News

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.

The BSPC gathered an expert seminar to discuss the changing population composition in the Baltic Sea region, in particular the ageing population. A focus was placed on lifelong learning to develop skills suited to new demands in the labour market and keeping older people employed, active and healthy. The meeting included about 60 participants from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, Finland, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Iceland, Karelia, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the Nordic Council, Norway, Poland, the Russian Federation and Sweden. Introduction BSPC President Pyry Niemi welcomed the participants to this seminar on the topic “Adaptation to new demography and challenges to the welfare model: Urbanisation, an ageing population and labour shortages and the connection to trust in public institutions, social and regional equality and young people’s opportunities”. He pointed out that the labour market and social welfare were traditional topics of the BSPC along with the integration of young people into the work force. The pandemic had exacerbated the problems. Connected to that were the trust in democracy and the state. Presentations Mr Gunnar Andersson , Professor in Demography and Head of the Stockholm University Demography Unit (SUDA) on demographic patterns and developments, current challenges and trends in the region, provided an introduction to the current demographic trends that could be seen in the Baltic Sea region. Three population processes were contributing to demographic change: fertility, mortality and migration. Mortality had been a major factor, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, in Sweden and the southern and eastern nations of the Baltic Sea region. Fertility had been declining in recent years in the Nordic countries. Migration had been primarily affected by the influx of refugees in 2015. The pandemic had also impacted migration in that inter-European borders had been shut while a demographic shift from cities to rural areas was taking place. Fertility could experience a short-turn rise but a medium-term decline, it had been suggested. As a whole, Prof Andersson noted that people were living longer in the Baltic Sea region, increasing the number of people receiving pensions. In the younger adult ranges, migration was a major factor – emigration in some Baltic Sea countries, immigration in others. Most decisive for demography was fertility as it set the bottom of the population pyramid and would determine the development for the next 100 years. The pyramid in the Nordic countries was rather balanced, with enough people of working age to support pensioners. In Germany, much like the southern and eastern nations around the Baltic Sea, there had been low fertility for many decades, with shrinking cohort numbers at the bottom. This created much more of a challenge than in the Nordic countries since large numbers of people would move into the pensioner range while far fewer would be coming of working age. Therefore, interest had focused on the Nordic countries with their relatively high fertility, presumably due to their welfare state. In short, they made it easier to combine a working career with a family career through supporting female participation in the labour market and incentivising men taking over parenting duties with parental leave systems. A focus on gender equality and childcare had aided women continuing to work. By contrast, highly educated women in the rest of the Baltic Sea region had to choose between family and work. As a rule, fertility had been higher in the Nordic nations than in the other countries, with educated and less educated women having similar numbers of children. However, there had been a yet unexplained drop in fertility in the past decade, reaching all time lows recently. For example, Finland had even dropped below Germany. Economic and labour force effects could not account for this decline nor social policy changes. Uncertainty about the future might be a factor, as the drop-off had started with the recession in 2010. More research was needed as well as new data that included subjective dimensions, such as perceived uncertainties, trust in society and institutions as well as fertility intentions. Presentation Gunnar Andersson Prof Andersson replied to a question that the Nordic countries, in particular Sweden, had implemented a system to respond to the ageing society: Pension age was tied to the overall age of the population. Two years earlier, it had been raised to 67 years, from 65 before. He was asked about the influence of migration on fertility. Prof Andersson noted that, despite the belief that migrants had a higher birth rate, they were quickly adapting to the fertility rate of their new country. As such, they were contributing by entering a country at a fertile age and having children there but not at higher numbers. Indeed, second-generation migrants even had a lower birth rate. He further pointed out that the life expectancy in the Nordic countries had been barely changed by the pandemic since the disease had primarily affected older people. Ms Tatiana Razumova , Professor at Moscow State Lomonosov University, spoke about Labour Market and Social Policy under COVID-19, with a view to youth employment during the pandemic. Speaking about the latest international labour market developments, some workplaces had shut completely in the spring of 2020 while closures due to circumstances and part-time closures abounded. Overall, the situation in that year had seemed highly difficult. In terms of working hours being lost, Northern Europe had fared quite well compared with Latin America and some territories in Asia and North America. The International Labour Organization (ILO) had estimated the equivalent of 305 million jobs having been lost. The development of different branches of industry as well as agriculture had been hit hard by the pandemic, Prof Razumova explained. Social support measures had been implemented to attempt to counteract the effects. Women were affected worst by the pandemic, followed by young people. For young workers, the conventional risks of the labour market had grown worse, such as unsuccessful job searches or their willingness to work in informal environments lacking social security measures. An increase in the retirement age had led to slower career progression for younger people. The Russian population had declined by half a million people compared to a year earlier, among others due to a high mortality rate from the COVID-19 pandemic. Unemployment in Russia had shot up in the period after March 2020 but had been corrected at the end of the summer. Overall employment had been recovering very slowly since then. At the same time, youth unemployment in Russia had seen an inversion of the usual distribution, now seeing a peak of unemployment in summer and a trough in winter. Russian youths were entering the labour market after university a little bit later than in other countries. During the pandemic, retraining measures had been put in place, with the intent on getting people into the labour force immediately after completion of the course. As of February 2021, 40 per cent of retrainees had found new jobs, underlining the success of said measures. Youth unemployment was particularly struck because most of their employers were industries highly affected by the pandemic, such as tourism, transportation, entertainment and the restaurant business. Urgent support measures had been provided by the government, including direct help as well as several additional payments for young families and families with children. On the whole, it was expected that the ILO programmes in Russia would support the country’s population in overcoming all the difficulties. In response to questions, Prof Razumova underlined that, as per the ILO view, a holistic bundling of employer, employee and state measures to support both businesses and workers was the only way to resolve critical problems. As for labour development, she considered international collaboration, in particular in terms of training, to be vital. She also noted that mortality rates were thought to be higher for women of working age because they were in higher-risk professions, such as medicine. Regarding a question of how parliaments and their cooperation could help in solving these problems, Prof Razumova said that the pandemic was the primary concern. Therefore, cooperation in vaccination efforts, medicine development and the like were the most vital. Also essential was joint work to establish safe conditions for work and life. She expected another wave of labour migration in the near future for which both migrants and native populations had to be protected from disease, given social support and safe conditions of work. Decent and safe work had to be the goal. Presentation Tatiana Razumova Ms Daria Akhutina , Senior Advisor, Head of Priority Area: Sustainable and Prosperous Region, Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS), spoke about the Baltic Sea Labour Forum for inclusive labour market in the Baltic Sea region. The Forum was concerned with the social dialogue between trade unions, employer organisations and governments in EU and non-EU countries of the Baltic Sea region. A recent round table event had dealt with “Distant/Remote Work as a New Reality”, specifically the opportunities and responsibilities, the untapped potential, the requisite digital skills as well as whether respective legislation was appropriate. Another conference had concerned “Future Work and Provisions of Lifelong Learning Systems in the Context of an Ageing Labour Force”, with a focus on how retraining could adapt to rapidly changing labour markets and who should bear responsibility for that. She further mentioned the project Baltic Sea Labour Forum for Sustainable Working Life which was promoting Active Ageing. Here, the challenge of an ageing population was to be turned into an opportunity through lifelong learning, competence and skill development, labour migration and senior entrepreneurship. Social and health elements also played a role here, as Ms Akhutina explained. Motivation and incentives were another factor. Policy briefs had been developed on a wide range of topics, such as a gender perspective on early retirement, bridging the digital divide for the age group 55+, age discrimination, future work and technological change and public employment services for older workers. These briefs had been published on the CBSS website. In distributing these outcomes and recommendations, she singled out the BSPC as a crucial conduit to political frameworks. Ms Akhutina highlighted an upcoming event on “Beyond COVID-19: Population Challenges Ahead” which would be dealing with old-age poverty, generational conflict, an ageing society, adaptation of educational systems for lifelong learning and other issues. Presentation Daria Akhutina Mr Rolf Elmér , Director Nordregio, and Mr Mats Stjernberg , Senior Research Fellow at Nordregio, presented on the topic of the silver economy – a response to population ageing: How can older people continue to make valuable economic and societal contributions after retirement? Nordregio was working on regional policy and policy planning. Regarding the lower fertility rates in the southern and eastern parts of the Baltic Sea region, it was crucial to keep older people in the work force. The so-called silver economy referred to all economic activities linked to older age groups, considering seniors as valuable contributors. This “overlooked demographic” continued to be significant in terms of the economy and society, with recent policy changes acknowledging their potential. Active and healthy ageing were closely associated with the silver economy. Population ageing differed somewhat in intensity and timing among the Nordic countries. Location was another factor, with rural areas having a greater share of elderly populations than urban regions. That was common among all Nordic countries. Another key aspect was health in older age, a goal pursued by the WHO. A healthy and active older population was the precondition for their inclusion in the labour market, Mr Stjernberg underlined. In most Nordic regions, men aged 65 still had 18 – 20 years left to live and women 2 – 3 years longer. There were regional and gender differences in that respect while health and wellbeing also depended inter alia on income, educational level, dietary habits as well as living and housing arrangements. Pension and labour market reforms in many countries had aimed at extending the employment span of people into older age. Recent years had seen a significant increase in the Nordic countries, although differences between countries remained noticeable. Overall, it could be said that more people worked longer than before. Mr Stjernberg spoke about the key elements for uncovering the potential of the silver economy. Promoting health and activity was a decisive factor which not only extended the working career but also improved well-being and delayed care dependency. The WHO had also actively promoted age-friendliness in recent decades, establishing a network of age-friendly cities. Society had to be changed to be more age-friendly, removing barriers such as ageism and age discrimination. The perception of population ageing, based on outdated stereotypes, had to be altered. It was necessary to go beyond labour and pension reforms and explore education and training, such as digital skills, minimising the issue of digital exclusion. Mutual learning between older and younger generations was an important aspect. Labour and retirement schemes had to become more flexible, such as part-time engagements to combine work with retirement. Overall, population ageing was a multi-faceted issue that required a holistic approach. The interlinkages between many policy areas had to be taken into account. Collaboration was needed in designing and implementing the policies, bringing together the public sector, private companies and senior citizens themselves as well as the organisations representing them. Presentation Rolf Elmér and Mats Stjernberg Ms Agnieszka Chłoń-Domińczak , Professor and Director of the Institute of Statistics and Demography SGH at the Warsaw School of Economics, Poland, gave a presentation on Lifelong Learning in the current times of crisis – the need of upskilling and reskilling. A recent green paper of the European Commission had pointed out the shrinking labour force. Her presentation focused on the eastern part of the Baltic Sea region (specifically Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland) which would be more severely hit by the ageing population, given the lower fertility rate there. The main challenges for the labour market and skill development were not only population ageing but also technological transformations and globalisation which were changing the skills sought on the labour market. Furthermore, lifelong learning was less a part of life there than in Scandinavia. Digital skills, which could also be performed long-distance, had become an essential skill. The reduction in working age population would hit the central and eastern European countries very soon. About half of the jobs were threatened by computerisation and low ICT skills. Apart from lacking lifelong learning, adolescents and adults also had low skill levels, although the countries had been catching up to the rest of Europe. Estonia had made progress in establishing lifelong learning. Computer skills were below average in most of the observed nations, with rather low shares of highly skilled people. The investment in human capital for ages 0 – 30 were close to the EU25 average, with the exception of the trailing Poland. The employment rate among working adults was generally low, in particular in Poland. What was striking was that those employed in jobs threatened by computerisation were considerably less likely to engage in lifelong learning than the national average. All of those were challenges to lifelong learning in the considered countries, with an added barrier formed by both employers and employees underestimating its importance. To promote lifelong learning, labour market and benefit policies favouring the increase in economic activity at all ages were required, targeting in particular people aged over 50, women as well as people with low education. Sharing experiences and peer learning were one avenue to explore. At the same time, incentives and better conditions for lifelong learning, in particular for the older population, should be put in place. Transversal and social competences were desirable as well, also in light of the COVID-19 pandemic locking especially younger people out of their real-world social networks for over a year. Finally, coordinated support was required to develop new technology sectors, including IT skills, investing in research and development as well as promoting the use of new technologies together with lifelong learning. Presentation Agnieszka Chłoń-Domińczak In the Q&A section, Prof Chłoń-Domińczak noted that new skills and competences were vital in the social area as well even if not directly linked to employment. Lifelong learning had a wider definition and could also involve soft skills and interests. Regarding opportunities to engage in learning, she saw a range of mixed tools as successful, including incentives for employers but also immediate support for learners through e.g., institutions. She underlined that the attitude to appreciate lifelong learning was crucial and had to be developed. Referring to age discrimination, Mr Stjernberg saw developing more age-friendly societies as decisive. In practical terms, the experience and knowledge of older workers should be seen as assets, not least in transferring that to younger workers. Keeping people active into old age was vital, whether connected to employment or not, as they continued contributing to society and felt more valued. As for political tools to counteract age discrimination, tax incentives to employ older people might be an option but Mr Stjernberg stressed that the mindset had to be shifted towards healthy aging. Perception of age had to move beyond stereotypes and also had to acknowledge the great diversity of the older generations. Ms Akhutina saw a complex of measures as necessary, including economic support of employers, the internal culture to welcome older workers as well as healthier life and work conditions. Solutions had to be customised to specific situations and companies. Regarding political approaches, Mr Stjernberg said that healthy aging as currently promoted by the UN and the WHO was vital. The various points mentioned throughout the seminar required a holistic approach at various levels and policy domains, acknowledging both the challenges and opportunities of an ageing population. He underlined the need for research to better understand the trends and diversification within older populations. Ms Akhutina highlighted peer-learning at all levels and in all fields, be they academia or social contexts. Permanent experience exchange was crucial and needed to be facilitated, for example through the Baltic Sea Labour Forum. A further political tool, for instance for the BSPC, was to raise awareness by sharing information such as the policy briefs she had mentioned earlier. These briefs were informed by various levels and groupings, dealing with a multiplicity of topics. Prof Chłoń-Domińczak stressed that ageing should not be seen as a catastrophe. Policies had to adapt to this natural, long-term process as it would remain and stay important. To that end, long-term collaborative international strategies had to be established. Measures that had proven unsuccessful needed to be discarded. She underlined that peer learning was crucial. Closing Remarks BSPC President Pyry Niemi concluded that demographic change strongly affected the labour market as did the digital age. The pandemic had shown how vital it was to focus on young people getting access to the labour market. Keeping older people active in the work force was of equal value, with peer and lifelong learning contributing to shared knowledge and experience among the generations.

How do we secure a democratically and environmentally sustainable future in the Baltic Sea region? These are the crucial core questions that young people will discuss on Saturday, 28 August 2021, with Parliament members from the Baltic Sea Region in a hybrid meeting back-to-back to the 30 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference to promote dialogue between young people of the region and policymakers. This Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum will provide an opportunity for you to give your input to policymakers on the issues at hand and to gain insight into international parliamentary cooperation . The purpose is to capture valuable input from the young generation, which is of great importance in our joint endeavour to build back our region – better, greener and stronger – after the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of your discussions will be presented by representatives of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum at the 30 th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference on 29-31 August 2021. They will also feed into the further negotiations of the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity (CCB). You are welcome to apply if you are between 16-30 years old , interested in climate change, biodiversity and/or democracy and the Baltic Sea Region , and based in Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, the Russian Federation or Sweden . Please apply by 30 April noon (CET) and read more in the information sheet here You can find this invitation and all further information also on the website of the Council of the Baltic Sea States under the following link: cbss.org

The BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity gathered for another digital meeting focussed on expert presentations. Representatives from HELCOM spoke about the organisation’s own efforts and measures to restore a good ecological status to the Baltic Sea. As best practice examples, experts reported on several projects taking practical measures to improve the ecological status of marine waters. The meeting involved more then 50 participants from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Iceland, Kaliningrad, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the Nordic Council, Norway, Poland, the Russian Federation, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden. WG Chairwoman Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby opened the meeting by noting that the digital format offered the opportunity to attract experts who might not be available otherwise. This would be evidenced by this meeting’s rich wealth of information provided. Expert presentations In continuing the long-standing tradition of cooperation and exchange between the BSPC and HELCOM, the first two experts at the meeting spoke about the climate change- and biodiversity-related expertise accumulated by the latter organisation and upcoming decisions and actions to improve the current situation. Mr Rüdiger Strempel , HELCOM Executive Secretary, explained that HELCOM existed because the Baltic Sea was a unique and fragile ecosystem that had to be protected. Although progress had been made, a good environmental status had not yet been reached. The single most pressing issue threatening the Baltic Sea remained eutrophication. Further challenges were either emerging or had not been previously addressed, inter alia marine litter, pharmaceuticals or underwater noise. These challenges had also contributed to forty years of work not having achieved the goal, aside from ecosystem lag, insufficient measures or measures not yet implemented. Mr Strempel noted the long history of HELCOM, reaching back to 1974 and predating most environmental efforts. He explained the structure of the organisation, bringing the foundational Helsinki Convention to life. Its decision-making process was based on science in a bottom-up approach, he underlined. Of its recommendations, 260 had been adopted so far. A fundamental part of its work was monitoring the environment along with thematic and holistic assessments. Mr Strempel highlighted the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) aiming at removing eutrophication and hazardous substances as well as establishing environmentally friendly maritime activities and a favourable status of biodiversity. An update of the BSAP had been decided by the Ministerial Meeting in 2018, to pursue the same ambition level based on the current plan. Using what had worked and tweaking what had not, the update would consider the economic and social benefits of a healthy sea. Mr Strempel stressed that the BSAP could not function in a vacuum but had to be interlinked with global targets and commitments. Apart from the core Action Plan, HELCOM had established related processes to resolve such challenges as marine litter, underwater noise or climate change. He further outlined the level of implementation of the original 2007 plan, noting that 71 % of joint actions had been put into practice but only 29 % of national actions, such as designating Marine Protected Areas. Accordingly, far more needed to be done. He specified that the parliamentarians of the BSPC could assist in the implementation through interaction with the executive but also with the public. Presentation: HELCOM and BSAP in brief by Ruediger Strempel Ms Jannica Haldin , HELCOM Professional Secretary, spoke about climate change and the Baltic Sea. HELCOM’s goal in this field was to increase the overall resilience of the Baltic ecosystem against impacts from climate change. This was being pursued through a long-term multidisciplinary approach to understanding and communicating these impacts. Together with Baltic Earth, a long-term expert network on climate change (EN CLIME) had been put into place in 2018 to quickly provide quality-assured science to policy-makers. The network had created a Climate Change Fact Sheet that served as an easily accessible report on 34 parameters in a science-driven consensus view. The parameters directly affected by climate change included air temperature, sea level and precipitation. These in turn altered secondary parameters, among them oxygen levels as well as various marine fauna. Indirect parameters also concerned human use of the marine environment, ranging from shipping over tourism to ecosystem services. Derived from them were key messages on what was already happening or about to happen as well as knowledge gaps and policy relevance. Ms Haldin highlighted that it was important to consider other drivers of change in the ecosystem, such as anthropogenic drivers quite apart from climate change. Each statement of the key messages was assessed on the level of confidence HELCOM had in its data, using the IPCC model. From the fact sheets, it could be seen that climate change impacts were evident in the Baltic Sea, affecting the ecosystem as well as human activities. As examples of direct impacts, she mentioned rising water temperatures. Among indirect impacts, the numbers of warm water fish species were increasing while cold water species were decreasing. As for human activities, trawl fishing began earlier in the year. Nevertheless, she underlined that the Baltic Sea ecosystem was highly complex so that climate change effects were not easily distinguished from other human pressures and also varied between the regions. Ms Haldin described the state of biodiversity in the Baltic Sea as poor. Many species were stressed, and climate change was exacerbating the situation. Changes in distribution and behaviour were found in all species covered by the fact sheet: benthic habitats, open sea fish, coastal and migratory fish, waterbirds, and seals. Combining all of these various factors, she explained, described the ecosystem function. Food webs had already been affected. How nutrients were recycled within the ecosystem would likely change in the future. With warmer waters, primary production would increase, giving rise to more algal blooms, decreasing oxygen levels and sun light penetration. Decreased salinity would alter species composition. Eutrophication was already affecting large areas of the Baltic Sea which were solely responsible for huge financial losses. The climate change impact here was particularly difficult to disentangle from other human impacts. Reducing nutrient loads from agricultural practices could significantly decrease eutrophication even under climate change. Ms Haldin explained that the complex, interlinking information from the fact sheet was informing the policy recommendations by HELCOM. Presentation: Climate Change and Biodiversity by Jannica Haldin Mr Bodo Bahr raised a question about marine protected areas. At a previous meeting, Prof Christoph Humborg, Scientific Director of the Stockholm University Baltic Sea Centre, had explained that these were not as restricted for human use as the name would imply and needed further strengthening. In response, Ms Jannica Haldin said that the plan was to link the Baltic Sea Action Plan to the EU Biodiversity Strategy. The latter set a percentage goal for strictly protected areas in which human use other than scientific pursuits was minimised. Discussions, though, were still ongoing. Mr Rüdiger Strempel noted the complexity of the respective legal frameworks, including both the EU and Russia, and the need for consistency across all the instruments employed. Ms Linda Kumblad , Associate Professor in Systems Ecology at Stockholm University and Project Leader of Living Coast, funded by BalticSea 2020, spoke about whether it was possible to regain a good ecological status in coastal areas. Launched in 2011, Living Coast was a full-scale remediation project on areas severely affected by eutrophication and with limited water exchange. Their focus area was the highly eutrophicated Björnöfjärden bay in the Stockholm archipelago. Björnöfjärden could be described as a miniature version of the Baltic Sea. Aside from immediate actions, communication was also important to stimulate action in other areas. The first step had been to identify and quantify the nutrient loads, both anthropogenic and natural. Due to existing methods and accessibility, the project concentrated on phosphorus, even though nitrogen loads were equally important to reduce. The anoxic bottom areas were causing the sediment to release phosphorus in voluminous amounts rather than containing it. Living Coast implemented measures to reduce inputs from agriculture and horse keeping but also to improve local sewage systems. An aluminium treatment assisted in binding phosphorus to the sediment. The measures over a span of 10 years had succeeded in reducing phosphorus loads by ca. 70 %, primarily in the sediment area. Monitoring the water, fauna and flora had shown the phosphorus concentration in the sea reduced by half, leading to less phytoplankton and a higher transparency of the water. Bottom areas were better oxygenated. Both the latter aspects led to fish and benthos being found in deeper layers of the bay. Ms Kumblad summarised that the environmental status of coastal areas could indeed be improved, by reducing nutrient supplies from both land and sediment in a holistic view of the ecosystem. She stressed that this took time, patience and resources. Ms Kumblad also mentioned two further Swedish projects on remediation efforts, LEVA on support for local endeavours and Living Bays working to restore shallow wave-protected bays. Replying to the questions by working group members, Ms Linda Kumblad explained that the project had been successful because the core staff had been deeply involved in studying the ecosystem and getting to understand the local situation. Moreover, they had spent great efforts on informing and involving the community and municipal politicians. Financial support and resources had been vital in the monitoring efforts as well as providing subsidies for the measures. The breadth of efforts and success around the bay had increased the willingness to contribute over time. For instance, the aluminium seeding had visibly cleared the water, proving that the efforts were paying off. Her colleague, Mr Emil Rydin , Associate Professor in Limnology, Baltic Sea Centre, Stockholm University, stressed the importance of community acceptance and trust. Ms Kumblad was not aware of any other similar projects, with comparable financial resources, monitoring efforts and the full scale of remediation measures. Presentation: Regaining good ecological status in coastal areas is that possible? by Linda Kumblad & Emil Rydin Presentation: Effective measures against eutrophication by Linda Kumblad & Emil Rydin Ms Patricia Wiklund , Project Manager, CEO of Invenire – a strategy & communications agency working within the food industry, the bioeconomy and the circular economy, had worked on a very small-scale, community-led project that could be expanded to a wider scope. It had consisted of water area management and a local farmer, situated on the tiny island group Brändö. The island’s waters had visibly changed, with the common reed forming thick beds on previously used land and sea surfaces. Ms Wiklund’s project had aimed to include the reed regeneratively in the local nutrient cycle while assisting in better shore, water and fish management. To that end, in a very visible spot, reed had been harvested repeatedly. The reed was used as ground cover in greenhouses and would be used in the spring to fertilise fields. By harvesting, water pathways and canals had been restored, improving fish habitats. The same applied to overgrown meadows being returned to cow pasture as well as game feed. Ms Wiklund explained that their approach was based on interconnectedness and a holistic view, allowing for surprising combinations to emerge. She highlighted the need for passionate and knowledgeable people from many specialties to be involved in a close-knit network. In her view, the local community had to be at the heart of the efforts, appreciating what was to be achieved. As such, scaling up would mean connecting several nodes of such communities. Presentation: How can we create impact & bring the wow factor into sustainable, local & engaging small-scale pilot projects? Ms Gréta María Grétarsdóttir , Managing Director of Innovation, Social Responsibility and Investor Relations at the Seafood Company Brim in Iceland, said that her company always considered the environment in its activities, including fishing, processing and sales. In 1983, a total allowable catch (TAC) had been set for Iceland’s 200-mile territory, determined by scientists rather than companies or the government. This prevented overfishing and kept the nation’s main export sustainable. The primary impact of the fishing industry on water, though, was oil use. Engine changes to the fishing fleets had to be considered long-term as the average ship age was 30 years, constituting a heavy investment for enterprises. Accordingly, decisions made today might take ten or fifteen years to bear fruit. Since the 1990s, oil use had decreased in both fishing and fishmeal plants. Both were switching more and more to green electricity, thanks to improving infrastructure. The company Brim’s fleet had reduced oil use by 50 % since 2005. Fisheries management and better stocks had enabled shorter fishing trips, thus curtailing fossil fuel use as well. Reliable, traceable and transparent catches were key to retaining healthy fish stocks and economic success. Furthermore, Brim was taking care to return any waste from fishing to be returned to shore, sorted and recycled. They were also seeking to clean the coastal areas from trash. A central part of their environmental efforts was the “Cleaner Value Chain in Fisheries”, holistically determining the company’s carbon footprint and reducing it throughout all operations, among others packaging and transport. This was being achieved through their own real-time data collection system on environmental effects of the vessels and land-based operations. Innovations in ship technology were another pillar of their efforts. Ms Grétarsdóttir underlined that the company had to be fully behind these efforts because only environmental protection ensured its future. Measures had to be continually refined and innovated. Responding to the parliamentarians’ questions, Ms Grétarsdóttir pointed to the switch from fossil fuels to other engine types as a region where governments were vital in assisting this change. Among additional measures to reduce ship emissions, she mentioned scrubbers. Their downside was that fuel consumption remained the same so investment costs could not be recouped. Here, she mentioned Iceland’s carbon tax on fuels. She suggested that governments could lower taxation for reduced emissions despite continued fossil fuel use. In terms of alternative energy engines, Ms Grétarsdóttir noted that her company was planning to switch their smaller boats to hybrid engines in the near future. Using LNG or electricity as propellants was problematic for vessels on long-haul trips of 30 days or more. In her view, hydrogen fuel cells rather than electric batteries were the likely technology of the future for fishing fleets. She reiterated that sustainability was essential for a company’s survival, also from the customers’ point of view who would steer away from non-green enterprises. Presentation: Best practices BRIM Working group discussion After the experts’ presentations, the Working Group CCB discussed the aims and ways of their work, agreeing to mainly focus on regional aspects of the Baltic Sea region. Chairwoman CecilieTenfjord-Toftby announced that a Youth Forum would be held in conjunction with the BSPC Annual Conference in Stockholm in August, dealing with the same topics as the BSPC Working Group CCB . The attendees agreed that the results of the forum would feed into the reports of the working group. The working group decided to hold a governmental survey among the BSPC member states and regions to gather respective data of scientific interest. The next meeting of the BSPC Working Group CCB will take place in digital form on 31 May 2021.

The highest Executive Committee of the BSPC was informed in its online meeting on the activities of HELCOM in strengthening international cooperation to restore the health of the Baltic marine environment as well as efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic by experts in the field. The most important strategies to contain the virus and protect health were laid out. The meeting included 50 participants from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, Finland, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the Nordic Council, Norway, Poland, the Russian Federation, Schleswig-Holstein, Saint Petersburg and Sweden. Introduction In his welcoming speech, BSPC President Pyry Niemi referred to the digital seminar the BSPC had held a few weeks earlier on Democracy in a Changing Media Landscape. He pointed out that its findings about the need to defend democracy, to fight for and strengthen it had been echoed by US President Joe Biden in a recent keynote speech. The Council of Europe had also underlined the urgent need for international cooperation. This widespread concern reinforced the Swedish Presidency’s priority for this topic. Mr Niemi further reflected on the one-year anniversary of the last meeting the BSPC had been able to hold in person and that, despite the current mutations, the vaccination efforts would allow them to meet again away from the digital realm. Progress Report on the activities of HELCOM Dr Lilian Busse , chair of HELCOM, explained that Germany was holding the rotating chairmanship from 2020 – 2022 and would host the Ministerial Meeting in October 2021. She outlined the make-up as well as the decision-making process of HELCOM. Dr Busse noted the current Baltic Sea Action Plan’s goals of a good ecological status of the Baltic marine environment by 2021. As these goals had not been met, the decision had been made with a strong political mandate in 2018 to update it by evolving it from the preceding version. In that effort, the economic and social benefits of a healthy sea were considered, along with managing human activities and taking into account current HELCOM topics, such as marine litter or underwater noise. While the ambition level of the original Baltic Sea Action Plan would be maintained, global targets and commitments would also be included, e.g., the SDGs, the Aichi targets and EU MSFD. Ongoing projects and pursuits would be folded into the Baltic Sea Action Plan as well, Dr Busse explained, including efforts in nutrient recycling and maritime spatial planning. They were also developing a HELCOM Science Agenda that would consider which future science would be needed for a healthy Baltic Sea. Through the drafting and segment teams as well as the meetings of the heads of delegation, the updated Baltic Sea Action Plan would be finalised until presented for adoption to the Ministerial Meeting in October 2021. Moving on to the German chairmanship, Dr Busse laid out its five priorities: strengthening ocean governance; updating and implementing the Baltic Sea Action Plan; trying new solutions for well-known, pressing challenges; strengthening marine biodiversity; understanding and responding to climate change and the Baltic Sea. She went on to comment on several issues raised by the BSPC at its 29 th Annual Conference in August 2020. Regarding biodiversity, Dr Busse explained that HELCOM was working on developing a coherent HELCOM network of marine protected areas as well as stepping up efforts to conserve endangered species such as harbour porpoises. HELCOM was also pursuing the reduction of nutrient inputs, e.g., by updating nutrient hotspots. On the problems of sea-dumped ammunitions, shipwrecks and ghost nets, HELCOM was seeking to share information and test technology for a better understanding of the situation and means to safely remove the munitions or fishing nets. They had also developed the Regional Marine Litter Action Plan to work on this issue. Progress Reports on Combatting the COVID-19 Pandemic and International Cooperation in these Efforts Dr Catherine Smallwood , WHO Europe, highlighted that the overall global situation had improved since the end of 2020. Across the countries most affected by the pandemic, the numbers of new cases and new deaths were decreasing. Moreover, seven different vaccines were currently being rolled out, with more down the road. Testing capabilities as well as treatments had become better as well. Existing countermeasures also held up against the new virus variants so far. But despite these positive trends, very high numbers of new cases persisted in specific regions, along with significant demand on the healthcare system. Some of these regions were in the countries of the Baltic Sea region. As such, the focus had to be on reducing infection which, Dr Smallwood stressed, was not possible through vaccination. Vaccination was targeting the vulnerable populations and not those groups driving transmission in society, i.e., the younger, healthier and working population. Another threat to the current progress was posed by new variants of concern emerging. She underlined that mutations were more likely the wider the virus was spread. That is assumed to be behind the rapid acceleration of mutants in recent months, further underlining the urgency to reduce transmission in the human population. The variant of concern B.1.1.7, originating in the UK, had now been detected in 43 of the WHO member states and was growing in prevalence. Although the overall trends were coming down, the proportion of cases with the UK variant were increasing. Moreover, the South African variant might be able to evade the immune system and lower the efficacy of vaccines against it. She stressed that it was the shared belief of experts that vaccines would nonetheless continue to work against the virus. Dr Smallwood also underlined that this might change if the virus was allowed to mutate further. Reducing transmission – through the established and proven hygiene measures – was the key to preventing this and thus the primary concern. Regarding the vaccination efforts, some 200 vaccines were still being researched, in addition to the seven already rolled out. The challenge, though, was distribution when supply was insufficient for the global demand. The WHO was calling for vaccine equity in the world since low-income countries were trailing far behind in vaccination. Dr Smallwood underlined the crucial importance: Unmitigated spread in low-income countries would allow mutations to continue and might lead to the emergence of a variant against which the present vaccines would no longer work. Therefore, transmission had to be reduced on a global scale. In particular, health care workers around the globe should be vaccinated as quickly as possible. Ülla-Karin Nurm , Director of the Northern Dimension Partnership in Public Health and Social Well-Being (NDPHS) Secretariat, underlined that the pandemic had highlighted the need for international cooperation in health. Working on this issue suffused all the NDPHS expert groups, through knowledge and experience exchange. In November, there had been a Northern Dimension Future Forum on COVID-19, dealing with the disruption in public health and health systems as well as the wider societal impact. Ms Nurm stressed that health inequalities had been brought to the forefront as some population groups had been affected disproportionately. For privileged people, the pandemic might be advantageous, e.g., through a better work-life balance. Those who had been suffering before the pandemic might suffer even more now. Mental health had decreased, levels of alcohol consumption had risen. The NDPHS had committed to devoting more time to such issues as well as the following areas: The pandemic had highlighted the already existing shortage of doctors and nurses in the Baltic Sea region but also digitalisation as a possible recourse. Remote health and social services needed to be promoted while acceptance was high. Health service disruptions had made it more difficult for patients with pre-existing non-communicable diseases to be treated. Furthermore, long-term negative health effects were expected, for instance because of lower levels of exercise. In particular, the elderly population was most affected, not only through the threat of the virus but also the loss of social contacts and disruption of treatment. Ms Nurm stressed that international cooperation was vital to combatting both the virus and the secondary effects of the pandemic to create more resilient health and public systems. In response to questions by delegates, Dr Catherine Smallwood outlined the WHO’s COVAX programme which assisted low-income countries in acquiring vaccines at lower prices. Here, she referred to the high-income countries over-purchasing supplies which could be transmitted to the less advantaged nations without impacting the former’s vaccination progress. This would in particular apply once the most vulnerable groups were vaccinated in high-income nations. Regarding best practices, Dr Smallwood underlined that there were some measures that had worked globally while others were valid only in certain regional conditions, e.g., island settings, and could not be transferred. The WHO was promoting harmonisation efforts to streamline mitigation measures globally. She explained that WHO Europe was collaborating with groups from the sub-regional to the regional level and above, primarily the EU but also including the Eastern European countries, Turkey and Russia outside the EU. BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity Working Group Chairwoman Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby updated the Standing Committee on the progress of the group and plans for the upcoming second meeting. Best practices and research results from various countries would be introduced and discussed. She highlighted efforts to include youth representatives in the conference in August, which she hoped would lead to a longer-term and constructive collaboration with youth organisations. The 30 th BSPC BSPC President Pyry Niemi spoke about the progress in planning the annual conference in August under the title Sustainable Democracy – How to Face a Changing World . This core approach would be reflected in all sessions of the conference. While hopes were high that the conference could be held physically in Stockholm, preparations for a digital meeting were also proceeding. Mr Niemi noted that previous conferences had benefited from high-level political representation which would also be sought for the upcoming conference. Dr Andreas Norlén, the Speaker of the Swedish Riksdag, had already confirmed his participation. The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum BSPC President Pyry Niemi provided an update on plans to involve youth representatives in the next conference. The Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Swedish Institute and the CBSS had joined efforts with the BSPC to create a back-to-back event with the conference, tentatively planned as a Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum. The CBSS had agreed to recruit the young participants through a call for applications via their website. BSPC Standing Committee decisions BSPC Finances The Standing Committee approved the 2020 Financial Report including the Financial Result as per the Fourth Quarter of 2020 as well as the budget plan proposal for 2021. The Standing Committee agreed to publish Financial Report on the BSPC website: Financial report 2020 for the BSPC joint financing mechanism (JFM) Further Matters The Standing Committee agreed to proceed on a Memorandum of Understanding with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean (PAM) to pursue a closer collaboration. Status reports by the member states and regions on the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccination efforts had already been collected and published on the BSPC website in the summer of 2020. These had been updated in the meantime, and the Standing Committee agreed to release these on the website as well. The Standing Committee decided to hold the upcoming meetings again in digital form. It was further agreed to hold a seminar on one of the priority topics of the Swedish Presidency in conjunction with the next meeting of the Standing Committee on 31 May. Presentations: Dr. Lilian Busse – Progress Report on Activities of HELCOM COVID 19: Situation in WHO European Region

The BSPC Standing Committee members reported at several Digital Standing Committee meetings on developments of the corona crisis to date, the current situation and the assessment of further steps in their countries. The topic turned out to be of high interest for the participants; therefore, the Standing Committee agreed that the members of the BSPC would be asked to deepen the meeting’s survey through written reports on the subject. The following statements update the first published compilation of statements from August 2020 The COVID-19 pandemic – The development in the BSPC member countries and the challenges for the parliaments and give a survey of the development in most Baltic Sea Region Countries. They furthermore inform about the effects on the work of parliaments and interparliamentary organisations as well as on legislative measures to deal with the consequences of the pandemic. The update includes also information about the vaccination progress in the BSPC member countries. The compilation will be updated as soon as further statements are received. The Document can be downloaded here .