News

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.

In its first in-person meeting for 20 months, the Standing Committee listened to expert presentations on NGO collaboration, the IPCC report on climate change and the host city of Hamburg’s intraregional activities. In light of the troubling situation at the Polish-Lithuanian–Belarus border, the Standing Committee called for urgent humanitarian relief to be provided to the refugees. Introduction BSPC President Pyry Niemi welcomed the attendees to the first in-person-meeting of the BSPC Standing Committee after more than 20 months. Given the skyrocketing numbers of infections in the Baltic Sea region, he cautioned that a switch back to all-digital meetings might have to occur. Aside from the COVID-19 pandemic, troubling times had arrived, making parliamentary cooperation – thankfully in-person – all the more crucial. Expert Presentation Mr Anders Bergström , Representative of the Baltic Sea NGO Network (BSNGON), took part in the meeting via a video message. He explained that the BSNGON was supporting civil society involvement in societal development. Its mission was to enable a broad involvement of stakeholders to efficiently address the complex societal challenges of today. This included civil society organisations contributing with valuable expertise. The BSNGON value supporting and promoting people-to-people contacts across borders as well as supporting the democratic process in the political decision-making processes on all levels. Based on national platforms in the 11 member states around the Baltic Sea, offering programmes and capacity-building activities to its member NGOs. Moreover, the BSNGON facilitated contacts between the NGOs and primarily the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) and the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR). Thematic platforms, so-called “flagships”, provided forums for NGOs to co-create solutions together with public and private stakeholders. Recently, the BSNGON had initiated a reform process to update its approach to collaboration. Their goal was to work better with other stakeholders in the public and business sectors as well as in academia, by functioning as a contact point and providing access to a pool of experts. A major change of the past five years had been the establishment of Participation Days, providing local authorities and NGOs the opportunity to exchange and work on ideas, primarily feeding into the European Baltic Sea Strategy. The BSNGON planned to expand on this concept of Participation Days to better channel ideas from the grassroots into the policy processes. These processes were also something the BSNGON wished to be more directly involved in, in all fourteen policy areas. Equally, the network sought to deepen its relationships with the various collaborative organisations in the region, such as the CBSS, the Baltic Council of Ministers and the BSPC. The final major goal of the reform process was to serve as partners in projects in the Baltic Sea region. The BSNGON planned to finalise this process by the end of 2021, hoping to include suggestions on collaboration with the BSPC. Mr Bergström presented three proposals on how to strengthen the BSNGON’s collaboration with the BSPC. The first of these concerned the Participation Days, first developed in the Danube region. At this point, they were organised together with the Union of the Baltic Cities (UBC) back to back with the EUSBSR Annual Forums, serving as starting points for multi-level cooperation across sectors and borders. His proposal in this respect was to invite the BSPC as participants in the dialogue between civil society organisations and local authorities. The BSNGON did not expect this to be a costly endeavour for the BSPC as members would only have to cover travel expenses. The second proposal concerned national workshops. Capacity-building for transnational Baltic Sea collaboration was vital for working on grand societal challenges, such as climate change or sustainable democracy. These thematical workshops allowed stakeholders to learn more about possibilities for collaboration and shared knowledge. Mr Bergström suggested that the BSPC could co-organise such workshops with the national platforms, e.g., on the topics of sustainable working life or sustainable production and consumption of food. They could also be linked to the priorities of the respective BSPC presidencies. Again, this option did not have to be financially stressful as these could be organised within the framework of the Baltic Sea Strategy or the parliaments. The third proposal was to form a think tank together with the BSPC to engender more transnational collaboration, bringing together people with experience and ideas to jointly tackle the more complex societal challenges. Success could not be achieved solely by one municipality, region or country alone. New formats of collaboration had to be developed – cross-sectorial, transnational and multi-level. This proposal, though, would come with a financial burden, although seed money for the launch could be acquired as part of a larger activity. Here, in particular, the BSNGON was looking for input from the BSPC on how to elaborate and implement this concept. The response by the Standing Committee was overwhelmingly positive, underlining the ever-increasing value of and need for collaboration across borders and the sharing of ideas and knowledge. In particular, it was highlighted that NGOs had already frequently provided their expertise to both the Standing Committee and the BSPC Working Groups, adding great value to their work. It was decided to elaborate more concrete suggestions on how to pursue cooperation with the BSNGON. Presentation BALTIC SEA NGO NETWORK Prof Dr Daniela Jacob , Director of the Climate Service Center Germany (GERICS), a scientific organisational entity of Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon, gave a presentation on climate change. She was presenting some findings from the latest report of the IPCC. First of all, the current situation saw the highest concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere, more than 418 ppm in March of 2021. Methane had also reached its highest concentration ever, leading to a group of 80 countries banding together at the recent COP 26 conference in Glasgow to pursue methane reduction. Prof Jacob underlined the importance of these efforts, especially as their implementation in most regards was not so difficult. Looking at Germany as an example, there had been a temperature change of about 2° C above pre-industrial levels in the last 10 years. Much like other regions in northern Europe, the years of the 21 st century had been the warmest on record. Climate change was obvious, not just in the long term but also regarding the short-term weather variability. Here, she highlighted that infrastructure had been built with the variability of fifty years ago in mind so that e.g., roads, power lines and the like were vulnerable to climate change. Taking into mind the recent pledges of COP 26 and other announcements, modelling projected a temperature rise to the end of the century of 2.1° C. That, though, was not enough to limit the increase to the 1.5° C targeted by the Paris Agreement. Yet it could be considered a good first step in mitigating climate change. As per the IPCC’s special report, each half-degree of temperature rise indicated a drastic change in climate and weather. 1.5° C meant less extreme heat, drought, precipitation and less flooding compared to a 2.0° C rise. Sea levels would be raised by 10 centimetres less, limiting e.g., the saltwater intrusion into sweet water supplies needed for agriculture. Given the complex, interlinked system of the world, there was a long chain of effects affecting human livelihoods in the end. Furthermore, there was good evidence showing that a rise beyond 2.0° C would lead to irreversible changes and therefore had to be avoided at all costs. Anything below was relatively similar to today’s weather and climate, but above would render entire regions of the world uninhabitable. In the next 20 years, the world would reach the 1.5° C mark above pre-industrial temperatures. Action taken now could contain the damage to the biosphere. Currently, production of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, was highest in the northern hemisphere. In the projections, the Baltic Sea region would experience drier summers but more precipitation in the other three seasons. This affected agriculture. Prof Jacob noted that Schleswig-Holstein for instance had been seeking for centuries to dry out the land for agricultural use but now had to consider how to prevent droughts. Extreme temperature events – e.g., heat waves or droughts – would occur more often, be more intense and last longer. Heat waves might be five degrees warmer than today – meaning temperatures of 35° C over weeks. The same applied to precipitation. All ecosystems would be affected, in turn impacting economic sectors such as energy, agriculture or tourism. Prof Jacob underlined that the peak temperature rise had to be reached as soon as possible, calling for a switch from fossil fuels to renewable energies, decarbonisation not only of the energy sector but the entire economic system. The ever-increasing energy demand had to be countered with greater energy efficiency since renewables would not keep pace. A CO 2 -neutral society was urgently needed. She also pointed out that some CO 2 emissions were inevitable – not least because of natural emissions – and had to be balanced out, for instance through natural carbon sinks in the Baltic Sea region, including peatlands, reforestation and a change in agricultural management methods. In addition, it was necessary to look into technologies that would withdraw CO 2 from the atmosphere and how to either store or ideally use it. In the next ten years, research into these technologies was crucial, in particular to investigate their side effects, both positive and negative. These would likely have to be both large-scale ventures, such as air carbon withdrawal facilities in sub-Saharan Africa, but also on the small scale of individual buildings. Many avenues of measures had to be pursued at the same time in order to be able to reach the goal. This was for the good not only of the ecology or the economy but also for human habitats. People might have to be resettled, villages or entire cities. Her view of the results of the COP 26 conference was that, on the one hand, the pledges to mitigate climate change were not enough to stay below 1.5° C by the end of the century. On the other hand, she was satisfied to see efforts being made, with countries beginning to talk to each other. Of particular importance was the US-China discussion. Some European countries taking good steps forward was also a good sign. She emphasised that the COP did not make decisions but rather, it was nations. While there were some promising ventures, the financial situation would have to be resolved soon, especially considering climate justice. With knowledge of the past, understanding of the climate system, it was now possible for humans to create a new era in the planet’s history. Limiting climate change would not mean a return to the 1960s but that a new balance had to be struck. Rather than going backwards, a new innovative lifestyle would have to be found. That was called the Paris lifestyle, after the Paris Agreement. To achieve that, everyone could make a difference. Communicating the importance and the prospects was of paramount concern, and the message had to be kept alive in people’s minds. Presentation Daniela Jacob State Counsellor Ms Almut Möller , Plenipotentiary to the Federal Government, the European Union and for Foreign Affairs of the Senate of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, addressed current activities of Hamburg in the Baltic Sea region. She began by noting that Hamburg, due to its geographical place, had always reached out to many parts of the world, establishing long-standing relationships. The Baltic Sea region stood out among these, since it was deeply interlinked with it. The city of Hamburg was keen on actively connecting the Baltic Sea region both within and with other parts of the world. In her view, the already highly interwoven and dynamic region would enhance its status in the coming years. Hamburg was intent on formulating and enacting a new vision for the Baltic Sea region, in particular for the so-called STRING megaregion stretching from Oslo over Gothenburg, Malmö and Copenhagen to Hamburg. This was to become a green megaregion. The green transformation was to run as a common thread through all activities in the Baltic Sea region, in trade, investment, research, academic education, transport and civil society exchange. By doing so, Hamburg believed they also contributed to shaping one of the largest projects of the European Union, the Green New Deal. Another aspect of the city’s efforts was to turn the region into a green investment hub. Through Horizon 2020 projects, Hamburg was also collaborating with several other cities in the region. They were also participating in the Move 2020 mobility scheme as well as the InterReg Baltic Sea programme. Each of the projects in the latter framework addressed issues at the very local level. Collaboration with others improved things across the board, not least in connecting people. The Baltic Science Network was an important flagship project Hamburg had developed within the EU Baltic Sea Strategy, enabling cross-border cooperation in science policy. Moreover, Hamburg had recently become a member of the Union of Baltic Cities, the leading network of cities in the Baltic Sea region. It fosters best practice exchange on a city-to-city level. In addition, there were bilateral relationships the city was intensifying, dealing with questions such as mobility or smart digitisation. In particular, they were fostering their relationship with the city of Warsaw. As Germany’s largest port, Hamburg was one of the most important international trading centres within the federal republic, giving the connection to Russia – in particular Hamburg’s long-term sister city of St Petersburg – a very important role. For that reason, they appreciated Russia being an integral part of Baltic Sea cooperation. As both a city and a federal state of Germany, Hamburg believed they had something to bring to the table in cooperation efforts. In reference to a question about collaborative education efforts as part of the migrant crisis of 2015, Ms Möller highlighted that it was a valued aspect of the city’s efforts. Harkening back to the presentation by Mr Bergström on the NGO network, she explained that the city had a lot of contacts throughout the city where they were working strategically on questions often embedded into the EU framework of activities. Dealing with local level issues organically brought civil society organisations and NGOs into the mix for which Hamburg was providing a framework. That collaboration was highly fruitful. BSPC President Pyry Niemi Received the Baltic Assembly Medal Together with the current President of the Baltic Assembly, Mr Andrius Kupčinskas, the upcoming and former President of the Baltic Assembly and former BSPC President Prof Jānis Vucāns, awarded the Baltic Assembly Medal to President Niemi for upholding the unity and cooperation of the Baltic States, outstanding contribution and cooperation in implementing joint cooperation projects, promoting regional cooperation in an enlarged Europe. The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum The Forum had been held two days before the BSPC Annual Conference of 2021, bringing together about 80 young people to discuss among each other and with BSPC representatives matters of climate change and biodiversity as well as sustainable democracy, how to promote democratic values and trust in the democratic system. The response by both the young participants and the parliamentarians was very positive. Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby , Swedish MP and Chairwoman of the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity, pointed out that the issue of “youthwashing” – similar to “greenwashing” – had been raised at the Forum. Organisations these days were very eager to involve young people in their work but only for show. In contrast, the Forum participants felt that the BSPC had taken their ideas seriously and were expecting – rightfully so – the Working Group in particular to include the young people’s input in their reports. BSPC Vice-President Johannes Schraps , MP German Bundestag, highlighted the young people’s insistence on action rather than talking. Moreover, they had raised the issue of migration, not least driven by climate change, as a major concern. The Standing Committee was united in seeing the need for continued cooperation with the young people in the Baltic Sea area. The fresh ideas from young people were seen as invigorating and helpful. The 31 st BSPC, Stockholm 12-14 June 2022 BSPC President Pyry Niemi presented the considerations of the Swedish delegation on priorities for the next Annual Conference. Not all of the topics of the preceding year had received in-depth attention at the 30 th Conference, due to the digital format. Accordingly, they could be given more attention at the upcoming event. These were adaptation to new democracy and challenges to the welfare model; climate change and biodiversity, in connection with the 50+ UN conference; democracy in a changing media landscape; human rights and freedom of expression; crisis management. BSPC Finances The financial results of the BSPC for the year were very good. Much like the previous year, the combination of digital in-person events meant that less than the planned-for budget had been spent. The Standing Committee agreed to maintain the contributions by the member countries at the same level as in the past 13 years. Further Matters The BSPC Rapporteurs submitted their reports which have been published on the BSPC website, concerning sea-dumped munitions, integrated maritime policy, sustainable tourism as well as the observer status at HELCOM. The Standing Committee furthermore discussed BSPC presidencies after the chairmanship of the German Bundestag in 2023. The meeting also talked about the schedule of upcoming BSPC events and which venues would be available as hosts. Statement by the Standing Committee on the Humanitarian Crisis at the Polish—Lithuanian–Belarusian Border The Standing Committee discussed very intensively the worrisome situation of the refugees stuck between Poland and Belarus without access to basic necessity. The case of Belarus had already been raised as part of the Resolution of the 30 th BSPC Conference, yet the overall situation had deteriorated further. Standing Committee members underlined that Belarus was an important neighbour of the Baltic Sea region and thus had to be taken into account. Primarily, though, the Standing Committee stood united in the need for humanitarian relief for the refugees and decided to issue a statement, referring to the various resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations that condemn any form of human trafficking in the strongest possible term. The Committee voiced its deep concerns about the insufficient access for humanitarian organisations to provide basic humanitarian services to refugees and migrants and strongly demanded of the Belarusian authorities to allow full access to humanitarian organisations to provide food, shelter and medical assistance to those refugees and migrants suffering at the border. They requested the countries in the region to fully cooperate in and contribute to stopping the practice of organised human trafficking to the BSPC member states and further. Finally, the Standing Committee of the BSPC urged all countries and international institutions to act responsibly, minimising human suffering. The statement of the BSPC Standing Committee can be downloaded here .

BSPC Observer on HELCOM, Ms Beate Schlupp, First Vice-President of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, has issued Part I of her 2021 Report on HELCOM-related developments and activities. The present publication covers the main highlights in the cooperation between the BSPC and HELCOM as well as the core developments in HELCOM’s work from October 2020 to August 2021. It provides a summary of the presentations held by HELCOM representatives at the meetings of the BSPC Standing Committee and the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity as well as the communication between HELCOM and BSPC HELCOM Observer Beate Schlupp – with a special focus on nutrient inputs, biodiversity and climate change as well as sea-dumped munitions. Furthermore, the report summarises the ongoing update of the Baltic Sea Action Plan and concentrates on a number of notable past events, such as the HELCOM Stakeholder Conference 2021, as well as HELCOM recommendations and publications. In Prospects and Outlook, the report further includes considerations on strengthening cooperation between the BSPC and HELCOM. The second part of the report will focus on the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting on 20 October 2021 and its results in detail. The Report can be downloaded here and on the Rapporteur’s webpage.

The BSPC Rapporteur on Sustainable Tourism, Ms Birgit Hesse, President of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, has published her comprehensive 2021 Report on Developments in the Field of Sustainable Tourism. This fourth consecutive Report on Sustainable Tourism in the Baltic Sea Region follows the established tradition. It provides an overview of the recent political trends and projects connected to sustainable tourism in the region. In addition, it presents the main developments in sustainable tourism, informs about the past year’s core meetings and events, and contains prospects and outlooks. The introduction provides comparative figures on the development in this policy field regarding the parliamentary work in the Baltic Sea region and provides information on the current and further expected impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the tourism sector. In this respect, it serves as a basis for discussing the development of tourism in the entire Baltic Sea region, considering the COVID-19 pandemic and its ongoing impact. The report can be downloaded here and on the Rapporteur’s webpage.

The BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity met in digital form to hear expert presentations on the role that peatlands, seagrass and forests played in carbon sequestration or storage efforts. Innovative technologies in shipping were explored to learn about the carbon reduction opportunities alternative fuels offered. Finally, representatives from the recent Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum explained their calls and ideas on how to improve the environmental situation in the Baltic Sea region. More than 50 participants from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the Nordic Council, Norway, Poland, the Russian Federation, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden attended the meeting. Introduction Chairwoman Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby gave voice to her hope that this digital meeting would be the last of its kind and that the working group could begin meeting in person. That would improve their work even more, not least by seeing best practice examples on location. She noted recent media attention in Sweden on climate change and biodiversity, affected in particular by forestry, underlining the importance of the group’s work. Furthermore, she pointed out the working group’s interim report, representing a strategic summary of the first year of its efforts. Expert Presentations Mr Jan Philipp Albrecht , State Minister for Energy, Agriculture, the Environment, Nature and Digitalization of Schleswig-Holstein, spoke about his state’s Vice-Presidency of HELCOM, looking at the intermediate steps achieved and how to go forward. He noted his appreciation for the work of the BSPC as it was part of the overall effort of bringing together forces to tackle the crucial issue of climate change as well as how people were using the sea and the land. The minister noted that the sources of and reasons for pollution, for example, had not been adequately explored before. Now was the time to come together to implement the measures necessary to make oceans and seas cleaner and more resilient. As current chair of HELCOM, Germany was deeply engaged in this field, ranging from climate change over species extinction in the Baltic Sea to sea-dumped ammunitions. Minister Albrecht saw the BSPC as essential in bringing people together and getting the necessary tasks done. Video Message Jan Philipp Albrecht Dr Walter Hemmerling , Managing Director, Foundation for Nature Conservation Schleswig Holstein (SNSH), considered 40 years of his foundation’s work. Its goal was to buy and develop nature, measuring 40,000 hectares acquired since 1978. Sprawling over the whole state of Schleswig-Holstein, it offered a last refuge for many endangered species. In addition, it allowed citizens to explore and enjoy nature. With reinforced public support since 2019 and Fridays for Future, politicians have been looking for “nature-based solutions”. Schleswig-Holstein was concentrating on peatlands, making up 9 % of the state’s whole area. 88 % of them had been drained for agricultural use, even though drainage caused significant global warming emissions. Thus, the foundation was purchasing such lowland peat areas and rewetting them to fix carbon dioxide, also involved with a federal peatland strategy. He noted that healthy peatlands were about 10 times as effective as forests in storing carbon while drained peatlands were emitting large quantities of global warming emissions. Biodiversity was also positively affected, rewilding high and low moors into a species-rich wetland. That would mean the area was no longer arable. On the other hand, biomass production as well as animal farming remained possible. Innovations such as biochar production allowed new resources for the textile, cement and fertiliser industry or for the production of green hydrogen. At the same time, the original farmers had to be fairly compensated. The foundation’s work was based on green infrastructure, species conservation, renaturation and environmental education. Green bridges across roads allowed wildlife to cross safely, a butterfly project sought to protect rare species, new wilderness areas were being created in forests and bogs while military training grounds had been converted since the 1990s into abodes for wild horses or cattle. Environmental education was another major pillar of the foundation’s work. Civil society participation was ensured through a variety of links to other organisations and the state. In response to questions, Dr Hemmerling conceded that there were many conflicts surrounding the purchasing efforts, particularly with the original farmers who required adequate compensation and alternate farming areas. An intensive and long-term effort and collaboration with the agricultural societies as well as the farmers themselves were necessary. It had to be noted, though, that this was a highly complex approach, with various interests that needed to be satisfied. On top of that, the existing infrastructure in those areas had to be redeveloped. Regarding young people, Dr Hemmerling underlined that more education of children and teens on environmental issues was necessary. The foundation was seeking to extend its network of cooperation both on the regional, national and international level. The speaker addressed Schleswig-Holstein’s environmental law which he saw as a first step that had to be extended in depth. On financing, Dr Hemmerling mentioned public funds – from the EU, the federal government of Germany, Schleswig-Holstein and municipalities – as one major source alongside interests, selling “eco points” (public and private compensation measures for carbon expenditures) and private donations. He underlined that the foundation did not get any institutional support. Mr Joschka Knuth , MP of Schleswig-Holstein, added that sustainable construction materials could be harvested from the peatlands, for e.g., thatched roofs but also tiny houses. Presentation Dr. Hemmerling Dr Wilfried Rickels , Director Global Commons and Climate Policy, Kiel Institute for the World Economy, presented on the resettlement of seagrass meadows as a contribution to climate protection and marine biodiversity – analysis of costs and benefits. Carbon could be sequestered and stored in seagrass, saltmarsh and mangroves, although that accounted for a small share of the area at this time. Losing such areas, though, increased the carbon release – such as a loss of 6,600 hectares in the Baltic Sea over the past century through anthropogenic use. Nevertheless, various water control measures had led to a recovery of seagrass since the 1980s. Climate effects – such as heat stress – might threaten this recovery. Restoration efforts would see benefits in carbon sequestration, although that might be seen as comparatively small. Costs of restoration efforts compared to carbon sequestration were high. Yet additional benefits were generated, such as cleaner water, coastal protection, increased biodiversity and secure fisheries yield, outpacing the results from sequestration alone. With those in mind, the relative costs fell dramatically. He stressed that such efforts had to be embedded into marine and maritime strategy to mitigate other stressors as well, such as eutrophication. Dr Rickels underlined that aspects beyond carbon dioxide had to be taken into account to assess ocean health. He highlighted the Baltic Health Index on the socio-ecological status of the Baltic Sea. The speaker noted a research project on restoring seagrass meadows on the German Baltic coast, evaluating the costs and benefits as well as analysing the acceptance and perception of these efforts. Presentation Wilfried Rickels Mr Jens-Birger Bosse , Head of the Department of Organic Production, Schleswig-Holstein State Forests, elaborated on forest management and conversion towards a climate-resistant forest. The state had a share of 11 % of forests in its area. The public enterprise State Forests owned 30 % of all forests in the state, 89 % of which consisted of mixed forest and were expanding annually, whether through anthropogenic efforts or nature. Charged to provide protective and recreational/social functions, the enterprise had to combine these with improved economic efficiency. Various levels of protection areas had been instituted for forest areas, inter alia including the FSC and PEFC certificates. Mr Bosse mentioned that global temperatures had risen by 1.6 degrees in the past 30 years which had contributed to rainfall levels on the whole sinking, although extreme weather events meant harsh changes in the annual precipitation. While vegetation periods expanded as a whole, some species could not withstand present temperature changes, such as beech trees. He underlined that effects could not be seen in short-term scales but rather be measured in 100 or 200 years, thus requiring long-term financing. Furthermore, nitrogen inputs contributed to fungal tree diseases. Parasitic species and drought were another threat. Regarding forest fires, he noted that the mixed forests of Germany lessened such threats whereas heavy storms could devastate forest stocks. Furthermore, the State Forests invested in game protection, spending e.g., 1.2 million euros on fencing off areas, yet both deciduous trees and conifers there suffered biting damage from game species as saplings. Regarding forest management for the future, the most important step was stabilising the forests, e.g., through diversification and thus risk dispersion. That also assisted in economic stability. In “close to nature” forest management, sustainable and planned development had to aim for a mixed forest with different tree species and varying ages, having usable water capacity available for new forests. This had to be done without clear-cutting, pesticides or fertiliser while protecting soil, water and stands as well as integrating aspects of biodiversity. Forest conversion included combining native with non-native species, such as maple or oak with Douglas firs and red oak. He pointed out naturally seeded trees had better root systems, thus improved carbon sequestration, but plantation was necessary as well, making up a third of forest regeneration. Tree felling was implemented not just for economic reasons but also to thin out the forest and allow further diversification. Mr Bosse explained that the political goal in Schleswig-Holstein was to increase the forest area from 11 to 12 % of the state’s overall area, despite a huge associated cost. Yet the forest – in particular forest bogs – served as CO 2 sinks. In all those efforts, scientific research and knowledge was crucial and had to be integrated into the operational processes in the field. Furthermore, the State Forests were engaged in civil dialogue to provide information to society via social media, PR and their own educational institutions including youth forest homes and guided tours. He concluded that the forests had to be stabilised to be resilient against future extreme or debilitating events, despite the necessary costs. Monitoring had to be connected to management, to guide the shifting ecological balance while avoiding tipping effects. Responding to questions, Mr Bosse explained that “close to nature” forests had been in place – albeit to a small extent only – for some 30 years, under close scientific monitoring. He emphasised that this was an ongoing and long-term learning effort with continuous new insights. To that end, plenty of well educated people were needed to staff such efforts. Noting the planning for the next 40 years, the percentage of conifers would decrease from 52 to ca. 30 % because of the specific expected changes in Schleswig-Holstein. He underlined that this could not be generalised to other areas. Mr Bosse explained that funding was solely derived from the commercial exploitation of the forest, which was presently threatened by the falling timber prices. He was not certain that the State Forests could continue to support their operations from their own revenues alone. As for connections and cooperation with other public and state forests, Mr Bosse said that his network extended primarily across Germany with some occasional contacts to Poland or Sweden. Presentation Jens-Birger Bosse Dr Alexander Dyck , Institute for Maritime Energy Systems in Geesthacht, deliberated on innovative technologies for shipping without CO 2 emissions. He pointed out that vessels required autonomous power generation on board. Presently, shipping was responsible for ca. 3 % of global emissions, due to be reduced by half. He noted that bulk carriers and container ships were the primary emitters of carbon dioxide. Emission control areas had already been implemented in some areas. As for types of fuel, battery-driven shipping might be possible in the short ranges of the Baltic Sea but was unfeasible on longer hauls e.g., in the Mediterranean or the North Sea. Questions to be investigated concerned how to store and load fuels on board, how to use converters, develop energy-efficient grids on board while ensuring electricity, heat and cooling remained available. Manoeuvrability also had to be guaranteed. Alternative fuels ideally were used and made available to vessels in harbours. In their research, the Institute partnered with industrial cooperation partners across the entire value chain, such as shipyards, technology manufacturers as well as shipping companies and port operators. Dr Dyck described the goal as wholly green with the abolition of fossil energy systems. One pathway to get there was the use of hydrogen produced in the more sunny areas of the world where production was cheaper. As for other suggestions, he noted that LNG only saved 20 % of gases but was risky in terms of accidents wiping out these savings. Apart from that, there was a wide range of alternatives with their own benefits and drawbacks, including hydrogen, metal hydrides or batteries. To determine which choice to make, storage and energy density were decisive along with greenhouse gas emissions and risk potential as well as the fuel’s feasibility in the maritime environment. New regulations had to be put in place by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Ship design would change because fuel tanks would be larger than in present-day systems. The Institute for Maritime Energy Systems was pursuing a holistic approach considering the strong synergetic effects of ships and harbour, implementing system demonstrations before they could be transferred into practical applications. Energy storage systems or new hull designs were analysed in test facilities as well as in a research vessel to be implemented in the near future. Answering questions, the speaker stressed that standards were necessary for the required infrastructure and that new vessels had to run on alternative fuels from 2030 at the latest. Concerning fuel cells, he pointed out that methanol-driven fuel cells were currently being implemented and would be featured in vessels soon, yet the power level currently was by far not enough to power large-scale vessels such as cruise ships. Every country sought to put renewable energy on the market, although not all were fuels but rather e.g., batteries in which Norway was leading. Saudi-Arabia for instance was building ammonia plants that would e.g., be used as complementary fuel to batteries. Presentation Alexander Dyck Presentation by the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum Chairwoman Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby noted that the dedicated and engaged discussions of more than 100 young participants at the Forum would contribute to the working group’s efforts, not least with the conclusions derived at the event. Ms Kamila Ciok from Poland and Mr Liviu Pintilie from Estonia, representatives of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, presented said conclusions. Ms Ciok underlined that they were not experts but could only share their thoughts and impressions. What young people were good at, though, was questioning everything, and they wished to offer questions that all sides together could work to answer. Mr Pintilie explained their first idea concerned innovation and that nature-friendly farming methods should be implemented while phasing out the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers as well as researching less hazardous alternatives. He believed that stricter regulations were necessary to reduce synthetic pesticides. In their second idea, they called for greater sustainable innovation in green energy, improving what had already been achieved, as well as green transportation options for urban life. In both concerns, the young people called for think tanks and expert organisations to be involved in these efforts so as to keep politics close to science. Regarding the circular economy, the youth forum asked for fishing and other industries to be regulated in such a way that biodiversity was not harmed, and the efforts stayed aligned with the IPCC report/Paris Agreement needs. Furthermore, the building of facilities from recycled materials should be promoted along with the re-use of construction materials. Indeed, the latter should be a prerequisite for demolition permits. Furthermore, public bail systems should be introduced for plastic bottles in the Baltic Sea Region. Waste in general should be eliminated as much as possible to reinforce the circular economy. Economic and ecological concerns had to be balanced. Ms Ciok said that strengthening cooperation through e.g., HELCOM and reconstruction of the marine environment were highly important. The discussion had to include people not yet involved, such as fishermen, to build awareness and understanding of what the present situation of the Baltic Sea looked like. Conversely, it was necessary for politics to understand the complexity and details on the practical level so as to target efforts at the people immediately affected as well as their needs and concerns. Nobody should be left behind as part of these measures. Moreover, the idea of “youth washing” was raised, i.e., that political organisations were using political representation as a public relations tool. Ms Ciok and Mr Pintilie underlined that they understood that the BSPC was serious and sincere about including the voice of the youth in their decision-making. Presentation by the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum Further Matters The working group discussed the final form of a questionnaire to inquire the Baltic Sea region governments about their efforts and plans with regard to climate change and biodiversity. The deadline for answers was set for 28 February 2022 so the working group could discuss the replies ahead of the next annual Conference of the BSPC in June 2022. The working group decided that their next – and the first physical – meeting would be held on 21 March 2022 on the Åland islands, rather than an earlier date in January. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern would serve as host for a meeting in the second half of the year. Intergovernmental survey Adopted by the BSPC WG CCB on 4 October 2021

In addition to the oral Report given during the 30 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference on August 30, the BSPC’s Rapporteurs on Integrated Maritime Policy, MP Jochen Schulte and MP Jörgen Pettersson have issued their comprehensive Report 2021 on Developments in the field of Integrated Maritime Policy. The Report underlines once more the crucial importance that the BSPC attaches to Maritime policy issues and challenges. It summarizes the developments in the Integrated Maritime Policy since the 29 th BSPC, informs about the Maritime Rapporteurs’ activities and important conferences that have taken place throughout the past year. Like in previous years, the Report focuses on Blue Growth, energy, infrastructure, and environmental aspects of maritime policy, including ocean governance and research. One focus is laid again on autonomous ships in future years and on improving air because of the Sulphur directive. It also presents legislative developments concerning Blue Growth and overarching aspects. The Report again addresses the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Maritime policy and the Maritime economy and mentions the massive economic implications expressly by disrupted global delivery chains and the decreased number of cruise guests by 99% in 2020. The current Report also refers to consequences of Brexit and the ‘dual transition’. The Report can be downloaded here and on the Rapporteur’s webpage .