Gudowski noted that renewable energy was prioritised in Poland as well, but he saw the future as hydrogen storing excess energy, despite the current over-enthusiasm among politicians. Mr Grzegorz Kupczak , Slovinski National Park (Słowiński Park Narodowy), explained that the park had the status of a biosphere reserve. One of the oldest reserves in Poland since 1997, the park had to fulfil three basic tasks: protection, development, and logistical support. As only the protective function had been fully met, the park had had to reinforce the other two in order to maintain its status as a biosphere reserve. Essentially building up a reserve from the ground up in-between 2015 and 2017, they had called on the help from stakeholders and set up a steering committee to pool resources and efforts. Located in the middle of Pomerania, the reserve had originally covered only the area of the national park itself and its buffer zone. As part of the agreement with stakeholders, that area had been considerably enlarged. Currently, they were still seeking to establish a buffer zone in the Baltic Sea. He underlined that the biosphere did not represent a nature protection zone – that was restricted to the national park itself. Instead, the biosphere reserve coordinated all kinds of land use, allowing both settlement and development to varying degrees. He next spoke about the name which originated in the ethnic group of Slovinski, i.e., the Slovenian people in the area who spoke their own dialect of the North-Polish Kashub language. Still, they had been treated as Germans after World War II, many of them forced to emigrate to Germany. Now Poland recognised their heritage and culture. Cultural heritage, Mr Kupczak underlined, was an important part of biosphere reserves and was reflected in an open-air museum in Kluki. Slovinski was part of the cooperation Biosphere for Baltic which had been launched in 2017 and included, among others, reserves in Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Estonia. The network was raising awareness of sustainability challenges in the Baltic Sea, highlighting the interconnectedness of land and sea as well as serving as pilot implementations of the sustainable development goals. The focus was on two broad themes: Source to Sea concerned the effects of human activities across rivers and deltas into the Baltic Sea, while Ocean Literacy promoted a better understanding of the ocean and its interaction with people. Biosphere for Baltic had set itself the goals of increasing the reserves’ dialogue, raising awareness among the stakeholders as well as exchanging experiences, best practices and ideas. The cooperation was implemented through exchange events, workshops, a joint Interreg project about learning sites to combat eutrophication in the planning stage and celebrating the Day of the Baltic Sea. Together, they had published booklets about projects and sustainable products, in support of the local markets. This was a strong network, Mr Kupczak underlined, benefitting each other. BSPC Secretary General Bodo Bahr referred to recent international agreements on maritime protection; he wondered if Poland was planning to expand its biosphere reserves. Mr Kupczak conceded that he did not know the answer. Almost all of the eleven reserves in Poland were connected to the national park. Expansion was planned for then national park, but these efforts were difficult because local communities were wary of the perceived limitations within reserves, although he was still hopeful. Since the biosphere reserves were not enshrined in Polish law, they were voluntary in nature. Ms Beate Schlupp asked how many private owners had joined this cooperation, noting that biosphere reserves did mean limitations in Germany. Mr Kupczak praised the German reserves before noting the differences between countries. His organisation did not have a private partner, but they were cooperating with their stakeholders and providing benefits, such as e.g., promoting their products. Mr Alexander Mohrenberg was curious about how to protect wandering sand dunes. Mr Kupczak explained that the 300 hectares of moving dunes in Slovinski national park were strictly protected, adding that they were shifting by ten to twelve metres per year. Tourist trails led through the dunes, along with education infrastructure. Chairman da Cunha noted that this day’s presentations would be featured in the final report, as were all the expert presentations from the working group’s three years. Working Group Calls for Action Chaired by Philipp da Cunha and Jarosław Wałęsa , the Working Group discussed the calls for action in the 32 nd Resolution of the BSPC at the Berlin Conference. The draft was based on the expert presentations, discussions, and input during the three years of the working group’s existence. Mr Kacper Płażyński , Ms Claudia Müller , Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle , Chairman Philipp da Cunha , Prof Jānis Vucāns , Mr Jarosław Wałęsa, Secretary General Bodo Bahr , Ms Emma Nohrén , Mr Simon Påvals and Mr Alexander Mohrenberg contributed to the discussion about the wording of the various calls. In particular, Mr Płażyński favoured a diversification of supplies in technology and resources, not to rely on challenging countries. Regarding the proposed inclusion of nuclear power in the calls, there were differing opinions from the various BSPC delegations, respective to their countries’ political approaches. Mr Bahr suggested a phrasing in line with e.g., the notes of the EU Commission during the CBSS offshore wind conference the week before in Berlin and the result of the working groups discussion one year before in Mariehamn to reflect the nations’ diverging energy strategies. This found the working group’s unanimous approval. Another point of discussion was how to involve the local level as a crucial aspect of climate change and biodiversity efforts. The call concerning carbon sequestration concerning forests also drew some discussion and the desire to mention various other areas, such as peatlands or mangroves. The issue of land degradation and forest management was also discussed to sharpen the call and create consensus. Finally, the working group considered the lack of transparency about actions and behaviour of the Russian Federation in the Baltic Sea which might hinder the goal of a clean and sustainable ocean to be taken into account by the BSPC Standing Committee for the 32 nd resolution. After further discussion, the Working Group unanimously agreed on 25 calls for action to the governments for inclusion in the 32 nd BSPC resolution and adoption by the Annual Conference. These recommendations also considered the proposals of the previous Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, in line with the results of the earlier consultations ( recommendations here ). Other Matters Chairman Philipp da Cunha noted that the governments’ answers to the working group’s survey had been detailed and informative, including the subsequent question regarding the policy changes due to the war in Ukraine. These statements were published on the BSPC website. The same applied to the working group’s previous calls for action to the governments incorporated in the 31 st BSPC Resolution. Prof Jānis Vucāns explained that Estonia, after its recent elections, was still forming its BSPC delegation so that there was a small delay with that government’s reaction. The working group agreed to include all the governmental statements received in the final report. In addition, the report would follow the format of previous versions and would also include the results of the present meeting. The working group agreed on the procedure to complete the final report for its presentation to the BSPC Annual Conference in Berlin. Furthermore, the working group agreed to attach an executive summary of the final report. The chairman further informed the group that the fourth session of the Berlin Conference would be devoted to the working group’s topic of climate change and biodiversity. This was when the final report would be presented.

The BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity assembled in Tromsø, Norway, dealing with expert presentations and the newest research results from the Norwegian Polar Institute, the Institute of Marine Research and the Arctic Council. The working group dealt with the dramatic effects of climate change in the Arctic and its impact on biodiversity, with consequences for the entire planet. About 20 participants from the Baltic Assembly, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Poland and Sweden attended the deliberations. Introduction Working group chair Mr Philipp da Cunha opened the session in Tromsø, Norway. He highlighted the importance of seeing the rapid changes wrought by climate change in person in the Arctic where the effects were progressing at three to four times the speed of the rest of the world. The expert presentations were introduced by Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle who underlined that the Norwegian Polar Institute was the premier institution on environmental monitoring, mapping of both Polar regions. Presentations Ms Nalan Koc , Research Director, Norwegian Polar Institute , explained that Norway believed research provided the basis for excellent management of the High North. Twenty institutions, like the Polar Institute, were united under the research umbrella. Her own institution, launched originally in 1906, was a directorate immediately associated with the Norwegian ministry of the environment, providing scientific research and management advice to the government regarding the polar regions. They handled topological and geographic mapping of Svalbard, Jan Mayen and Norwegian claims and territories in Antarctica. In the Arctic, they focused on Svalbard, Jan Mayen, the Arctic Ocean, and the Barents Sea, while in Antarctica, Dronning Maud Land, Peter I Øy, Bouvetøya and adjacent seas were their centres of attention. Their understanding of these regions fed directly into their management. Headquartered at the Fram Centre, Tromsø, it had research facilities in Sverdrup and Ny Ålesund as well as its own research vessel, the icebreaker Kronprins Haakon , and a zeppelin observatory. Thus, they were covering both land- and sea-based research in the Arctic and Antarctica. A wide array of research infrastructure had been established at both the North and South Pole which they were sharing, e.g., through an EU-monitored project called ARICE (Arctic Research ICEbreaker Council). Thus, the Kronprins Haakon was made available for international researchers without such marine resources available to them. A class 3 icebreaker, the ship could operate throughout the entire year, providing berths for 35 scientists on expeditions of up to 65 days. Moreover, the Svalbard Integrated Arctic Earth Observing System was a cooperating research infrastructure for improved knowledge of environmental and climatic change in the Arctic. The local instrumentation was open to other academics. Furthermore, there was a database providing all the research data gathered so far. The Polar Institute coordinated the research to make it as effective as possible. Since 1968, the Ny-Ålesund Research Station had served as an observatory, laboratory and field base for arctic research and environmental monitoring. It was also open to any researchers interested in the work. First set up in 2005, the station Troll in Antarctica was operating year-round with a minimum crew of 6 persons. Ms Koc described the wide and interdisciplinary range of natural science studies implemented in the Polar Institute’s work, considering among others climate change and monitoring, biodiversity, glaciers, and oceanography. She underlined that these efforts were indispensable but also very expensive. At the same time, to cover these huge areas, international cooperation was crucial. During the field work, ice cores had been harvested that documented the last 800,000 years of the climate. These showed that the current, human-caused levels of carbon dioxide were unprecedented, exceeding the maximums of ca. 300 ppm during the interglacial periods and reaching peaks of 420 ppm today. As for temperatures, a global rise of about 1 °C could be documented since the first records in 1880. The land areas were warming faster than the oceans. Furthermore, the Arctic was warming three to four times quicker than the rest of the globe. This “Arctic Amplification” also meant that containing global warming to 1.5 °C by the end of the century, as per the Paris Agreement, would still correspond to a rise of 3 – 5 °C in the Arctic. Already, the summer ice was thinning rapidly, reaching extreme lows in ice coverage in 2007 and 2012. Overall, some 40 % of ice coverage had been lost since 1980. With less solar energy reflected back by ice, the oceans were warming even faster, creating and reinforcing the amplification effect. At the same time, the winter storm cycle had accelerated, contributing to breaking up sea ice. Ms Koc quoted the IPCC predictions, indicating very little sea ice in the Arctic summer by mid-century. She added that the models for Arctic climate modelling were too conservative, though, and had to be updated to reflect current data, in particular the thinner ice layers, and new research. On the Polar Institute’s 2022 Arctic Cruise, two new moorings were installed to monitor data in addition to the 30-year-old moorings in the Fram Strait. This was to investigate what was happening in the central Arctic Ocean, specifically changes to the hydrography or chemistry and their effects on the ecosystem. In addition, they were pursuing the project SUDARCO with partner organisations in order to research risks to value chains and ecosystem services. Focusing on Svalbard, Ms Koc explained that local temperatures had risen by 6 °C in the past 100 years, leading to shrinking glaciers and now the occurrence of rain rather than snow, generating ice on the ground. Previously, fauna could dig through snow to get to the vegetation below, but ice proved an impenetrable barrier. Ms Koc concluded that there is hardly any region on earth warming as fast as the Arctic Ocean, opening up previously inaccessible areas and already affecting the ecosystem. Thus, new data was needed to enable effective management. Furthermore, Arctic changes were affecting the weather patterns in the whole northern hemisphere: What had been a relatively stable polar jet stream had become wavy, sending cold air as far south as Florida in the US and drawing warm air as far as Svalbard. At the same time, pollution was also pulled northwards into the pristine Arctic region. BSPC Secretary General Bodo Bahr raised the question about the intensity of political and public awareness and reactions, citing United Nations Secretary General António Guterres who pointed out a few days before at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that “our world is at a crossroads and our planet is at the crosshairs”, that “we are nearing the point of no return” and that “we are at the tip of the tipping point”. Ms Nalan Koc noted that the Polar Institute was advising and informing the Norwegian government. Ms Westgaard-Halle added that politics was aware of the severity of the problem, but there was a gap to the understanding of the public. BSPC President Johannes Schraps underlined that politicians had to make decisions rather than scientists informing them. Prof Jānis Vucāns asked for clarification if sea ice was now melting from both above and below which Ms Koc confirmed. Mr Andrius Mazuronis pointed to the global nature of carbon dioxide emissions, in particular huge countries such as China, India or Russia, inquiring about interest from these countries. Mr Jarosław Wałęsa wondered about the natural share of the otherwise human-caused increase in CO 2 . Ms Westgaard-Halle asked if there was ocean acidification. Ms Nalan Koc confirmed that the Polar Institute was working on acidification and chemical composition of the Arctic Ocean and would publish a respective paper soon. She further explained that they could derive trends from their data, showing that warming effects would happen faster than predicted in the IPCC report. As for international interest and participation, she pointed to a wide range of nations, including scientists from China, South Korea, Japan, India – going well beyond the Arctic countries. Dr Lis Lindal Jørgensen , Institute of Marine Research , explained that the environment was shifting very fast. Thus, adaptation to these changes was necessary. The title of her speech posited whether a 100 % sustainable management was possible. One of the largest such institutions in Europe, the Institute of Marine Research was concerned with monitoring, research, and advisory work. It was associated with the ministry of fishery. They provided the catch advice on 80 fish stocks as well as advising all aquaculture in Norway. At the same time, they researched the entire ecosystem towards the goal of an ecosystem-based management. The Institute had set itself the vision of clean and rich oceans and coastal areas. Part of that was sustaining biodiversity and halting the loss of species. A biodiverse ecosystem might suffer many pressures but had the potential to evade them, while a monoculture with one or two species could be wiped out with relatively little pressure. She explained that the former described the resilience of the ecosystem. Moreover, a preservation of biodiversity was called for by the UN’s new International Biodiversity Agreement, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and international agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. Dr Jørgensen noted that Norway was an ocean country – its sea area was six times larger than the landmass. Including all the fjords and bays, its coastline stretched for 25,000 kilometres. Moreover, the Norwegian sea had a mean depth of 2,000 metres. That meant a huge challenge for management. To that end, the Institute deployed a minimum of two ships at any time on the oceans, increasing to a whole fleet in the summer. Concerning the Arctic, she offered more details on the Barents Sea. The survey cooperation there had been going for a century by now, with more than 400 stations monitoring biodiversity, the entire water column, the climate – temperature, salinity etc. –, zooplankton, fish, pelagic and benthic species, marine mammals as well as sea birds. Their ships were packed with scientists of all disciplines. In the Barents Sea, the volume of Arctic water had been shrinking since the 1960s while the share of Atlantic water had been rising. Likewise, the Atlantic biodiversity of fish was expanding northward whereas the Arctic species were decreasing. Arctic fish were small and lived on the seabed, some 230 metres below the surface in the Barents Sea. As the sea floor further north dropped to 4,000 metres, they had to migrate eastwards. However, some fish species’ stocks were currently improving, although the warming of the water limited that expansion. All of these processes had to be understood, she insisted. Looking at the thousands of species on the sea bed, Dr Jørgensen noted that the Institute had found that fish trawls contained up to 100 species of benthos, allowing cost-effective surveillance with onboard capacities. This showed that since 2005, there had been a general change of dominance from Arctic to boreal species. Based on the findings of where vulnerable species were found, corridors had been locked off from trawling. Since 2019, those areas freshly freed from ice were being researched and temporarily banned before corridors could be established. Conversely, the fishermen’s work in the acceptable areas was rated as sustainable. Putting together the data on fish and benthic species with those on marine mammals, birds and zooplankton, the Institute was seeking to build a holistic understanding of how the ecosystem was functioning. Cross- and trans-disciplinary approaches were necessary for that; at the same time, this was the way forward. Moreover, more cost- and time-efficient monitoring had to be implemented. To establish 100 % sustainable ocean management, she called for an integrated management approach combining all the measures, from completely restricted to entirely free-use areas. A whole web of measures had to be put in place, based on the whole of understanding of the ecosystem. Yet, this also had to take into account the entirety of human activities affecting the ecosystem. As an example, she noted the noise coming from trawling or tourism. That would lead to a holistic risk assessment of the area for the respective species. In the view of Dr Jørgensen, this should be distilled into a simplified risk map, much like the weather forecast, so that it would be easy to see what actions were to be taken. An example would be that beluga whales were travelling through one area from June to August, so that should be avoided. All of this meant an ecosystem-based approach – a comprehensive system of management based on the best available scientific data. Dr Jørgensen underlined that very few of these areas and measures were constrained to one nation, making peaceful international cooperation indispensable. At the same time, it was also necessary to unite divergent views of sustainability; here, she mentioned Arctic indigenous peoples compared to multinational companies. She concluded by posing a number of questions to the politicians that were needed to direct the ecosystem-based approach, such as the objectives or the international interaction. Ms Anna Kassautzki mentioned that Germany was seeking a way to make fishery ecologically and economically sustainable, in the face of a huge crisis in the Baltic Sea. This was done in conjunction with the industry and with science. Currently, they were developing a database with all the information. Ms Emma Nohrén saw a deficiency in the data reflecting caught fish in tonnes but not the age or health composition. Mr Johannes Schraps inquired how the Russian aggression against Ukraine was impacting the Institute’s work, as the Arctic waters were shared. Prof Jānis Vucāns considered only the holistic perception of the Baltic Sea viable, raising the issue of invasive species that had to be resolved internationally. Mr Philipp da Cunha wondered if there was a best practice example for the integrated management approach. Mr Bodo Bahr wondered if the Norwegian Institute was also cooperating with researchers from the Baltic Sea or other oceans. In that respect, he mentioned HELCOM and their decades-long work. Dr Lis Lindal Jørgensen said she read a lot about HELCOM’s work, and some of her colleagues were cooperating. International programmes were highly important in her view. Moving on, she explained there would be an international conference in the next year elaborating the integrated management approach. She noted that the data need was immense. Regarding the Ukraine war, she conceded that there were considerable challenges, but on the fisheries’ work, Norway had decided to continue the scientific collaboration. Ms Kristina Bär , Head of Communications, Arctic Council Secretariat, gave an overview of the Arctic Council . The secretariat was the administrative body, she explained. The Arctic Council was the leading intergovernmental forum promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among Arctic states and Arctic indigenous peoples. As such, it was a soft law organisation, established in 1996 to focus on environmental issues and sustainable development. Among their fields of interest were Arctic peoples, biodiversity, climate, the ocean, pollutants, and emergencies. The eight Arctic states were those that had territories above the Arctic circle. Furthermore, the six permanent participants were organisations representing either one or several indigenous peoples – covering 40 peoples of 650,000 individuals in total – living in the Arctic. Ms Bär highlighted the unique feature that these had full consultation rights with any decisions. Moving on, there were six working groups and one expert group dealing with different issues, such as contaminants, monitoring and assessment, or sustainable development. In addition, there were 38 observers: 13 non-Arctic states, 13 intergovernmental and interparliamentary organisations, and 12 non-governmental organisations. She underlined that these contributed expertise in working groups rather than being passive. Looking at the working group concerned with biodiversity, namely, Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), she said that the findings were taken to the government and the residents. Monitoring, assessment, and expert research provided a good overview of the Arctic’s biodiversity thanks to their Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme (CBMP). This brought together national experts, governments, indigenous people to look at the core ecosystems in the Arctic: freshwater, marine, terrestrial, and coastal. They also investigated Arctic migratory birds as well as wildfires and mainstreaming biodiversity in mining operations. Every two years, there was a ministerial meeting setting the overall course. The chairmanship was rotated at this meeting, so that the current Russian chairmanship would be transferred to Norway in May 2023. The Senior Arctic Officials – usually government representatives – were overseeing the regular work which happened in the subsidiaries, the working and expert groups. The secretariat, funded by the 8 Arctic states, supported the work of the council’s chair. One of the major achievements of the Arctic Council were three legally binding agreements negotiated under their auspices, concerning enhanced international scientific cooperation, cooperation on marine oil pollution, and search and rescue. Mr Rolf Rødven , Arctic Council, Executive Secretary for the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, explained that they were monitoring and assessing the levels of pollutants, the impact of climate change, and the effects on the ecosystem. With their scientific assessments, this programme advised both the Arctic Council as well as organisations like the IPCC or the WHO as well as HELCOM. Their work included harmonising data to ensure that measurement errors were eliminated. As for climate change, the Arctic was getting much warmer, three times faster than the rest of the world – 3 degrees since 1971. Precipitation had increased by 10 %, with a lot more rain than snow. The permafrost was thawing while the sea ice had shrunk by half and land ice had also decreased. The layers in the sea were mixing more strongly. That, he pointed out, was affecting the societies living in the Arctic. The 4 million people mostly lived in small settlements, with some 64 % located on permafrost. The hunting season had shortened due to sludge. Transport generally was limited as driving on permafrost was no longer possible in many areas. Just in Alaska, permafrost thaw was expected to increase the infrastructure maintenance cost by 5.5 billion US dollars by 2100. Another effect was ocean acidification, showing some of the fastest rates in the Arctic. This worked to dissolve snail shells, endangering the animals. The combined warming and growing acidification greatly increased the mortality of juvenile cod in the Barents Sea. Thus, the permitted catch quota had to be lowered to one sixth, reducing the revenue from 285 million US dollars to just 37. To counter this gloomy scenario, Mr Rødven mentioned the various pledges at recent COPs to reduce carbon dioxide as well as methane in order to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. Mr Jens Toft , Arctic Council Secretariat, Project Coordinator on Youth Engagement, talked about the manifold interaction of CAFF with youth engagement. One of them was the Arctic Youth Summit, held in 2018 in Finland, which had dealt with biodiversity. The resulting Arctic Youth declaration had called for empowering Arctic youth voices, increased opportunities, and raising awareness of Arctic issues. Another organisation was the Arctic Youth Network, connecting more than 800 Arctic young people, aiming to give young people a greater voice in Arctic affairs. CAFF had facilitated youth exchanges between their member states, permanent participants, and observers. Moreover, they had arranged fellowships with the International Arctic Science Committee and the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists as well as internships. Online tool kits had been provided for teachers and young students, translated into various languages, such as Sami or Russian. Finally, a Youth Advisory Team had helped CAFF guide their Arctic youth engagement strategy. This was a six-year project outlining the need and value of youth engagement to develop creative solutions, supporting diversity, lowering of barriers and professional growth. One of the goals was to have the youths develop skills in biodiversity and related fields to take home and apply there. BSPC President Johannes Schraps pointed out the BSPC’s youth engagement through the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum. He suggested an invitation of Arctic Youths to the forum in August. He asked about Russia’s involvement in the Arctic Council. Ms Nohrén wondered what topics were of interest to youths. Mr da Cunha inquired whether young people were leaving the environmentally challenged areas. Given shared interests (and a number of member states), he proposed a collaboration for the future. Prof Vucāns was interested in the Arctic view of the planned project of a Nordic Silk Road. Mr Bahr wondered if there was work on legally binding agreements in combating climate change. Mr Jens Toft explained that he was working on recommendations how to increase the outreach material to youths and increase their involvement. In general, youths had to be included in matters affecting them, in a meaningful way. He confirmed that young people in the Arctic regions were moving south to more resilient areas. At the same time, national initiatives sought to increase the attractiveness of northern regions. Ms Kristina Bär added that a project – currently on hold – dealt with Arctic demography displaying gender balance, age distribution and the like in each region. That showed quite a variety of these factors. Regarding the ministerial meeting, she explained that the Russian chairmanship was planning on hosting it in Siberia. It would be in hybrid form. On the idea of a Nordic Silk Road, she explained that this project was more on the national level and therefore not a topic of the Arctic Council. Mr Rolf Rødven explained that climate agreements were usually negotiated based on national conventions and were not as binding as other international agreements. Rather than that, the Arctic Council’s recommendations were taken into account by the national governments. He doubted that in the current conditions, a joint legal agreement of the eight Arctic states was likely. Otherwise, despite the challenges in the past year, their work was ongoing, targeting a new report for 2024. Survey among the Governments Working Group Chairman Philipp da Cunha explained that the working group had directed a survey at the BSPC governments concerning climate change and biodiversity. The detailed replies had been published in a compilation on the BSPC website. An additional question on the effects of the war in Ukraine on climate policy goals and their implementation had been submitted with the last resolution. Should the answers affect the recommendations by the working group, the chairman invited the members to submit such considerations by 17 April 2023. The 32 nd BSPC Annual Conference in Berlin Regarding the conference, BSPC President Johannes Schraps remarked that a session was dedicated to the topic of the working group. That was still in the planning stage, with several speakers confirmed, although he considered inviting Dr Lis Lindal Jørgensen from the earlier presentations since her considerations might prove enlightening. He underlined that this was a vital session since the Final Report of the working group would be presented there. The report would become an integral part of this year’s resolution. Prof Jānis Vucāns asked about chairpersons for the sessions, volunteering the Baltic States for the session on peaceful neighbourliness. Mr Schraps and Mr Bahr explained that proposals from the delegations would be asked for, and the matter would be approached before the next Standing Committee meeting. The Final Report of the Working Group WG Chairman Philipp da Cunha remarked that the Final Report could be structured like the Interim Reports, with the detailed contents available on the website. BSPC President Johannes Schraps suggested to take into account to involve previous members of the Working Group, among them the former chairwoman, Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby, in the preparation of the report. Secretary General Bodo Bahr considered that a chapter on best practice examples from the individual countries could be added, as per the suggestions of the delegations. Prof Jānis Vucāns and Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle discussed the report. Further Matters BSPC WG CCB Chairman Philipp da Cunha noted that the governments had been asked to comment on the BSPC’s resolution from Stockholm. The regional parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern had accepted the resolution as a whole, he noted. Secretary General Bodo Bahr added that a reply from the German federal government had already been received. A compilation would be put together and distributed. Mr Jesper Josefsson of the Åland delegation and Mr Jarosław Wałęsa, Head of the Polish delegation to the BSPC were appointed Vice-Chairmen of the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity. Regarding the upcoming final meeting of the working group in May in Gdansk, WG Vice-Chair Jarosław Wałęsa , BSPC President Johannes Schraps and Ms Anna Kassautzki discussed the programme and suggested speakers or invitees. Polaria Tour After the negotiations, a guided Polaria tour through the world’s most northerly aquarium opened a deep insight into the Arctic environment. One of the highlights was a panoramic film showcasing the singularity of the Arctic. It was a mesmerising experience that gave the WG a glimpse into the unique natural phenomena in the Arctic. The tour also included a presentation about the impact of climate change on the Arctic ecosystem and its effects on the polar bear population. The presentation highlighted the importance of conservation efforts and individuals’ role in protecting the Arctic environment. It was an eye-opening experience that underlined the urgency of taking action to protect our planet. Another exciting part of the tour was a training session for the seals. The WG witnessed the trainers working with the seals and teaching them various skills. It was fascinating to see the intelligence and agility of these animals up close. Ms Anne Grete Johansen , the director of Polaria, provided a presentation about the Polaria future plans . The WG also discussed international cooperation with similar institutions in this field. The guided Polaria Tour was ideal for learning about the Arctic environment and its challenges. It was an excellent opportunity to witness the beauty and uniqueness of the Arctic and learn more about the efforts being made to protect it. Polar Museum Furthermore, the BSPC WG CCB Took a guided tour of the Polar Museum Tromsø. The participants valued that an impressive experience. The museum is dedicated to showcasing the cultural history of the Arctic and the polar expeditions that have taken place throughout history. During the tour, the WG learned about the many explorers who have ventured into the Arctic, including Roald Amundsen, Fridtjof Nansen, and Umberto Nobile, and saw the artefacts and equipment used on the expeditions. The participants also learned about the history of whaling in the Arctic and its impact on the region’s environment. Additionally, the museum features exhibits on the indigenous people of the Arctic, including the Sami people and their traditional way of life. The participants had the opportunity to see traditional clothing, tools, and other artefacts that showcase the rich cultural heritage of the Arctic. The presentation in the Polar Museum was a fascinating and informative experience on the history of Arctic exploration and the region’s cultural heritage. The participants of the WG meeting deepened the discussed issues and the day’s experiences in further conversations.

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.