News

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

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

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

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

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

In the second day of its meeting in Åland, the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity gathered information from the archipelago’s government on its efforts towards a sustainable society and from the LEADER group about local action groups implementing the change on the ground. Furthermore, the group discussed its calls for action to governments as part of the BSPC’s 2022 Resolution and matters such as the upcoming Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum. The Working Group also visited a Wetland for increased biodiversity and climate-adapted stormwater management as part of Mariehamn’s environmental programme. Introduction Chairwoman Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby opened the second day of the meeting of the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity, dedicated to further presentations on Åland’s endeavours in sustainable development as well as interior business. Presentations Mr Alfons Röblom , Minister for Environment, Climate, Energy, Housing and Higher Education of Åland, explained that the wide portfolio of his office had been combined to allow moving forward faster towards a sustainable society. Sustainability could not be restricted to one department. In particular, connecting higher education to energy had proved to be a fortunate connection, especially in the huge push in the energy transition currently ongoing. Moreover, international cooperation was paying off as the Nordic countries would be sharing their best practices and experiences in creating, e.g., large wind farm projects. Ms Anna Kassautzki inquired about low-oxygen areas around Åland and how this as well as nutrient input into the water were dealt with. Minister Röblom explained that several projects were working to reduce the outflow of nutrients, e.g., through wetland restoration. He conceded that the fish farming industry was a problem as they contributed greatly to eutrophication. The government was still negotiating with the industry to find good solutions. For the future, he believed that hydrogen production could be part of the solution since oxygen was a by-product that might be fed into the ocean. That would raise different concerns though and had to be well considered. Prof Jānis Vucāns noted that increased wind power led to a need for energy storage, e.g., through hydrogen. Minister Röblom agreed that this was a huge international issue. For Åland, this was a new topic with the recent building of windmills, so they were still collecting information but focusing on the construction of the wind farms. In his view, connecting the power grids of countries could be helpful by distributing excess energy to regions needing it at that time. Offshore hydrogen plants might also take up the energy for storage and to one day provide fuel for shipping. Mr Alexander Mohrenberg was interested in the energy transition of the archipelago. Given that the new infrastructure and power facilities would transform the skyline of Åland as well as provide benefits, he asked how this was communicated to the people. Minister Röblom replied that onshore windmills had been the first renewable power sources on the islands so that the idea of wind power had become familiar, even though there had been serious resistance at one point. Moreover, the government had put great effort into communicating the benefits of renewable energy and further insisted they were working not to corrupt the natural beauty of the islands. Ms Tenfjord-Toftby pointed out that the departments of energy and the environment were often in conflict in other governments and wondered how he balanced that, being in charge of both. Minister Röblom said that they would be taking note of sensitive underwater fauna as well as birds and other wildlife once their huge wind farm project would near the implementation phase. In his view, it was good for energy and the environment to be united in one ministry. Secretary General Bodo Bahr pointed out that the new HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan was seeking to meet the goals its predecessor had not. To the question of how Åland was pushing to achieve these, Minister Röblom highlighted the archipelago’s close collaboration with the Finnish government and that they were seeking to raise awareness of the particular problems of Åland, such as the fish farms. Ms Kassautzki mentioned German efforts to make fish farming more sustainable, such as using mussels to reduce the nutrient spill into the Baltic Sea. She suggested an exchange of best practices to which the minister readily agreed. Ms Alexandra de Haas spoke about the transition to a green economy through local action . She explained that LEADER was a method funded by the European Union since 1991, now in its 31 st year. The acronym stood for the French “Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de l’Économie Rurale”, meaning Links between Activities for the Development of Rural Economy. It was also called community-led local development, a bottom-up and grassroots approach to allow the people to make decisions on their future. In this partnership between civil, private and public sectors, it was important for the latter not to dominate these Local Action Groups (LAGs) or Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAGs). Defining a specific rural LEADER area, the LAGs created partnerships and networks to analyse the local needs from the local perspective and design a local development strategy for a seven-year period. Finland had launched its LEADER groups in 1996, now featuring 55 LAGs and 10 FLAGs out of 3000 LEADER areas in Europe. Åland’s association had been founded 15 years earlier, implementing the method through both the Rural Development Programme and the European Maritime Fisheries Fund. Thus, one LAG and one FLAG had been implemented covering the entire archipelago, with their own strategies for rural and maritime development. From 2007 to 2013, the focus had been mostly on village development and cultural heritage while the present programme period concentrated on nature, the environment and sustainability. To preserve the archipelago’s natural heritage, awareness of environmental concerns had been raised to kick off local projects which currently numbered more than 120. Half of the land-based projects were directly linked to increasing biodiversity or reducing eutrophication, such as restoring beach meadows or overgrown areas. The target was not just restoration but also the availability of areas for leisure and/or as beautiful vistas. Of the marine projects, 55 % were about restoring fish populations. The Rural Development Programme demanded that non-productive areas be established, such as restoring wetlands and minimising eutrophication leakage by creating nature preserves. After an initially poor response from the farming community, the LEADER project had been given the task of promoting these unattractive measures. Ms Tenfjord-Toftby asked for clarification, and Ms de Haas mentioned that in the first programme period, there had only been two restoration projects. Mr Simon Påvals pointed out there was a unique type of sheep on Åland. In consultation with farmers and local communities, creative solutions could be found, making investments more available. As much as farmers needed nutrients for their fields, Ms de Haas stressed that these had to be restricted to agricultural land, preventing leakage. Chairwoman Tenfjord-Toftby pointed out that the war in Ukraine had rendered the fertiliser supply scarce so that farmers would have to recover the nutrients, meaning that an environmental concern had become an economic problem. Ms de Haas noted that the recent dry years had already made farmers create ponds or ditches to trap the nutrients, allowing them to be reused. In one example, such a pond was benefiting biodiversity as well as being available to the public for leisure activities and education, along with a pavilion. Mr Påvals interjected that younger farmers, born in the 1980s, were more open to environmental issues and saw the value in them. Ms de Haas went on to note EU interest in Åland’s local-based efforts, awarding them the prize LEADER Pearl of Finland in 2020. Further examples of the archipelago’s success included combining nature preserves with hiking paths, reducing the human effect on wildlife through so-called “slow tourism” and urban farming projects to increase awareness. Sedimentation projects and pond building also contributed to fish restoration as did obstacle removal for fish movements and new nurseries as spawning grounds. A sign of the eutrophication was the proliferation of reed on Åland where the harvest allowed land restoration, but remaining reed corridors provided shelter for fish. This applied to ducks as well, Mr Påvals added. To a question from Ms Anna Kassautzki , Ms de Haas explained that fish could neither live nor spawn in the reed fields, with Mr Påvals chiming in that the reeds were invasive species taking away land and water. Moreover, harvesting the reeds also meant removing the nutrients the plants had taken up from soil and water. Through the close collaboration with the local community and advice on application, funding and accounting, Ms de Haas said that LEADER could achieve more than conventional funding systems allowed. She underlined that the whole society had to be involved in a grassroots movement. Ms Kassautzki addressed possible problems with low oxygenation in the Baltic Sea around Åland. While Ms de Haas could not give any exact information, Mr Påvals noted that all their projects were lowering the nutrient flow from land to sea. Prof Jānis Vucāns was interested if the reeds were used for renewable energy. Ms de Haas replied that several options were being explored, such as improving farming land. To another question from Mr Vucāns, the speaker noted that LEADER’s contacts outside Åland were mainly with Finland but also Sweden and other local action groups in the EU. These were important to see the larger context as well as to learn from each other. Mr Andres Metsoja asked about funding: Ms de Haas explained that Finland required EU funds to be kept separate; the local action groups represented various companies, municipalities or other groups across the archipelago. The new strategy from 2023 – 2027 was being prepared in collaboration with the municipalities and the civil sector, to determine needs and opportunities. Mr Påvals noted that LEADER’s success was based on the notion of people in small communities collaborating without expecting financial remuneration. This tradition was so ingrained in Scandinavian society that a word for it had been coined in each of the associated languages, allowing LEADER to find fertile ground for its endeavours. Government Survey The Working Group had conducted a survey among the BSPC governments for information regarding the group’s topics. Chairwoman Tenfjord-Toftby declared that the answers from 11 governments were very good, providing an excellent overview. That also helped in knowing what had already been done elsewhere, so that understanding could be shared and did not have to be done over and over again. Given the critical impact that the war in Ukraine was having on energy and food security as well as safety overall, the group debated launching another survey asking the governments how the war had affected their efforts in mitigating climate change and restoring biodiversity. Prof Jānis Vucāns noted that the war had sped up efforts in the Baltic countries, such as a large new wind farm project. Co-Chair Liz Mattsson , Mr Kacper Płażyński and Ms Tenfjord-Toftby further contributed. The Working Group decided to include this question in a second survey to be sent out after the BSPC’s Annual Conference in Stockholm in June. Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum The working group discussed the upcoming Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, which would be partly on-site and partly digital. Mr Kacper Płażyński inquired about the selection process. Ms Tenfjord-Toftby informed him that the CBSS as a partner organisation was handling recruitment through their own youth platform as well as contacts with NGOs and youth groups. While representatives would come from every currently active country in the BSPC, she noted that the decision had been made not to include Russians. The chairwoman underlined her pride at the high-level discussions that had been the hallmark of the first forum, with the young people providing a great deal of new approaches, but also the parliamentarians’ obligation to listen and put the youth suggestions into their own work. Calls for Action to the Governments as part of the BSPC’s 2022 Resolution Discussing the calls for action to be included in the present year’s BSPC Resolution, Mr Płażyński , Prof Vucāns, Ms Tenfjord-Toftby , Mr Bahr , Mr Philipp da Cunha , Mr Arvils Ašeradens, Mr Alexander Mohrenberg , Ms Mattsson discussed the issue of a secure energy supply at competitive prices, considering nuclear as well as zero-emission and domestic energy. In addition, Ms Beate Schlupp, Mr Andres Metsoja , and Mr Ašeradens, also contributed to the further debate about other calls for action, such as the role of science and NGOs in decision-making or the recycling of construction materials as well as a cascading use of raw materials. After further discussion, the Working Group unanimously agreed on eleven calls for action to the governments for inclusion in the 31 st 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 ). Further Matters Since Mr Kolbeinn Ottarsson Proppé had left parliament and would therefore no longer serve as co-chair, a replacement was selected with Mr Philipp da Cunha . Moreover, Chairwoman Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby herself would not seek re-election in the Swedish general elections in autumn, thus requiring a replacement as well afterwards. The first co-chair, Ms Liz Mattsson , had declined taking over the lead position. The working group decided to propose Mr da Cunha as future chairperson to the Standing Committee. Regarding the next meeting of the working group in August 2022 in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Mr da Cunha noted that the location might be changed from Schwerin to Greifswald because of the proximity of several interesting projects, including peatland, fusion energy, a fission nuclear power plant as well as the offshore grid for windmills. Further hosts and times for future meetings of the working group during its extended mandate were discussed. Visiting the Project Nabbens Wetland The Working Group also visited a Wetland for increased biodiversity and climate-adapted stormwater management as part of Mariehamn’s environmental programme ( information here ). Mr Ulf Simolin , Environmental Coordinator for the City of Mariehamn and Ms Linda Sundström gave detailed information about the Wetland, the environmental programme and the goals that reduce the city’s environmental impact on coastal waters, beaches and watercourses and discussed the results with the working group members. In this way, the Working Group was able to gain direct insights into the implementation of the goals in practice and the concrete results. ( more impressions here )

In its first in-person meeting after four digital sessions, the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity met in Åland for a two-day event. On the first day, they learned about the islands’ efforts towards a fully sustainable society. With the support of government, the private sector and the people, efforts are ongoing to establish wide-ranging structures for offshore wind parks, solar power plants and tying these into international power grids. Furthermore, a new concept for island sustainability has been developed to international acclaim, making habitability a measure for the unique characteristics of islands. About 30 participants from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, Estonia, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Latvia, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Poland, and Sweden attended the meeting. Welcome Ms Veronica Thörnroos , Head of the Åland Government, who had also been very engaged in the BSPC work for many years, offered a wholehearted welcome to the working group meeting participants in the 100 th anniversary year of Åland’s autonomy. She underlined the importance of international cooperation and close contact between politicians from different countries around the Baltic Sea. She wished the working group members much success in their ongoing work dealing with crucial issues for the Baltic Sea. Introduction In her introduction to the members to the fifth meeting of the Working Group, Chair Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby pointed out that this was the first time the group had been able to meet in person, after all-digital meetings due to COVID-19 restrictions. She highlighted the deep involvement of the Åland parliament, the Lagting, in the BSPC, having hosted the annual conference three times as well as several working groups and the Standing Committee on numerous occasions. Ms Tenfjord-Toftby pointed out that the BSPC had frozen all connections to Russian representatives, including this working group. Vice Chair Liz Mattsson , also representing the meeting’s host country of Åland, offered a welcome of her own to Mariehamn. She underlined that this year marked the 100 th anniversary of Åland’s autonomy. The BSPC was important for her parliament as cross-border cooperation, namely also between parliamentarians, had never been as crucial as right now. Presentations Mr Berndt Schalin , CEO of Flexens Ltd, spoke about the project Smart Energy Åland his company was implementing. Born in 2014 from a cluster of clean tech companies in Finland, the goal was to show how a society could run on 100 % renewable energy only. The academic phase of the project had been completed in 2018, after which time the project was incorporated as a company, still primarily funded by the Finnish government. The excellent conditions for wind and solar power as well as the island’s existing endeavours in this regard and its self-contained energy market regulation contributed to Åland serving as the testbed, with a large service and transport sector as well as a sizable population of 30,000 people. This allowed experiences there to be scaled up to other countries and Europe as a whole. Existing technology could not support a wholly renewable economy so that the project had chosen to put together small-scale demonstrations of future technologies that would have to be developed. On Åland, electricity was not a major emission source as the power provided from Sweden was nuclear and hydro-electric. Instead, heating and traffic were the main emitters, in particular maritime traffic. For a fully sustainable economy, energy would come mainly from solar and wind power. Being weather-dependent sources, that meant storage was required, in the case of Åland preferably as heat storage rather than batteries. Mr Schalin listed three sub-projects, one about an energy island community as part of the Horizon 2020 programme, plans for a hydrogen-powered ferry and an abandoned mine to be turned into a hydro energy storage facility. In that regard, Mr Schalin pointed out that usage determined technology – if the end use was heat, heat storage was best; if hydrogen-based mobility was looked for, hydrogen was ideal, but on the other hand, the poor efficiency in turning hydrogen into electricity again made that a bad proposition. Current wind power installations produced 60 MW, with the potential for more than 6 GW in offshore wind parks, while a solar park producing 30 MW was planned. Looking at futureproof technologies, Mr Schalin focused on hydrogen, first explaining that batteries were 90 % efficient in conveying power to the vehicle while hydrogen fuel cells only yielded 60 % – still a notable advance over the 35 – 40 % achieved by internal combustion engines. Synthetic fuels were less desirable as they added another conversion level in-between the original hydrogen and the use in the engine, i.e., creating more efficiency loss and greater costs. Looking at the use case of ferries, the higher efficiency and lower cost of batteries was countered by their significant weight so that hydrogen was more economic on longer duration journeys. He conceded that the advantage of synthetic fuels was that they could be run on existing engines. The real bottleneck in the energy transition was the permission process on the side of governments, as local complaints were processed too slowly. In response to a question from Ms Tenfjord-Toftby about European energy taxes, Mr Schalin clarified that Åland was part of the EU but subject to Finnish, non-EU taxation which followed a different scheme. To another question by Prof Jānis Vucāns , President of the Baltic Assembly, he clarified that his company was owned by a consortium of enterprises and universities, the city of Mariehamn, the government of Åland and local energy companies. After a question from Secretary General Bodo Bahr regarding the maritime fuel cell debate in Germany 10 years earlier, Mr Schalin pointed out that hydrogen-based solutions were already in use, such as trains or ferries in San Francisco. He underlined that the Baltic Sea was a very good place for hydrogen production through e.g., offshore wind. Finland and Sweden were collaborating in a push for the Baltic Sea to become the energy-producing “Gulf States” of the future for Europe, running the open BotH 2 nia network collaborating in hydrogen production. Mr Ralf Häggblom , Department of Infrastructure in the government of Åland, spoke next about the project Sunnanvind (Sea-based Wind Power) , concerning the establishment of large-scale offshore wind farms in the areas of planning and permissions. Rather than developing and implementing the wind farms themselves, Sunnanvind was laying the administrative groundwork, through cooperation across borders, for instance with the Danish Energy Agency, but also in the various municipalities where the farms would be housed. Moreover, they were communicating information to stakeholders as well as outside interested parties. The government’s maritime spatial plan had determined six suitable areas, all owned by the government, with the north offering better cost-competitiveness and efficiency. While the potential energy production was huge, the primary concern was how to get the power to suitable markets in cost-efficient ways. Aside from directly tapping into power grids, hydrogen could be produced offshore, although onshore production and refinement – based on offshore energy – was more cost-competitive. The project was investigating possible threat scenarios for wind park operators, such as the ice risk. Furthermore, they were evaluating which energy distribution schemes made the most sense. Currently, the wind farm locations were being auctioned off. Estimates were for 10 – 12 years of building up the capacities, requiring a long-term organisation to adjust plans and manage Åland’s interests. Added to this was the 30 – 35-year lifetime of a wind farm. The present project, though, would be ending in 2026, with the termination of its EU funding. Mr Häggblom addressed the permit process which was shared between Åland and Finland in some crucial respects. For instance, environmental and construction permits were Åland’s responsibility while defence assessments or seabed investigations fell to the Finnish side. Accordingly, close cooperation with the Finnish authorities was needed, and similar collaboration was required with Swedish ministries for exporting power to that country. Ms Tenfjord-Toftby asked about wind conditions in the Baltic Sea, noting that to her knowledge they were better than the west coasts of Sweden or Norway. She further mentioned a current debate in Sweden about who would bear the costs of connecting offshore energy production to onshore power grids, governments or end users. Mr Häggblom clarified that Åland’s wind installations would be market-based, without government subsidies. As for the energy grid connection, the government was still negotiating and evaluating options. Nevertheless, that meant energy prices for end users would incorporate these costs. To a comment by Mr Arvils Ašeradens, MP Latvia, Mr Häggblom said that he expected wind farms to be implemented only around 2030. He further specified that the northern area covered some 600 km² and that the wind farm would be visible from shore in good weather. As for the sea conditions, present standards called for depths of no more than 50 metres to install wind power generators nor less than about 20 metres. 30 metres were a good target for secure operations. Regarding a question of Mr Kacper Płażyński , MP Poland, about nuclear power on Åland, Mr Häggblom pointed out that the sea was the natural resource available to the islands and government investments were targeting wind rather than nuclear power. Mr Christian Pleijel spoke about habitability on the island of Kökar, as far out at sea as was possible in Åland. The project approach was bottom-up, from the island perspective. There were 230 residents on Manhattan-sized Kökar, a municipality of its own, with its own legislative authority. Four years earlier, a sustainability analysis had been launched for the island, supported by EU funding. It turned out that the ordinary sustainability tools were not detailed enough to apply to so small a location, especially given the peculiarities of an island environment. Therefore, Kökar had developed a concept of their own, focused on habitability rather than sustainability: What mattered for a small island was that people wanted to live there, including such factors as jobs, cheap energy or ferry access. These were lacking in regular sustainability analyses. With forty indicators developed, Kökar put together a habitability plan based on seven main areas: prosperous people, confidence in the society, clean water, ecosystems in balance, attractiveness, renewable energy and the local economy. Results showed that Kökar was not – per their own definition – habitable in some areas, such as prices. Costs of living on Kökar were 150 % of the respective costs in Åland’s capital of Mariehamn. Energy was another problematic factor as Kökar residents were frequently using ferries, and these were rarely full. So, the municipality, along with the company Flexens, applied to the Horizon 2020 programme and received 1.2 million euros to remake their energy system, as a pilot project for a multitude of similar islands in the EU. The habitability concept was developed further, with academic and EU assistance, piquing the interest of several other islands. The revised seven areas now started with place identity. Here, he mentioned the difference of summer and winter on islands – filled to the brim with visitors in the former, only the few locals remaining in winter. These two different identities made energy planning very complicated, the same applying to water and sewage as well as ferry schedules. Indicators now measured inter alia full-time and part-time residents as well as the population dynamics shifting over a year. The UN had introduced a tourist-to-locals ratio for countries, with Andorra reaching a world record of 36 tourists to 1 local resident. Kökar, though, had a ratio of 250 to 1. He underlined how crucial population dynamics were to islands, increasing the difficulty of planning. The next area was distance. Kökar was only 20 kilometres from the next destination, but it took two and a half hours to get there. Accordingly, time was the relevant measure for the so-called perceived distance rather than kilometres. After that, there were ecosystems, fresh water, energy, local economy, public service and prosperous people. Ecosystems dealt with land and sea, specifically how natural events were affecting the island. Fresh water concerned water resources, such as rain and snow but also the question of desalination. For each of these indicators, there was now a formula in place to determine its status. Examples were provided for each of them as well. Energy looked at its consumption, how much was produced in situ and how much was renewable. Local economy considered the business ecosystem of the island, such as work opportunities, the local turnover, the spending leakage by shopping elsewhere. This area also included the brand of the island, i.e., whether it was attractive for both tourists and prospective residents. Public services included local administration, school system, taxes and the like. Prosperous people investigated age distribution, health, safety and integration. The final – and most important – consideration was whether the population was growing. Mr Pleijel noted that this habitability system was now being applied to 12 Finnish islands, the other 5 island municipalities of Åland as well as islands in Croatia. He underlined that habitability was vital for new projects, such as the wind farms in the earlier presentations, as acceptance by the local population was necessary. Wind power was a huge opportunity for islands, but it had to be dealt with in a very delicate manner. After a question by Mr Bodo Bahr , Mr Pleijel noted that this concept could be applied to all islands, with their own peculiarities, including as an example Helgoland in Germany. As the EU funding had concerned the development of the habitability concept, Ms Tenfjord-Toftby asked if further EU money was needed for the investments needed to develop Kökar, given the low number of residents and thus tax-payers. Mr Pleijel clarified that the original project was part of Interreg, the second Horizon 2020. But that energy project had not been started yet, because of resistance on the island. He insisted that Kökar was seeking to finance the transition themselves, as much as possible, so as to own most of the facilities. Åland has a long-term project on fulfilling the sustainability targets on the islands, called Bärkraft . Ms Petra Granholm and Mr Niklas Lampi spoke about this project. Development and Sustainability Agenda for Åland and the Bärkraft Network Climate change – pledges and actions in the Åland Islands Åland goal 4 2030: Biodiversity and ecosystems in balance Ms Petra Granholm introduced herself as a civil society representative in this respect, responsible for the goal of biodiversity. Aiming to become fully sustainable no later than 2051, after 9 parliamentary periods, the Åland parliament and government had launched their efforts in 2014, based on the internationally recognised definition of sustainable development and adapted to the needs of the islands. The strength of the agenda lay in its wide spread among several sectors, including civil society, academia, business and government. One of the two guiding lights of the project was Åland’s vision that everyone could flourish on the islands of peace, along with the 2030 target for the global sustainability goals. Of the seven goals of the Åland project, the first two concerned social sustainability, three and four dealt with the environment, the fifth was attractiveness of the islands, the sixth was climate change and energy efficiency, and the seventh was about sustainable and mindful patterns of consumption and production. To that end, a roadmap had been developed that was constantly being updated. In the near future, the latest status report was about to be published, indicating how far Åland had come in the key indicators. In 2019, the project had received the European Sustainability Award. Ms Granholm mentioned a survey several years earlier showing that a large part of the population was aware of the efforts and supported them. The sustainability project, she underlined, had a deep entrenchment in Åland society. After six years of work, the structure for the work was now in place. Ms Tenfjord-Toftby wondered if the key to Åland’s success was the small size of the project, making it easier to reach people from all kinds of sectors. Ms Granholm agreed but rather saw the building of the structure as decisive and bringing everyone on board. Mr Simon Påvals, MP Åland, added that the grassroots approach had been vital in his view, communicating the goals to the people from the start. It had been genius and the basis for the success of putting everything into everyone’s consciousness from the beginning. He had been involved in the process at the beginning as a social fieldworker. Now, he could see it from another perspective as a member of Parliament. To a further question from Ms Tenfjord-Toftby , Ms Petra Granholm said she believed their efforts could be scaled up, although she noted Åland’s unique characteristics. Mr Niklas Lampi , responsible for the topic of climate change in the Bärkraft project, considered himself the representative of the local business sector. The recently revised target in this area had been set for Åland to become climate-neutral by 2035, influenced by the Finnish climate law currently debated in parliament. Aside from the benefits in itself, climate change mitigation also offered new opportunities for growth for the local community. In their efforts, Åland was focused on greenhouse gas emissions, with a number of sub-goals. Mr Lampi cautioned that some of these were very difficult to reach, such as 80 % lower emissions by 2030. More achievable was a 50 % reduction in road transport emissions since private companies were already pursuing this in smaller vehicles. Cost-effective solutions for lorries and other large vehicles were still lacking, though, and had to be developed. The third goal, though, was one that the Nordic countries had already almost reached – complete provision of electricity without fossil fuels. Water, nuclear, solar and wind power would soon be the exclusive electricity sources. The fourth goal was the phasing out of fossil energy in heating buildings and switching to climate-smart solutions. He explained that climate emissions in Åland had been going down since 2005, although there was still a long way to go. Three major emitters of the present day were expected to significantly drive down emissions in the coming years: heating, road traffic and commercial shipping, with the latter under pressure from EU regulations. Another emitter, farming, offered both a risk and an opportunity as a carbon sink. The archipelago ferries, though, used diesel engines and were under no legislative pressure to change over to renewables, unlike commercial shipping. Electricity came in last as a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Here, he mentioned the planned offshore wind park that could provide as much as a third of the power consumption of Finland. As a positive development, Mr Lampi highlighted that the EU countries were moving away from cheap Russian fossil fuels to create a new future. While other fossil fuels would replace some of these, the Green Agenda would be pushed forward and could prove a gamechanger for the energy system in Europe. Chairwoman Tenfjord-Toftby inquired what the Bärkraft representatives saw as the key factors of Åland’s success, allowing it to be scaled up to other countries. For Mr Lampi, short distances were a vital aspect, not least between business and politics. The project also brought together people from backgrounds who normally would not discuss these issues, offering fresh perspectives. Ms Tenfjord-Toftby noted that the bottom-up approach seemed to be a connecting factor in all the projects on Åland, mentioning one example of seaweed being harvested and turned into a product rather than clogging up the waters. The support of the people was decisive but ramping up from the small populations of Åland to entire countries looked challenging. Mr Lampi agreed but countered those countries had better resources, e.g., in data collection, already in place. Prof Jānis Vucāns, President of the Baltic Assembly,asked about the share of archipelago ferries in the overall emissions. Mr Lampi replied that they made up 8 % and were part of the Bärkraft project. Commercial shipping, at 30 %, was not included. Bärkraft ’s logic was that shipping was under the EU’s purview, effecting enormous force, so that Åland was concentrating on issues they could affect directly. Prof Vucāns was also concerned with climate neutrality as rising energy prices for fuel had led to backslides in some countries. In Mr Lampi’s view, these prices were rather pushing the electrification of vehicles. Mr Bodo Bahr asked about the progress made in Åland since the BSPC had learned about the efforts six years earlier; Ms Granholm explained that it was difficult to quantify because the goals had been revised during that time. New understanding had led to improved indicators, shifting the ambitions. Mr Lampi added that, for electricity production, Åland used solely wind power, and the Nordic countries were mostly emission-free in that regard. Because that goal had already been achieved, the target had been expanded to other energy sources. He described setting the goals as a living process. Mr Kacper Płażyński wished to know about the timetable for the offshore wind farm. Mr Lampi explained they were in the early stages, exploring possible areas and talking to companies interested in setting up the 500 windmills. The most optimistic scenario was for 2030, after clearing the hurdles of a permit by the defence ministry as well as environmental and biodiversity concerns. This led into Ms Petra Granholm speaking about biodiversity. Being a part of nature, it was vital to do no harm to the existing species. That attitude was crucial, underlined by a finding that most people in Åland saw an intrinsic value in plants and animals, beyond human use. The majority also saw benefits in human health and the economy through environmental efforts. For this region, planning was a complicated affair since Åland’s sixteen municipalities had their own plans, making coordinated mitigation of climate effects and the establishment of green passages more difficult. Further targets of the project focused on keeping the impact of invasive species as low as possible, establishing protected areas as per EU strategy and legislation and finally restoration of locally lost species and rewilding. The primary challenge for Åland was that they were far behind the goals called for by the EU Biodiversity Strategy to implement protected areas. As demanding as EU legislation was on the small administrative staff, Ms Granholm underlined that it had been a driving force in the autonomous region’s environmental endeavour. Ms Tenfjord-Toftby wondered if raising awareness about losing biodiversity was more difficult. Ms Granholm agreed and applauded the working group’s combination of this topic with climate change. She referred to Sir David Attenborough who was championing this approach of solving – at least some – climate change problems through nature and being aware of humans as part of the web of life. As an example, she mentioned natural carbon sinks. Storytelling was crucial to communicate this message. Mr Lampi noted that biodiversity and ecosystems offered services that assisted in confronting and adapting to climate change – services that were also economically beneficial. On the margins of the parliamentary session held that day in the Lagting, members of the working group met the Speaker of Parliament, Bert Häggblom , the former BSPC President Jörgen Pettersson and the Director of Parliament, Susanne Eriksson , and had the opportunity to talk to the Minister of Finance, Roger Höglund , the Minister for Infrastructure Christian Wikström , and the Minister of Social Affairs and Health, Annette Holmberg-Jansson . After the consultations in Lagting, the working group visited the municipality of Degerby on the island of Föglö and had an in-depth exchange of views with the chairman and other members of the Åland Islands delegation to the BSPC Wille Valve, Liz Matsson, Simon Påvals and Jesper Josefsson, as well as with the Chairwoman of the Municipal Council of Föglö, Gun-Britt Gullbrandsson and other representatives of the island. ( more impressions download here part1 part2 part3 )

The Russian invasion of Ukraine means a deep cut in the work of the BSPC which suspended and froze the memberships of the Russian parliaments. The Standing Committee discussed how to continue their work and revise their Rules of Procedure before learning more about the migration of refugees from Ukraine to Poland as well as the effects on the CBSS and their continued activities. The future of the BSPC and the Baltic Sea Region was further investigated regarding the 2022 Conference in Stockholm as well as an outlook on the following German presidency, with a focus on the continued involvement of youth participants through the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum. The meeting included about 40 participants from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the Nordic Council, Norway, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden. Introduction BSPC President Pyry Niemi welcomed the members to the Standing Committee meeting in Warsaw, Poland, highlighting the host country’s efforts in supporting refugees from the war in Ukraine. Russia’s invasion had led to a fork in the road for the BSPC’s cooperation. Mr Jaroslav Wałęsa , head of the Polish delegation, described his country as at the front of what was happening in Europe. He underlined that Russia had become a terrorist state, targeting civilians, schools and hospitals in a war of annihilation that would take a very long time. None had expected there to be another war in Europe, but now it was necessary to arm themselves to prevent Russia from taking another step forward. Sanctions had to be reinforced. He emphasised that Putin and his regime had to be held accountable. Furthermore, he voiced his pride over Poland having taken in so many refugees, noting that the country required substantial financial support to care for these people over the long period it would take until Ukraine could be rebuilt. Indeed, Mr Wałęsa underlined that the heart of the matter was the west continuing to stand united against Russia. As long as they would continue to speak with one voice, everything else would fall into place. Forging a New Future for the BSPC President Niemi pointed out that the BSPC had been the platform for cooperation, commitment, competence and political dialogue in the whole Baltic Sea region for 31 years, aiming to contribute to stability, peace, and democracy. After the Russian invasion, the next planned meeting of the Standing Committee had been adjourned. On 25 February 2022, the president and vice-president had released a statement condemning the unjust military attack in the strongest terms and appealing to the Russian Federation to immediately stop their assault. The heads of the BSPC delegations from outside Russia added their opposition to the war in a further statement on 12 March 2022, noting that they had decided that the Russian parliaments be suspended from all efforts of the BSPC until cooperation under the fundamental principles of international law would once again become possible. The Standing Committee discussed how to implement the future of the organisation with regard to excluding any parliaments acting counter to the democratic values of the BSPC. The president and the secretary general laid out the available options to be finally decided at the Annual Conference in Stockholm in June 2022, ranging from disbanding and re-founding the BSPC to reforming the organisation. Remarks to the discussion were contributed by Mr Bertel Haarder, Mr Jaroslav Wałęsa, Ms Carola Veit, Mr Bodo Bahr, Prof Jānis Vucāns, President Pyry Niemi, Mr Wille Valve, Mr Sakari Puisto, Vice-President Johannes Schraps and Mr Himanshu Gulati . Given the immense administrative efforts, time spans and decisions that would have to be taken in various parliaments in forming a new organisation, a realignment and an adaptation of the existing BSPC to the current situation – suspending and freezing the memberships of the Russian parliaments – underlining its democratic and peace oriented values and principles based on international law emerged as the favoured choice, continuing the endeavours of the democratic members in working together and retaining the ability to act. A proposal for revised Rules of Procedure would be distributed a few weeks later, BSPC President Pyry Niemi explained. At the Stockholm Conference in June, there would be a one-hour pre-conference event at which the final decision would be taken on the Rules of Procedure as well as the suspension of the Russian parliaments by the Annual Conference. The president underlined that this change would be accompanied by a document explaining the grave reasons for it, not least for future delegations to the BSPC to understand the historical measures taken. The Standing Committee agreed to that proposal. Presentations Presentation Professor Paweł Kaczmarczyk: Migration from Ukraine to Poland – Past and present Professor Paweł Kaczmarczyk , Director of the Centre of Migration Research, Poland, spoke about the migration from Ukraine to Poland, a process still unfolding with many aspects yet unknown. Ten years earlier, Poland had been the EU country with the lowest share of foreigners among their population, below 0.5 %. After 2014, Poland became a leader in issuing residence permits as a consequence of the first war with Ukraine and massive migration pressure. Poland had also developed a strong demand for outside labour. From 100,000 foreign residents in 2011, Poland had 750,000 in 2016, predominantly male and of productive age. Most of these were Ukrainians, only staying temporarily in the country. Immigration proceeded apace, with only a minor dip during the start of the corona pandemic. Polish legislation easily allowing citizens of six former Soviet countries to work in the country has led to some 1.5 million immigrants, primarily from Ukraine. Even before the war, migration from Ukraine to Poland had already been massive, spreading across the entire country. Regarding the attitudes towards immigration, Prof Kaczmarczyk distinguished between old immigration countries – mostly western European but also the southern European nations experiencing massive inflows during the 1990s and 2000s – as well as new and future immigration countries, mainly in central and eastern Europe. Looking at data from 2018, he found that the perception of immigrants in western European countries as threats was in decline, e.g., in the UK and Germany. In southern Europe, Italy was an exception, presumably due to their role in the refugee crisis of 2015/16. Most interesting were the changes in central and eastern Europe, with countries like Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia perceiving immigrants as threats. The same applied to hostility towards newcomers. Despite the very different patterns of immigration, the attitude development was striking and could not be explained by the newcomers themselves. Rather, politicization and media slant affected the popular view. Prof Kaczmarczyk cited a well-known phenomenon called “imaginary immigrants”, with the UK as an example. People believed that most people coming to the UK were asylum-seekers or refugees when in fact, the vast majority were students or labour migrants. The facts did not matter but rather the perception, the professor underlined. This perception could be fuelled even more by politics, as evidenced by the “Vote to Leave” campaign in the UK. Prof Kaczmarczyk went on to speak about the recent refugee situation at the border between Belarus and Poland. In July 2021, the developments were in fact kicked off at the Lithuanian border, with increased pressure on the Polish border as well. From the declaration of a state of emergency in September to November, some 30,000 attempts to illegally cross the border had been registered, with an unknown number of pushbacks. The border was not as tight as believed as some 10,000 people had still reached Germany. The speaker highlighted that the position of the Polish government at this time was very strong against immigration, including respective changes of legislation. This case had been called a “migration crisis”, concerning some 13,000 – 15,000 people stuck in the woods between the border or in Belarus. Some 5,000 – 10,000 people might still be stuck in Belarus. Comparing these numbers to what was happening at the moment showed a stark difference. Fairly little was known about the current situation, not least because of the mobility of the group in question, going back and forth. Two unique features characterized the situation: firstly, Ukrainians had been able to move freely across EU territory from the start, and, secondly, they could also move back to their home country if they liked. This, the professor pointed out, was very unusual. Current estimates showed that some 5 million people had left Ukraine, with approximately 3 million of those having reached Polish territory. By far, the highest numbers were registered in the early days of the war, the inflow tapering off and outflow back to Ukraine slightly increasing since. One million Ukrainians had registered in Poland, 50 % of them children, 45 % of them women of an economically productive age and 3 – 5 % of the elderly. Entering the Polish labour market was a slow process, so far only having yielded some 60,000 jobs. For Warsaw, as an example, this meant that the number of children of school age increased by 30 – 40 % within a single month. For the look forward, important unknowns were when the war would end and what the political and social situation in Ukraine would be then. Prof Kaczmarczyk said that the Centre of Migration Research was considering three main scenarios, such as a protracted war, a quick end of the war and a fast recovery, a long war with a very difficult restoration. The professor underlined that in all likelihood, the number of Ukrainians in Poland would be much higher after the war than before, in every scenario. Secondly, the demographic structure would change substantially, with a greater share of children and elderly while there had been barely any before. This raised challenges that the countries of the Baltic Sea were already facing: first of all, housing, education, child and health care, labour market and the attitudes towards newcomers. Only two months after the start of the war, the people were already exhausted – also financially – so that systemic and massive interventions were necessary. He noted that of the 2.8 million people who had come to Poland, 1.5 million had stayed while the rest had moved on. The remainder was still a huge number, putting huge pressure on social services. The professor distinguished the situation from that in Germany in 2015 as many of the Ukrainians coming to Poland already had knowledge of the local labour market. Child care was a primary barrier to entry. Finally, he addressed the attitude towards newcomers. Prof Kaczmarczyk emphasised that immigration was a topic that could very easily be politicised and used by populist politicians and media, not only in Poland. Smart communication strategies were needed on the side of government, showing why the migration was happening, how the support would be financed, how responsibilities would be shared, how the community – including the EU – would be used. This had to be communicated to the public as soon as possible. In response to a question by Ms Bryndís Haraldsdóttir of Iceland, Prof Kaczmarczyk explained that immigrants were expected to get a Polish ID. Surprisingly well as it was going, the process did not record how many people had left Ukraine or had then left Poland, much as in Germany. Plans were afoot for a large-scale longitudinal survey, following the groups that had arrived in Poland for their decisions and needs. Mr Johannes Schraps noted the importance of the EU decision to allow free movement to Ukrainian refugees but also the extraordinary lengths that Ukraine’s neighbouring countries had gone to. Ms Carola Veit commented that most refugees being in EU territory might speed up Ukraine’s accession. Regarding these and Mr Bahr’s questions, the professor believed the focus should be on supporting the refugees and in the longer term the reconstruction of Ukraine. He emphasised that these were not migrants but for the most part wanted to return as fast as possible. Mr Olaf Berstad , Chair of the Committee of Senior Officials of the Council of the Baltic Sea States, Norway, spoke about the state of affairs in the Council of the Baltic Sea States. The CBSS had no provisions for suspension or cancellation of membership as it was built around consensus rather than legal obligations. Despite most member states now also being EU members, the CBSS had yielded an extra benefit by including Russia, especially during more difficult relations. Yet its priority areas of fostering a regional identity and crafting a safe and secure region were a strong raison d’être all on their own. After Russia’s invasion had made clear that cooperation could not continue as it had before, not only was it decided to suspend Russia and Belarus but also to do so through a joint declaration by the foreign ministers of the remaining CBSS member states, just one week after the invasion had begun. That would give it a similar status to the Copenhagen Declaration that had launched the CBSS. This suspension would hold until cooperation would become possible under international law again. Mr Berstad did not believe a ceasefire would meet those requisites, and that a resumption of cooperation would take a long while. Russia was considering the suspension a hostile act, threatening withdrawal. The payments originally provided by Russia were frozen since the disrupted banking connections rendered refunding impossible. Russia’s absence, though, would enable the CBSS to hold the first full council meeting since 2013. Russia’s aggression in eastern Ukraine and the Crimea had prevented such already. On 25 May 2022, the ministers would meet to discuss how to handle cooperation without Russia and Belarus as well as how to support Ukraine, an observer country to the CBSS. A political declaration was being drafted, also in light of the 30 th anniversary of the CBSS and the huge progress the Baltic Sea region had experienced over that time. As for the future, the CBSS had decided to proceed with its work and plans as much as possible and to do so without Russia. A new expert group on sustainable development was being planned, combining the strength of 10 countries, the European Commission and over 150 local and regional authorities. Ambassador Grzegorz Marek Poznański , Director General of the CBSS Secretariat, added that the long-term priorities of regional identity, a sustainable and prosperous region, a safe and secure region remained valid as well as the long-term challenges such as climate change or demographic shifts. The CBSS expert groups had been energized by the suspension of Russia, developing ways of supporting Ukraine through their civil protection specialties. The expert group dealing with children at risk was looking into increasing or protecting the rights of children. At the same time, human trafficking was confronted, applying the CBSS expertise in transnational prevention efforts. Many issues had only been possible in a limited frame due to Russia’s involvement; without it, they could be explored in more depth. Ambassador Poznański pointed out that 2022 would mark the second time in a row that the CBSS and the BSPC were cooperating in organising a Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, making use of the Baltic Sea Youth Platform, a vital tool for youth collaboration. The CBSS was working on making it a permanent and more sustainable institution. The youth activities had proven highly successful, connecting them among each other and bringing their expertise to the foreground. Regarding the idea of disbanding existing organisations in favour of new ones without Russian involvement, the ambassador voiced his support instead for preserving the established frameworks, with decades-long expertise. They would also make it easier to one day re-incorporate Russia – whichever form that country would take when returning to the world community. Vice-President Johannes Schraps appreciated that both the BSPC and the CBSS continued to be aligned, an important foundation for the coming months. Secretary General Bodo Bahr underlined that both organisations should continue to strongly support each other. Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum 2022 will see another Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, as agreed earlier. Ms Johanna Ingvarsson provided an update on current preparations, including requests to be sent to the delegations about taking part in segments of the forum. The event would be held mainly online on the Saturday preceding the BSPC Conference. Ambassador Poznański on the side of the CBSS explained that the invitations to young people had been published on several channels. The BSPC was in charge of the programme for 11 June while the CBSS would arrange the presentation of the recommendations on 12 June. The CBSS Secretariat would handle the administration of participants and the on-site aspects on their own premises. The ambassador noted that the German Bundestag had been invited to attend the event, preparing the parliament to take on these efforts for a third forum during the German presidency of both the BSPC and the CBSS 2022/2023. Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby added that representatives of the Youth Forum would be invited again to present their findings to the Conference, given the success and great approval from the preceding year. BSPC Rapporteurs Since one of the two BSPC Rapporteurs on Integrated Maritime Policy , Mr Jochen Schulte from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, had resigned from his parliamentary mandate, the Standing Committee appointed Mr Philipp da Cunha from the same parliament to fill his position and report together with Mr Jörgen Pettersson. As the topic of Sea-Dumped Munitions was of special interest to the BSPC, the Standing Committee discussed whether to appoint a new rapporteur. Vocal support was brought forward by Mr Schraps and Ms Beate Schlupp . Mr Schraps explained that the German government was planning to provide financing in its upcoming budget which could provide the seed for financing in the whole Baltic Sea region. It was decided to ask the German Bundestag delegation to propose a candidate for the position. Ambassador Poznański explained that the CBSS and HELCOM had been planning a joint roundtable on sea-dumped ammunitions in April 2022. That had to be cancelled due to HELCOM switching to an informal mode after the Russian invasion. Instead of that, they were seeking to put together an expert meeting on the same topic. He invited the BSPC to send a rapporteur to that meeting so they could envision the future process together. As BSPC observer at HELCOM, Ms Schlupp had submitted a supplementary written report on the activities, particularly regarding the HELCOM ministerial meeting in Lübeck. The Annual Conference in Stockholm 12-14 June 2022 President Niemi explained that the programme for the Conference had been updated, considering the brutal war Russia was waging against Ukraine. The title was now proposed as The Future of the Baltic Sea Region – the answer to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: Strong democracies, the protection of human rights and sustainable development . The title underlined that it would be the democratic states shaping the future of the Baltic Sea region, based on strong democracies, the protection of human rights and sustainable development. The first session would deal with cooperation in the changing situation, the vital second session with democracy and freedom of expression while the third session would reflect the working group’s efforts as well as the Stockholm +50 conference. The fourth session would investigate demographic challenges in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, especially concerning migration, labour market and the social welfare model. A general debate would round out the programme. In response to Ms Carola Veit ‘s question, Mr Bodo Bahr detailed the procedure of setting it up and integrating the input from the delegations in a more expedited manner than usual with the earlier Conference. He also provided more suggestions for high-level guests the delegations could invite, also taking into account the comment by Prof Jānis Vucāns on the special laws for Ukrainian refugees the Baltic States had integrated into their legislature. Ms Johanna Ingvarsson explained further administrative details. BSPC Finances Secretary General Bodo Bahr stated that the financial report of 2021 was again good, given the pandemic’s effects. A surplus was yielded once more, increasing the unused funds of the organisation even more. Despite the harsh situation, the financial situation of the BSPC had never been as excellent as at the present, throughout the organisation’s 30-year history. In light of the discussion that day, Mr Bahr had elaborated a proposed 2022 budget taking into account the suspension of the Russian parliaments. The entire contributions for 2022 originally paid by these would be refunded in full. Although the budget would thus be lower for 2022, there would also be savings such as there no longer being any interpretation into Russian. Should the necessary expenditures exceed the annual budget, the unused means could be put to use. As digital meetings were more expensive than in-person events due to technology costs, Ms Carola Veit suggested that delegations paid a fee roughly equivalent to their savings in travel and hotel costs. The idea would be taken into account. The Standing Committee agreed to the proposal for the dynamic budget for 2022 and the further budgetary proposals. BSPC Presidencies Vice-President Johannes Schraps provided an update for the plans of the German presidency, among them the date for the 2023 Conference in Berlin from 27 – 29 August 2023. The Drafting Committee would assemble on the Sunday before. The German Bundestag delegation was also planning to continue the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum with a third iteration on the Saturday prior to the Conference. He also noted that Berlin would host the Standing Committee’s autumn meeting on 20 – 21 November 2022. He further spoke about possible – currently considered – priority topics of the German presidency which would be under the headline Strengthening Democratic Resilience and Promoting Peace, in continuation of the successful work of the Swedish presidency. During a time of great upheaval and change on various fronts – from climate change over COVID-19 to the Russian assault -, the German presidency wished to tackle these issues. Thus, their thematic striving was to boost resilience against anti-democratic influences, to cope better with the challenges democratic systems were facing. Good neighbourliness and co-existence were even more vital to be promoted as was respecting the equal sovereignty of all states. Drawing on the main theme of the Swedish presidency from 2020 to 2022 to support democratic institutions, resilience was a cornerstone of their approach. Equally vital was resilience in the digital sphere, spurred on by recent cyber-attacks that had exposed the vulnerability of democratic societies, but also against conspiracy theories and disinformation. The protection of the marine environment was another fundamental topic, also in view of the sea-dumped munitions. He listed the cornerstones as intensifying cooperation between like-minded states, strengthening the principle of peaceful and reliable neighbourliness – hence the condemnation of any aggression and use of force against the territorial integrity of another state – and boosting democratic as well as digital resilience. The battle against hate speech, fake news and conspiracy theories could serve as a focal point of the 2023 Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, he proposed. Mr Schraps further pointed out that the Germany would also take over the presidency of the CBSS from June 2022. Both were seeking to engender synergy between the two presidencies. Regarding the upcoming Danish presidency after the German Bundestag, Mr Bertel Haarder referred to the next Standing Committee meeting. Picking up on Mr Olaf Berstad’s comments regarding Russian propaganda, Mr Haarder suggested bringing in an expert to provide more information on its workings and how to counter it. Mr Wille Valve reminded that his home, the Åland Islands, were celebrating 100 years of autonomy. Various Matters President Niemi informed the Standing Committee that responses to the 30 th BSPC Resolution had been received from a number of parliaments: Åland, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, with Sweden to follow in the coming week. The chairwoman of the Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity , Ms Tenfjord-Toftby , explained that they would hold their first in-person meeting on the Åland islands on 9 – 10 May 2022. The emphasis of the programme would be on biodiversity both on land and in the sea. Furthermore, they would address the survey that had been sent out to the governments to achieve a clearer picture of what had been done. Nine members had sent responses: Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden. In September 2022, Sweden would hold general elections, but Ms Tenfjord-Toftby was not seeking re-election so that the working group would require a new chair. President Niemi informed the Standing Committee at the end of the meeting about ongoing contact with the Nordic Council about a future location of the BSPC at the Nordic Council Copenhagen office. Furthermore, BSPC President Pyry Niemi underlined that this session had been a historic meeting. He highly appreciated that the BSPC Standing Committee had been united and proven to be very strong and firm. Finally, he thanked the Polish delegation for hosting that meeting in Warsaw.

The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum of 2022 will take place in connection to the Annual Conference of the BSPC, in an effort to promote dialogue between young people of the region and policymakers. The purpose is also to capture input from the young generation, which is of great importance in our common endeavour of ensuring a peaceful future for the Baltic Sea Region that is environmentally and democratically sustainable Who can apply? You can apply if you are: • between 16–30 years old on the date of the Youth Forum; • based in one of the following countries of the Baltic Sea region (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Sweden); • interested in peace, cooperation, climate change, biodiversity and/or democracy and the Baltic Sea region. When, where and how many? • Saturday, 11 June 2022 • Digital or in the Swedish Parliament, Stockholm 40–50 young representatives will be selected to participate. The Youth Forum will be held in a hybrid format where, if possible due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some of the participants will be invited to participate at the Swedish Parliament in Stockholm. A digital pre- meeting, where you will be able to meet the other participants and prepare for the Youth Forum, will be held in June. Participation is free of charge. Please apply by 24 April noon (CET) and read more in the information sheet h e r e . You can find this invitation and all further information also on the website of the Council of the Baltic Sea States under the following link: Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum 2022

The Heads of the Delegations to the BSPC of the Parliament of Denmark Parliament of Estonia Parliament of Finland Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany Parliament of Iceland Parliament of Latvia Parliament of Lithuania Parliament of Norway Parliament of Poland Parliament of Sweden Parliament of Åland Parliament of the Hanseatic City of Bremen Parliament of Faroe Islands Parliament of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein Baltic Assembly European Parliament Nordic Council, “reiterate in the strongest possible terms our condemnation of the completely unjust and full-scale brutal military attack and invasion being carried out by the Russian Federation against the sovereignty, independence and people of Ukraine as expressed in the statement of the BSPC President and Vice-President from 25 February 2022.” As consequences for the work of the BSPC for the reasons outlined, they have “decided to ensure the suspension of the Russian parliaments from the Annual Conference, the meetings of our working bodies, proceedings, work and projects of the BSPC until cooperation under the fundamental principles of international law will once again become possible.” The whole declaration can be found h e r e .

The President and the Vice-President of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference condemn in the strongest possible terms the completely unjust and full-scale military attack and invasion being carried out by the Russian Federation against the sovereignty, independence, and people of Ukraine. The whole statement can be found h e r e.

Following the Digital 30 th Annual Conference, the BSPC has published a Report with all speeches and contributions during the conference. The compilation can be downloaded here and on the 30 th conference webpage.