News

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 .

Seven hours of high-level content input, the unanimous adoption of a far-reaching resolution with great political weight based on productive negotiations in a trustful and familiar atmosphere, the involvement of the young generation in its negotiations: That is what the BSPC is all about. In the second part of its 30 th conference, the BSPC explored measures against climate change but also celebrated its 30-year history. The afternoon half of the digital conference of the BSPC brought together a number of high-ranking experts to look at the current situation in the Baltic Sea region and call for reinforced joint measures to reach a healthy state of the sea. Moreover, the BSPC looked back at its decades-long history of cooperation around the Baltic Sea with the aid of former BSPC presidents who themselves represented the depth of this cooperation. At the end of the conference, the BSPC unanimously agreed on a resolution with far-reaching political calls for action. Third Session: Climate Change and Biodiversity Valentina Pivnenko took the chair for the third session. Conservation and climate change was dominating the agenda of the conference, she underlined, and that was absolutely necessary. Much had been done to reduce phosphate and nutrient inflows promoting algal blooms as well as banning wastewater dumping from ships and HELCOM’s efforts in that regard. Fishing methods had been upgraded to sustainable procedures. In the present session, many more approaches would be explored. Still lacking was systemic research across borders as international cooperation was necessary in scientific efforts as well. Ms Pivnenko mentioned the development of environmentally friendly packaging materials. Considering the interconnections between climate change and biodiversity, Minister Svenja Schulze, Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety of Germany, noted that marine ecosystems were affected by climate change but could at the same time act against it. The potential and role of such blue carbon was to be explored at a HELCOM workshop in November. Nevertheless, addressing climate change had to go beyond these measures and had to rely on sharply reducing carbon emissions, both globally and around the Baltic Sea. Furthermore, the minister emphasised an extension of the network of marine protected areas which, in German waters, also were to become no-take zones. Not only were the protected areas calling for transboundary support but the entire endeavour, as evidenced by the ambitious HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan which would require cross-party political support from the Baltic Sea area to succeed. Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby, MP, Chair of the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity, outlined the background and goals of the working group. There had been countless examples of extreme weather all around the world in the past summer, showing that climate change was an ongoing process people had to adapt to. Cross-party support in mitigation measures was necessary from all countries around the Baltic Sea. By acquiring expert knowledge and studying each other, the working group would contribute significantly to these efforts as well as preserving biodiversity. Closer cooperation in the field and parliamentary support was one of the goals. In digital-only meetings, they had learned instructive information about the extent of climate change’s impact but also projects to roll back damages. For the success of such projects, local support was required as much as ample financial support to ensure the project’s long-term sustainability. Ms Tenfjord-Toftby highlighted ElectriVillage , a small Swedish community’s successful effort to create an interconnected, sustainable society, but also Living Coast , a project that had cleaned up a Swedish bay to an impressive degree. With the working group’s tenure extended to three years, not least due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, even more extensive explorations of the topic at hand were likely. The chairwoman further underlined the importance of involving young people in the work not only of the working group but also the BSPC in general. She pointed out that the group’s first interim report was currently available on the BSPC website, providing an in-depth overview of the working group’s efforts as well as the instructive expert presentations. Mr Anders Mankler, State Secretary to the Minister for Environment and Climate, Sweden, noted the IPCC’s recent report about the impact of climate change, such as the ocean. Combating this was a major priority for Sweden since the climate of the future depended on the decisions of today, as Mr Mankler quoted from the IPCC report. Efforts for a healthy climate went hand-in-hand with efforts for a healthy ocean. Cooperation around the Baltic Sea was necessary because that was not only their shared sea but also their shared responsibility. He highlighted the necessity of an extended network of marine protected areas that had to be secured. Mr Mankler insisted that an ecosystems-based approach had to be established for fishing, taking into account the various interactions surrounding it. The inflows of phosphorus and nitrogen into the sea had to be further reduced. The State Secretary underlined their cooperation with HELCOM as well as the EU. But science was a crucial basis for these efforts, and he emphasised the UN Decade for Ocean Sciences. All relevant stakeholders – including businesses, science and youth – had to be brought together in these efforts to fulfil their ambitions for mitigation and adaptations. Action had to take place now. Mr Erwin Sellering, Chairman of the Executive Board of the Foundation for Climate and Environmental Protection and former Prime Minister of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, also placed climate change and biodiversity at the heart of this conference. The foundation he represented was intended to have the measures implemented on the governmental level be reflected by a private, independent institution to appeal to and inform civil society. The foundation further assisted small-scale initiatives in climate change and the environment in meeting their goals as well as cooperating with larger organisations. This had to happen under strict rules to fill gaps where there was no state funding available. Regarding the foundation’s own projects, Mr Sellering mentioned climate change information in day-care centres. As an example, they wished to fund day-care centres to be able to climb trees to learn. He also addressed a recent meeting on sea-dumped ammunitions – a particular topic of interest to the BSPC -, noting how vital it was to remove these from the Baltic Sea. Serious technological progress was still necessary for these efforts, as well as support from all around the Baltic Sea. Representing the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum 2021, Mr Liviu Pintilie, a Romanian resident in Estonia, began talking about the interesting discussions on the forum’s recommendations. Their conclusions had been to go for practical and strong phrasing. He hoped for similar events to be organised in the future. The first recommendation concerned innovation in the regard of which the Youth Forum 2021 called for nature-friendly farming and less hazardous alternatives to synthetic pesticides and fertilisers; sustainable innovation in green energy and transportation, all in relation to scientific research. For the circular economy, fishing had to be improved while they also called for re-used materials to be used in building undertakings. Ms Kamila Ciok of Poland took over in the presentation, asking each to picture their own relationship to nature to understand which efforts were needed. New multinational organisations had to be reinforced across all economic systems around the Baltic Sea in their efforts to mitigate climate change. She insisted it was about moving forward rather than pointing fingers. Ms Liz Mattsson, MP, Åland Islands, Vice-Chair of the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity, noted that her home was located in the middle of the Baltic Sea, surrounded by waters. Temperatures had been unusually high in recent years, registering two marine heatwaves. One of those had been the highest since the registry had started. Fish stocks had been deeply affected. She pointed out that food production was a primary industry of Åland, thus immediately reflecting the effects of climate change. Implementing circular efforts, reducing emissions and influx of nutrients into the Baltic Sea were some good examples of joint efforts. Although anecdotal, local observations reported visibly improved waters. Yet the recent IPCC report as well as the information gathered by the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity were alarming, underlining that efforts had to be made by every single one to support mitigation efforts. Dr Vadim V. Sivkov, Director of the Atlantic Branch of the Shirshov Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Science and the Federal State Budgetary Institution of Science, Kaliningrad region, spoke about the problem of greenhouse gas emissions and the local carbon sequestration test site. In that respect, a problem was how to quantify the anthropogenic greenhouse gases as well as their sequestration. He mentioned that there were two carbon test sites in the Kaliningrad region, one on land, one in the sea. The former was located within a peat bog the natural ecosystem of which was to be re-established. The offshore lay just before Kaliningrad, with a high anthropogenic load as well as, resultingly, unprecedentedly high levels of eutrophication. A primary reason were bottom sediments saturated with greenhouse hydrocarbon gases, mainly methane, one of the largest distributions in the Baltic Sea area. The work done at both sites would feed into the national Russian strategy for sequestration of carbon emissions. Once again, Dr Sivkov emphasised the need for precise numbers in quantifying the amounts of carbon absorbed. Various fields of science, like meteorology, oceanography, machine learning and so on, had to be combined in these efforts. Mr Sergey Perminov thanked Mr Sellering and his foundation for their efforts, noting that his side had been working together with Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in approaches such as re-establishing fish stocks. He added that the Russian energy industry was among the top five among carbon mitigation measures. The Russian Federation’s goal, though, was to improve their ranking in this regard. Ms Ulrike Sparr of Hamburg wondered how bog or moor structures could be maintained in hot summers but also whether fossil fuels should be abandoned entirely. Mr Perminov replied that the environmental laws concerning swamplands in Russia were among the strictest in the world, to ensure their continued existence. As for sustainable or fossil fuels, he noted that alternative fuels still harboured their own dangers, e.g., in recycling. Furthermore, the power grids still had to be upgraded sufficiently. That was the future, he insisted, but they were not in a situation where they could replace fossil fuels entirely in the present month. Mr Jonas Faergeman insisted that it was only lack of will preventing a changeover from fossil to sustainable fuels. Mr Anders Mankler underlined that conservation efforts had to be strengthened. Natural methods were in the focus of such efforts. He added that climate change mitigation needed to the backbone of the ongoing recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Ceremonial Session in Honour of the 30 th BSPC Chairpersons Carola Veit of Hamburg and Jörgen Pettersson of Åland – both former presidents of the BSPC – looked back at the history, pointing out that the organisation had never missed an appointed meeting. Both Ms Veit and Mr Pettersson highlighted the familiar and familial atmosphere of the BSPC. The latter added that while digital means might not offer the same personal contact but they did allow him to attend the conference despite being literally on the move. Mr Pettersson noted that the BSPC derived their recommendations for governments from discussions with experts from science, business and civil society – forming what could be called a think tank for the Baltic Sea. Their similar background from the parliaments around the Baltic Sea fuelled the BSPC’s efforts, standing for democracy and parliamentary representation. Prof Jānis Vucāns had not only been president of the BSPC but also twice of the Baltic Assembly. There had been many political changes in 1991 so that there were several 30-year anniversaries in the current year, including the Baltic Assembly. The BSPC had originally been a forum for parliamentarians, to raise the awareness of issues affecting the Baltic Sea region but also enhancing the visibility of the Baltic Sea region and its issues in a wider European context. As much as every parliamentarian represented their home country, joining together in the BSPC crucially represented seeking mutual progress through cooperation. With regard to the issue of climate change, Prof Vucāns called for more research because science provided the foundation for any actions. Former president Ms Valentina Pivnenko of Karelia, Russian Federation, voiced her gratitude over having been able to work together for such a long time in a friendly atmosphere. There had been so many changes since 1991, not least in her home country changing from the Soviet Union into the Russian Federation of today. The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea and the Russian Strategy for the Northwestern Region were complementary approaches, she explained, and they had collaborated in protecting not only their environment but also the prosperity of the people. Despite having misunderstandings of one sort or another, she marvelled that they had been able to keep listening to each other throughout such situations. Ms Pivnenko conceded that relations between the EU countries and the Russian Federation had deteriorated since 2014 over the issue of Crimea, further explaining her view of the interaction and the application of democracy. Nevertheless, Ms Pivnenko underlined that they were all tied together and thus doomed to peace and working together. When confronting similar problems, cooperation was the logical avenue, as evidenced by the BSPC establishing ties to the PABSEC and the PAM. She hoped for their friendly work to continue, even when they differed in their opinions. Another previous BSPC president, Mr Franz Thönnes of Germany had been instrumental in implementing the Baltic Sea Labour Forum and was still active in that capacity. Mr Thönnes noted that the just-mentioned Labour Forum was celebrating its ten-year anniversary, aside from the 30 years of the BSPC. After 30 years of political agreement and disagreement, they were still together, working towards a good and prosperous future of the Baltic Sea region. Mutual conversation was what had kept the BSPC together. Belarus was an example of this process as the BSPC had discussed the sustainability of progress with Belarusian parliamentarians regarding the nation joining the BSPC. As a result of those conversations, the BSPC had decided against accepting Belarus as part of their number. Mr Thönnes further pointed out that the BSPC had been among the first to mention the topic of environmental protection and pursuing measures to relieve the burdens suffered by the Baltic Sea. Labour market issues discussed in the BSPC led to the creation of the Baltic Sea Labour Forum as well as many other endeavours improving the situation of e.g., young people crossing borders to work. All of those positive examples proved to Mr Thönnes that parliamentarians were able to effect real and positive change. That could give them strength for the future. That could give them the strength to take the resolution of the conference back home to their parliaments and working to fill it with life. Ms Christina Gestrin had been president of the BSPC on three different occasions until the end of her parliamentary term in 2015. She pointed out the working groups established to resolve issues of common concern for the Baltic Sea countries, many of which remained topical until today. Patience and long-term visions were crucial for the work of the BSPC. Ms Gestrin believed that it was vital to get to know and understand each other. Citing the crises and divided opinions of recent times, she underlined the importance of the BSPC as a forum to discuss sensitive issues and would continue to serve the benefit of the Baltic Sea citizens for many years to come. Turning from a view towards the past over to the future, Mr Jonas Færgeman of Denmark spoke as representative of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum 2021. In addition to what the other representatives had already explained, Mr Færgeman stated that social media had been a topic discussed at the forum. He disagreed with the way social media had been presented as he saw it as interpreted solely in regard to politicians talking to each other or as a tool. He next addressed the compartmentalisation of social media communities, harkening back to the “tribalism” mentioned earlier, which he saw as a problem for politicians who might misunderstand their audience. Mr Færgeman went on to criticise the general way in which politicians were permitting young people to speak in a limited framework. As for the main concern of young people, he said that it dealt with the environment and that politicians should fulfil the promises that had been made to young people since before Mr Færgeman had been born. Fourth Session: Addresses and Reports Session chair Jarosław Wałęsa, MP from Poland, introduced each guest talking to the conference. Mr Pedro Roque of the Parliamentarian Assembly of the Mediterranean (PAM) had enjoyed the good cooperation in recent years with the BSPC. He was looking forward to signing a memorandum of understanding in the near future. Finally, the latest figures of the OECD showed trade reaching a new high after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, sectors such as tourism were still lagging. The PAM had implemented measures to aid the economy. Moreover, they had established relations with the PABSEC and the parliamentary association of Turkish-speaking nations. Mr Roque noted the recent images of floods and wildfires, therefore resolute action against climate change could no longer be delayed. Green recovery strategies had to be part of any post-COVID-19 approach. He was delighted that the BSPC was also keen on tackling climate change. He believed that their interparliamentary work could contribute significantly to these efforts. Mr Asaf Hajiyev, PABSEC Secretary General, noted that his organisation was also heading for a celebration of its 30 th anniversary in the near future, hoping that the BSPC would also attend that event. He spoke about the refugee flows, underlining that they were victims of political wars or the like. While it was possible to simply build a wall to keep them out, Mr Hajiyev argued for each democratic country finding ways to harbour more refugees, to allow them a way to live their lives. Ambassador Grzegorz Marek Poznański, Director General of the Council of the Baltic Sea States Secretariat, spoke of the need for science-based policies in order to have a functional democracy. The CBSS was working with academic institutions as well as partners like the BSPC on localising strategies. They were also making the youth voice being heard, through the CBSS youth platform, mobilising them towards taking action. The current decade had to be the decade of action so as to make this a better place for the future. Mr Mieczysław Struk, Chairman of the Baltic Sea States Subregional, Cooperation, BSSSC, Marshal of the Pomorskie Voivodeship, was planning to serve as an important and active part of the future of Europe. Even stronger engagement and togetherness was necessary among all parts of the Baltic family. Much had been done but even more was yet to be achieved. The issues of the day had grown even more urgent than had been foreseeable only a few years earlier, as had the concerns like sea-dumped ammunitions, ageing societies, digital difficulties as well as growing distrust in democratic institutions. Civil society had to be further developed. Together, the loss of trust in science and logic had to be reversed. Solidarity with those in need and with future generations was very much required. Mr Jari Nahkanen, President of the Baltic Sea Commission of the Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions (CPMR), agreed that close cooperation of the organisations and peoples around the Baltic Sea was needed to resolve the urgent issues of the day. The Baltic Sea was under a lot of pressure, and a blue economy would help alleviate its stressors. Connectivity was also important in the Baltic Sea region, as transport throughout the area was important. In addition, he emphasised the necessity of cross-border cooperation, even in times of tension. Mr Nakhanen pointed out his concern about the development of the Arctic region, noting that he was paying close attention to the EU strategy for the Arctic. In general, the CPMR was looking for deeper cooperation with the BSPC. Anders Bergström, representing the Baltic Sea NGO Network, said that cooperation was even more needed today than ever before. Here, he referred to more than climate change but also to social issues. Any opportunities were better tackled jointly than by creating rivalries within their region or within countries. Together, they could develop targeted solutions to problems and make better use of their resources. The macroregional strategies provided a framework for such collaboration among stakeholders, both from the EU and neighbouring countries. Further work was needed to stabilise and sustain these strategies and also continued investment. The NGOs were not always included in this scheme, as funding was often reserved for public institutions. It was high time to reform the Baltic Sea NGO Network, Mr Bergström underlined which he expected to occur by the end of the year. He added that political support was needed at all levels, increasing awareness of needing each other across borders. Transnational collaboration had to be an integral part of development in every respect. Ms Ulla Karin Nurm, NDPHS Secretariat, said that intense cooperation was the only way to make progress. She dealt with the impact of climate change on human health which was yet underexplored. Natural disasters were damaging livelihoods and killing people on the one hand, on the other disease patterns were changing, with e.g. lime disease entering areas previously safe from it. Ticks were another threat moving into areas where it had been thought they could not survive. Beyond these rather obvious developments, the loss of sustainable food supplies made it increasingly difficult to consume a balanced diet. To fight climate change, people had to step out of their silos and work together. More to the point, GDP should not be the measure of success but rather the health and prosperity of the people. Ms Anna Mannfalk, Vice Chair of Region Skåne Health Care Committee, noted that the NGOs were contributing by informing communities, especially in those that might not trust government institutions. Secondly, NGOs provided services, such as health care. Thirdly, they had proven adept at innovation, such as when they had welcomed migrants during the 2015 crisis. The region was working together with NGOs to establish sustained operations, attracting scientific knowledge and more funding. Mr Peter Stein, BSPC Rapporteur on Sea-Dumped Munitions, emphasised that there was not very much time left to resolve this issue. The task was not just to remove the munitions from the sea floor but also to remove the traces of a world war that Germany was still regretting starting. He hoped there would never be war in the Baltic Sea region again. Going back to the issue at hand, he underlined that this was only the beginning of the process of clearing out the munitions. Ms Carola Veit, BSPC Rapporteur on Migration and Integration, stated that the nations were revising their migration and integration strategies. She highlighted the issue of unaccompanied minors which had received further attention from Baltic organisations. The actions of Belarus to use migrants as instruments in hybrid, asymmetric conflicts had to be noted. Ms Veit conceded that the COVID-19 pandemic had also led to negative effects for migrants’ likelihood of being integrated into society, in various respects. She called for the nations to continue sharing best practices as well as sharing the task of migration. Mr Jochen Schulte, BSPC Rapporteur on Integrated Maritime Policy, said that the pandemic had shown that the maritime economy remained a vital part of the global economy. Contrary to what had been effected, COVID-19 and the lockdown had led to a huge growth, particularly in online retail, increasing freight rates in major shipping routes. Some have tripled or quadrupled since the turn of the year 2020. Maritime stakeholders were achieving transitions to more sustainable replacement fuels to fossil fuels, leading to higher prices for customers but a better solution for the environment. Harbours in the Baltic Sea area could become models for green growth and sustainable development. What was crucial was facing challenges together. He noted that they could expect temperatures to rise until the end of the century such that the water level of the Baltic would rise by one metre. There would be more natural disasters, losses of biodiversity. Therefore, maritime policy had to develop solutions, despite their divergent views. Closing Session The 30 th Conference decided to extend the tenure of the Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity by another year, so it would deliver its Final Report to the 32 nd Conference of the BSPC. BSPC President Pyry Niemi noted that the work to deliver the current resolution had, as often, been difficult. Yet reaching a consensus also proved the ability of the BSPC to overcome such odds, even despite the added obstacle of the online-only discussions. The 30 th BSPC unanimously agreed on the resolution, calling on the governments of the Baltic Sea region. Traditionally, the baton of the presidency of the BSPC was handed over at this point. Since President Niemi would remain in office for another term until a hopefully in-person 31 st Conference of the BSPC, he retained said baton. He was delighted by the results of the work of the BSPC over the past year but also throughout the present conference, having deepened the fundamental and significant issues of the future. They had intensively involved the youth in their decision-making processes, seeking to gear their recommendations to the needs of future generations as well. President Niemi offered his gratitude to everyone involved in the conference. BSPC President Pyry Niemi declared the 30 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference closed.

Once again in digital form, the parliamentarians of the BSPC came together for their anniversary conference and were joined by high-ranking government officials. The morning half of the conference addressed cooperation in the Baltic Sea region, democracy in a changing media landscape as well as a general debate on re-starting after the COVID-19 pandemic. Introduction BSPC President Pyry Niemi opened the 30 th Anniversary Conference of the BSPC. Dr Andreas Norlén, Speaker of the Swedish Riksdag, delighted in 190 people from many parliaments taking place in the conference, despite living in interesting and challenging times. Much had changed in the past 30 years, among other things economic growth, democratic development but also financial crises and backsliding democracies. The present pandemic had underlined the need for parliamentary cooperation, with the BSPC taking a lead in switching to digital conversation. For Dr Norlén, parliamentary cooperation and democracy dovetailed with Sweden celebrating the centennial of its own democracy. By understanding history better, participation and trust in the democratic institutions could be improved but should never be taken for granted. He also underlined the worth of intergenerational cooperation as paving the road for the future. The Speaker emphasised that democracy should and could never be taken for granted. Ms Ann Linde, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, noted that democratic institutions and parliamentary cooperation were vital in times of backsliding democracies and human rights, especially considering how the COVID-19 pandemic had affected the area around the Baltic Sea. Human rights and the rule of law were key goals of Sweden. The Drive for Democracy initiative of Sweden had been providing a counternarrative to the erosion of democracy, highlighting how democracy protected the people and gave them a voice in their country’s development. The freedom of opinion and expression were fundamental and had to be defended on all levels, much like activists for human rights. Environmental change also required international cooperation, such as the updated Baltic Sea Action Plan. President Niemi pointed out that the COVID-19 pandemic had not only affected their professional work but also their private lives. Nevertheless, he was glad that the BSPC had been able to continue its cooperation via digital means and without suffering interruptions. He highlighted democratic institutions, solid cross-border cooperation and environmental and social sustainability as cornerstones of the BSPC. The president outlined several of the undertakings of the BSPC in the past year, such as two seminars held online on important topics. Focus points of the parliamentarians’ discussions included democracy in a changing media landscape; the COVID-19 pandemic with particular regard to the situation and progress on vaccination but also how the disease had affected youth employment; demographic changes, labour shortages and an ageing population. Climate change and biodiversity had taken up a goodly share of the efforts, primarily through the BSPC Working Group established on this issue. Another major pillar of the BSPC, the president explained, was its cooperation – not just among each other but also increasingly with other parliamentary organisations such as the PABSEC and the PAM. Moreover, involving young people in decision-making was another principal concern, which had led to the latest Baltic Sea Youth Forum held two days earlier. Cooperation across borders, across organisations and across generations, in a familiar and friendly atmosphere, was the foundation of the BSPC’s success. First Session: Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region BSPC Vice-President Johannes Schraps chaired the first session, traditionally concerned with cooperation in the Baltic Sea region. Peaceful and reliable neighbourliness and intense cooperation built on inclusive participation and trust in the democratic system were the goals of the BSPC. Neighbouring nations sharing in these values was vital for cooperation and progress. Ms Ine Eriksen Søreide, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Norway, Norwegian Presidency 2021–2022 of the Council of the Baltic Sea States, underlined the great importance of interparliamentary cooperation. She saw such conferences as checking the pulse of cooperation. Living in a time of major change and major challenges, global fault lines and rivalries were exacerbating, with added disruption brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. The situation in Afghanistan was one example. The climate crisis would raise new and persistent migration challenges, she pointed out. The green agenda – such as the European Green Deal – had to be seen as more of an opportunity for growth and progress rather than a burden. Democracy, human rights and rule of law had to be cornerstones of their activities, and learning from the past had to aid them in countering negative trends through cooperation across borders. The Baltic Sea region, she underlined gladly, was a prosperous region, due in many respects to the region’s close cooperation. The minister further highlighted regional identity, conversation between the generations and the fight against human trafficking. Baltic cooperation was marked by its focus on practical approaches. With regard to Belarus as an observer state to the CBSS, the use of force against protestors and increasing tension between neighbours was deeply troubling. She called on Belarus to return to the rule of law and the values of democracy. Ms Søreide underlined again the need to involve young people in decision-making, like the Baltic Sea Youth Forum or the Norwegian Youth Panel. Mr Michael Roth, Member of Parliament and State Minister for Europe, German Presidency 2022–2023 of the Council of the Baltic Sea States, underlined their desire to reinforce cooperation between governments, parliaments and civil society. He highlighted three topics of major importance for Baltic cooperation: European general values; the protection of climate and environment; the youth. In terms of the Baltic Sea’s environmental status, Mr Roth pointed out that sea-dumped ammunitions were a particular danger but offered the opportunity for the Baltic Sea region to become a forerunner in cleaning up the sea. In all these areas, the BSPC was a fundamental partner. Session chairman Schraps saw these contributions as evidence of the BSPC having worked on the right issues in their recent work. Second Session: Democracy in a Changing Media Landscape Pernilla Stålhammar of Sweden took over the chair, noting the backsliding of democracies in their region as well. Democracy was more than free elections but also free expression of opinion and a vivid political opposition. Digitalisation had made the spread of information easier and faster: On the one hand, this allowed greater cooperation and lowered entry barriers. On the other hand, there was an increased risk for fake news and misinformation. Again, the COVID-19 pandemic had reinforced both opportunities and challenges. Ms Margareta Cederfelt, President, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA), highlighted the development of media information – from the 9/11 attacks televised live over embedded journalists reporting on the Iraq war to citizen journalists of today providing all kinds of perspectives beyond any administrative control. At the same time, this had given rise to disinformation – especially in social media – as a threat to democracy. Media control – whether through station ownership or availability to government or opposition – was another vital issue. However, fake news – as propaganda – was indeed ancient, only employing a new channel. New media provided a tool that allowed both wider and more personal conversations. Ms Cederfelt raised the topic of Belarus as the internet has given succour and aid to the opposition efforts as well as the population at large. Greater media literacy was necessary to enable the people to better distinguish between proper and fake news. To that end, the speaker called for standards of reporting to be applied both to traditional and new media. Freedom of speech and media was vital. Prof Dr Jeanette Hofmann, Weizenbaum Institute Berlin, spoke about how digitalisation and democracy were connected as well as current tendencies regarding the regulation of platforms. Digitalisation was usually regarded as the driver of democratic change as it was seen as the root of the decline of mass media, the rise of hate speech and fake news. In her view, that was the wrong point of view since digital media were invented and used by human beings. Therefore, digitalisation and democracy should be seen as two entities shaping each other. Democratic change concerned aging institutions – with declining trust in e.g., political parties or voting – but also expanding and new institutions – as evidenced by people wanting to participate in new ways, through movements such as Fridays for Future, and political participation centred around issues rather than long-term structures. Another fundamental change was the growing importance of the public sphere and digital media, becoming more interactive, offering venues for criticism and approval of government action beyond elections every four years. A new phenomenon were so-called platform parties, often springing up quickly and without firm membership, that might offer new, experimental organisational structures without hierarchical structures. Therefore, democratic change was also driving digital development. These evolutions led Prof Hofmann to speak about the need for new rules to regulate the digital space. Enforcement was important, to make sure that illegal contents were removed but also ensure transparency reporting not just about complaint management but also the explanation of algorithms and their functioning. Beyond these recent legal measures, Prof Hofmann emphasises the importance of involving human rights. For example, human rights could be extended to include digital platforms. In addition, powerful rights to appeal should be established on digital platforms. Moreover, victims of defamation or hate speech had to be provided with institutionalised support. Mr Oleg Nilov, MP, State Duma, Russian Federation, spoke about different perceptions of issues and/or people. He raised examples like Navalny being seen as a freedom fighter in Europe but as a corrupt traitor within Russia but also the recurring forest and tundra fires in the Russian federation. In that respect, he called for joint international standards to represent reality rather than applying double standards. Mr Nilov hoped that they could be more honest and less biased with each other. Especially, he wished to avoid Russophobia and Russia-bashing. Mr Erik Halkjaer, President of the board of the Swedish section of Reporters Without Borders, said that democracy continued to be under attack in most nations around the Baltic Sea. Journalists were being killed, even in the European Union. Harassment and hate speech, both from private but also official actors, were primary concerns. He cited the term of an “infodemic” affecting the present situation much like the COVID-19 pandemic. A “hurricane of disinformation” had descended not only on journalists but the entire population, making it more vital to see transparency of platform algorithms but also an easier spread of verified journalistic reports rather than unverified sources. To that end, Reporters Without Borders had established a tool for such verification – which in turn required traditional media to be more transparent in their methods and procedures as well. Disinformation was best fought by secure sources and by investment in trusted journalism. Mr Halkjaer regretted that some countries in the region were using methods to make journalism more difficult, such as Russia which required reporters to register and was blocking sites. He insisted that such negative measures were sensitive and preferred positive measures – the proverbial carrot rather than the stick – to promote good journalism, rather than having to decide what was fake news and what was proper information. In the same vein, he mentioned Belarus and its disinformation campaign against Lithuania. It was crucial for journalism to verify sources from more than one point of view. Ms Cederfelt offered her agreement with several of her preceding speakers, supporting calls for transparency and safety of journalists. Regarding the comments by Mr Nilov, she rebutted that for instance, the forest fires in Siberia were part of the international efforts to counter fire disasters all over the world and for another instance that the Crimea situation was subject to international agreements which were unilaterally disregarded by the Russian Federation. Prof Hofmann added that the news pipe of young people had to be acknowledged as a means of self-expression. User-generated content was a difficult concept – the term itself was insufficient. Much as it could support democracy, it could equally erode it. The protection of human rights was vital as was the enforcement of laws against disinformation and hate speech. In her view, none of them was able to distinguish truth and lies as the sole arbiter. These were new issues that needed to be investigated in-depth so that regulation would not harm the freedom of expression. Mr Nilov addressed Mr Halkjaer, saying that he agreed with the opinion that bad examples were dangerous. He stated that such bad examples were originally used actively against Russia by western media. Regarding Ukraine and Crimea, he proposed Kosovo as a precedence case, assigning criminal actions to the country. While such actions should not happen anywhere, the reasons were to be found elsewhere. Mr Halkjaer conceded that this was no Russian invention. He agreed with Mr Nilov calling Mr Assange and Mr Snowden victims of disinformation campaigns and that fake news should be opposed across the board. General Debate: Re-Starting After the COVID-19 Pandemic Chaired by Mr Arvils Ašeradens, MP of Latvia, the general debate would deal with a great variety of topics, such as the pandemic and its effects, the responses on the economic and governmental front. Mr Ašeradens explained the present situation in the Baltic States which had had to deal with similar hard hits on economic sectors through the second lockdown. Support measures had eased difficulties to some degree, along with stimulus packages to revitalise the economy. These had a particular focus on implementing a green approach. Mr Arnoldas Pranckevičius, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania, in his keynote speech referred to the just-finished Lithuanian presidency of the CBSS. He saw four lessons in the aftermath of the pandemic: The climate crisis had not disappeared but had become even more important. It had to be tackled by all nations so that a climate-neutral Europe could indeed be achieved by 2050. The second lesson was digitalisation, giving rise to the phenomenon of the world being connected more closely than ever before but at the same time individuals living in strictly separated spheres or “tribes”. Bridges had to be forged between these communities, along with cyber security and data privacy. Migration represented the third lesson, as controlling migratory flows – such as streaming out of Afghanistan at the moment – would be a major challenge of the 21 st century. Moreover, migration being used as an instrument by Belarus posed a new aspect of the issue. Joint measures and proper routes for asylum seekers were crucial. The fourth phenomenon he wished to underline was that there had been a retreat of democracy in several areas around the globe, including Europe, so that it was necessary to speak more rather than less about human rights, rule of law and the shared values. Mr Wille Valve of Aland pointed out that the BSPC on its 30-year anniversary had withstood the test of time, evolving into a role model of sorts for such parliamentary organisations. Yet the environment of the Baltic Sea still required attention as eutrophication led to toxic algal blooms with regularity. Previously established measures had already brought about some reliefs, such as wastewater treatment plants or the banning of cruise ship wastewater dumping. While phosphorus inflow had been curtailed to some degree, much more could and had to be done to reach a healthy state of the Baltic Sea. Increased joint efforts were needed as they owed that to their children. BSPC Vice-President Johannes Schraps of Germany underlined Mr Valve’s contribution. Parliamentary pressure on governments was what could assist in this effort. He equally underlined the success of the BSPC as expression of Baltic cooperation. Yet huge challenges remained. These could only be resolved through parliamentary cooperation, not only with each other but also with governments and civil society. The Green New Deal of the EU was one example of a new joint effort to resolve modern problems, such as the environment. The old approaches from before the pandemic should be refined into new and different methods to tackle the present challenges. Mr S. Perminov agreed in cheering the 30-year anniversary, adding that the present topic of opposing the pandemic and paving the way out was very much on the political mind of the Russian Federation as well. He agreed that the Baltic Sea’s environmental condition was topmost on the Russian agenda as well, pointing out a recent measure to reduce nutrient input into the sea. Regarding digitalisation, he joined the call for common rules and regulations. These would become even more important in the future, and he urged his listeners to view the future through a positive prism. Mr Jonas Faergeman, representative of the Baltic Sea Youth Forum, noted that young people viewed the climate as by far the most important issue of the area. For the past six decades or so, there had been resistance to enacting measures against climate change. Yet during the COVID crisis, measures had been put into place extremely quickly, and Mr Faergeman hoped that similarly fast and competent action would be taken on other urgent issues as well, especially climate change.

To mark the start of its 30 th Annual Conference, the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference is publishing a documentary brochure on its conferences to date. In addition, this publication includes reflections on the flourishing cooperation within the BSPC by Presidents and Speakers of the member parliaments in the Baltic Sea region with insights and overviews of the foundations, the values and the successful work of the BSPC so far. In that respect, BSPC President Pyry Niemi noted, “It is an honour to be the President of such a vital, engaged and relevant organisation as the BSPC. I congratulate the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference for 30 years of parliamentary cooperation, and I hope for many more to come!” The publication can be downloaded here and will be available in a printed version at a later stage – supplemented with the results of the 30 th BSPC.

In preparation for the Digital 30 th. Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference on 30 August 2021, the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity (CCB) published its Interim Report on its activities throughout the past year. The Chairwoman will present the report at the 30 th Annual Conference. It contains the primary considerations and a compilation of the materials to date which the Working Group had discussed in the Working Group. The report also offers detailed information on the expert presentations carried out by the Working Group. The content refers in many places with links to other materials already published on the website, particularly the presentations, and can be accessed here and at the Working Groups website The report is a strategic summary of the Working Groups activities so far. It also contains political recommendations that have been incorporated in the draft resolution of the 30 th Conference.

In preparation for the Digital 30 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference on 30 August 2021, the BSPC’s Rapporteur on Sea Dumped Munitions, MP Peter Stein, has issued his report, which deals with dumped munitions and unexploded ordnance in the Baltic Sea. This report builds on the interim report from last year. Interim Report 2020 by the Rapporteur on Sea Dumped Munitions The report provides a general overview of the current situation, parliamentary and governmental activities, and existing challenges in dealing with the legacy, present new developments and findings in technological and scientific terms, and provide insight into the current state of the art. Following the 28 th and 29 th BSPC resolutions, a conclusion is drawn on the state of implementation. Finally, the Rapporteur elaborates a proposal on how the existing knowledge and technology can be used efficiently by the Baltic Sea countries to solve the problem of sea-dumped munitions and unexploded ordnance in the Baltic Sea with a variety of links to additional materials. The report can be downloaded here and on the Rapporteurs’ webpage.

The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) – gathered digital – unanimously passed on 24 August 2020 the following 29 th BSPC resolution: Conference Resolution 29 BSPC 29 BSPC Resolution LV 29 BSPC Resolution DE 29 BSPC Resolution PL 29 BSPC Resolution RU The priorities of the 29 th annual conference and resolution so far relate to the – Cooperation in the Region given the COVID-19 Pandemic and its Consequences, – Safeguarding our Environment, Seas and Oceans for Future Generations, – the Development of Digitalisation as well as – Migration and Integration. It is customary that the delegations to the BSPC – or the parliaments as a whole based on an appropriate decision – inform their governments about the outcome of the respective annual conference. Furthermore, with the BSPC resolution, the delegations call on the governments in the Baltic Sea Region, the CBSS, the EU, and other pertinent actors to implement a range of actions or measures. The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference and its Standing Committee appreciate very much that the governments from the Baltic Sea area again sent statements on the implementation of calls for action in the 29 th resolution. Many comments were very detailed and essential for political development in the areas addressed. Some parliaments explicitly decide that their governments implement the resolution within their competencies and report to Parliament on its implementation. To receive a comprehensive overview of the actions taken by the governments in the Baltic Sea Region in response to the resolution of the Digital 29 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference, the members of the Standing Committee have asked their government to inform as far as possible on the following: Which measures, projects or actions have been a) planned, b) initiated, and c) implemented in support of the 29 th BSPC resolution, especially regarding the calls for action? The BSPC is also interested if transnational initiatives can again complement national and regional activities and if the political statements would also feature intentions and plans for future activities and increased international cooperation. The BSPC also welcomes comments on current successful projects and those that have encountered serious difficulties and thus provide the necessary impetus for further action. The statements and information provided by the governments form a unique and valuable overview of developments in the respective policy fields in the entire Baltic Sea Region. Based on these statements and comprehensive information, parliamentarians can track progress in different policy fields and identify further action needs. The compilation will be updated as soon as further statements are received. You can download the statements of the governments here .

The Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity discussed the questionnaire for a fact-gathering survey among the governments of the Baltic Sea region that will help make their reports informative and useful. Furthermore, calls for action by the governments were determined to promote, among others, a healthy and environmentally sound Baltic Sea region. More than 40participants from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Iceland, Kaliningrad, Karelia, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the Nordic Council, Norway, Poland, the Russian Federation, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden attended the meeting. Introduction Chairwoman Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby opened the meeting that exclusively dealt with procedural questions concerning the future work of the Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity. Questionnaire and Schedule for the Planned Survey Among Governments The Working Group had previously determined to survey BSPC governments for information to feed into the group’s work. Proposals for questions had been provided by several delegations. A scientific expert had been consulted, suggesting a narrower focus on ongoing processes. The governments should explain how exactly they were working to achieve their goals. Some suggestions were grouped as climate goals, biodiversity, shipping as well as explosive ordnance and plastic waste. In particular, the issue of climate law in the various BSPC member states and regions was of concern, in light of a recent decision of the German Supreme Court to address future generation’s wellbeing in present-day laws. Another concern was international cooperation, not least in support of developing countries. The meeting determined that the questions would be reworked to concentrate on governmental actions to reach the goals, both already and yet to be implemented. The deadline for a response from the governments was set as the end of 2021. Calls for Action by the Working Group The chairwoman stated that the German Bundestag’s and the Swedish delegation had submitted recommendations for action to combat climate change and promote biodiversity. In line with the consensus principle, the Working Group agreed on those recommendations where there was no difference of opinion. These would become part of the interim report to the 30 th BSPC Annual Conference in August 2021. Some recommendations were deemed too broad and would be reworked to seek approval in time for the mid-term report. In that regard, Ms Tenfjord-Toftby underlined that agreement should come from the home parliaments rather than just the members of the Working Group. Any recommendations left without a consensus could be discussed in more detail in subsequent meetings and, if unanimous consent could be reached, feed into the calls for action of the final report. Agreement was found for calls to support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; promote science-based regional and local projects to improve and preserve marine and land-based ecosystems; gain commitment in all parts of society through information; support the development of technology to reduce Baltic Sea eutrophication; further reduce ship emissions; and support investments in hydrogen technologies. The need for cross-border efforts was also stressed. In the discussion, it was highlighted that the BSPC’s calls for action concerned not only members of the European Union but also Iceland, Norway and Russia with varying goals set for e.g., climate neutrality. Discussion arose around the issue of replacing fossil fuel and nuclear power plants with renewable resources. The matter of zero-use areas in the Baltic Sea was raised as an example recommendation that might find general approval, considering a recent vivid expert contribution explaining that current such areas did not in fact limit many uses. Possible Extension of the Working Group Mandate until 2023 Chairwoman Tenfjord-Toftby explained the extension of the Swedish presidency into 2022, as recently agreed by the Standing Committee of the BSPC. Due to the general elections in Sweden in that year, the annual conference would be held earlier than usual and take place in June. This would limit the time available for the Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity to finalise their end report. Given the great importance of the topic, the Working Group chose to ask the Standing Committee to expand their mandate by another year in order to achieve a higher-quality end report that would be useful for governments, business and civil society. Further Matters The Working Group agreed on the preliminary version of its interim report to the 30 th BSPC Annual Conference comprising a compilation of the WG’s work up to the present meeting, featuring the contents of the expert presentations and the core decisions. After discussing the draft programme for the next meeting of the Working Group in October, which was changed to digital form again, the third meeting decided to set the spring meeting of 2022 in Åland.