Mid-Way Report

Baltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceBSPCWorking Group onMigration and IntegrationMid-Way ReportBaltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceBSPCWorking Group onMigration and IntegrationMid-Way Report2The BSPC Rapporteur on Working Group onMigration and Integration© Stockholm 2018T ext: Hans WallmarkEditing: Bodo Bahr, Ralph Hermannssonand Jördis PalmeLayout: produktionsbüro TINUSPhotos: BSPC SecretariatBaltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceBodo BahrSecretary General+49 171 5512557bodo.bahr@bspcmail.netwww.bspc.netBSPC SecretariatSchlossgartenallee 1519061 SchwerinGermanyThe Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference(BSPC) was established in 1991 as a forum forpolitical dialogue between parliamentariansfrom the Baltic Sea Region. BSPC aims at rais-ing awareness and opinion on issues of currentpolitical interest and relevance for the BalticSea Region. It promotes and drives various in-itiatives and efforts to support a sustainableenvironmental, social and economic develop-ment of the Baltic Sea Region. It strives at en-hancing the visibility of the Baltic Sea Regionand its issues in a wider European context.BSPC gathers parliamentarians from 11national parliaments, 11 regional parliamentsand 5 parliamentary organisations around theBaltic Sea. The BSPC thus constitutes aunique parliamentary bridge between all theEU- and non-EU countries of the Baltic SeaRegion.BSPC external interfaces include parlia-mentary, governmental, sub-regional and oth-er organizations in the Baltic Sea Region andthe Northern Dimension area, among themCBSS, HELCOM, the Northern DimensionPartnership in Health and Social Well-Being(NDPHS), the Baltic Sea Labour Forum(BSLF), the Baltic Sea States Sub-regional Co-operation (BSSSC) and the Baltic Develop-ment Forum.BSPC shall initiate and guide political ac-tivities in the region; support and strengthendemocratic institutions in the participatingstates; improve dialogue between govern-ments, parliaments and civil society; strength-en the common identity of the Baltic Sea Re-gion by means of close co-operation betweennational and regional parliaments on the basisof equality; and initiate and guide political ac-tivities in the Baltic Sea Region, endowingthem with additional democratic legitimacyand parliamentary authority.The political recommendations of the an-nual Parliamentary Conferences are expressedin a Conference Resolution adopted by con-sensus by the Conference. The adopted Reso-lution shall be submitted to the governmentsof the Baltic Sea Region, the CBSS and theEU, and disseminated to other relevant na-tional, regional and local stakeholders in theBaltic Sea Region and its neighbourhood.3ContentsIntroduction ........................................... 5Mid-Way Report ........................................ 7BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration ........... 71. Purpose ........................................... 82. Mandate .......................................... 93. Objectives ........................................ 114. Scope of Work – Programme and Work in Progress ....... 125. Working Group Meetings 1-3 ........................ 195.1 Hamburg – 5 December 2017 ...................... 195.2 Stockholm – 19 March 2018 ....................... 315.3 Kopenhagen – 21 June 2018. ....................... 416. Intergovernmental Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567. Best practices – Examples ............................ 578. Political Recommendations .......................... 61List of Members ....................................... 625 IntroductionIntroductionLadies and gentlemen,The BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration waslaunched by the 26th BSPC in Hamburg on 5 September 2017. Thetopic for the Working Group is a reflection of the events that tookplace in 2015 with the so-called refugee crises and the shared – al-though various - challenges it created in our region.The Working Group is constituted as an ad-hoc working group un-der the auspices of the Standing Committee of the BSPC in accord-ance with the BSPC Rules of Procedure. The primary outcome ofthe activities of the working group is to elaborate political recom-mendations on the topic of migration and integration.It is a well-known fact that we all have very different traditionswhen it comes to migration. Some of us have been receiving immi-grants for a considerable time whilst others rather been countries ofemigration, not immigration. Hopefully our different historical ex-periences can serve as a strength as it enables us to discuss the prob-lems from a wide scope of different perspectives. By highlightingand discussing best practices, it is my firm belief that we all havesomething to learn. And learning from each other is precisely whatwe have done ever since our first meeting in December in Ham-burg, over the meetings in Stockholm in March and in Copenhagenin June. As this mid-way report will show, we have, among manyother things, learned about German historical experiences of migra-tion, the role that sports can play, Swedish integration policies andthe latest findings of Danish research on migration. Hans Wallmark6 IntroductionAt the inaugural meeting of the Working Group Ms. Carola Veit,Hamburg, was elected vice-chair. Ms. Veit most successfully chairedthe first meeting of the Working Goup held in Hamburg in Decem-ber 2017. I would thus like to thank Ms. Veit for her excellent workin setting the direction for the Working Group as well as for initiat-ing the intergovernmental survey that has been carried out. In addi-tion, I would like to thank my fellow Swedish colleague Mr. PyryNiemi who chaired the third meeting of the Working Group in Co-penhagen in June 2018 in my absence. Furthermore, I would like tothank all the members of the Working Group for their high-qualitycontributions, the intensive discussions as well as the harmoniousatmosphere.This mid-way report is an overview of the first results of our work.The main focus is on the political recommendations which wereelaborated during the meetings and have been forwarded to the 27thBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Mariehamn, 26 – 28 Au-gust 2018. Thereby, this report should be considered a strategicsummary of our work. Detailed information concerning the con-tent issues will be part of the final report of the Working Group.Hans WallmarkMember of the Parliament of SwedenChairman of the Working Group on Migration and Integration7 Mid-Way ReportMid-Way ReportBSPC Working Group on Migration and IntegrationThe BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration was es-tablished by a corresponding decision of the BSPC Standing Com-mittee on 3 September 2017 by the Baltic Parliamentary Confer-ence on 5 September 2017 at its 26thannual conference in Ham-burg. Mr Hans Wallmark - in his absence, represented by Mr PyryNiemi - , Sweden, is the Chair of the WG and Ms Carola Veit , Ham-burg, is the Vice-Chair.The overarching objective of the Working Group is to elaborate po-litical positions and recommendations pertaining to migration andintegration.The scope of work of the Working Group should cover, but not belimited to, issues such as• The state of the refugee crisis, migration and integration in theBaltic Sea Region;• Best practices in migration and integration;• Measures to solve current challenges;• Challenges and opportunities for integration;The Working Group and its members should – according to theirmandate determined by the Standing Committee of the Baltic SeaParliamentary Conference - aim at raising the political attention onmigration and integration and contribute to the exchange of knowl-edge and best practices within its area of responsibility.For this purpose, the Working Group should establish and maintaincontacts with relevant institutions, organizations and other actorsin the Baltic Sea Region and furthermore help to actively drive co-operation in the Baltic Sea Region as well as to follow and influencepolitical initiatives.8 1. Purpose1. PurposeThe purpose of the mid-way report is to present a first set of politi-cal recommendations from the BSPC Working Group on Migra-tion and Integration (WG MI) to the 27th BSPC in Mariehamn 26-28 August 2018. This is pursuant to the mandate of the WG.The report also gives a cursory account of some challenges that theWG has discussed with a number of experts. It includes also thestatements and answers received from the governments of the BalticSea States to a number of questions. On these documents it will bepossible to identify similarities and differences and to draw conclu-sions for the possibilities of joint action.9 2. Mandate2. MandateThe BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration was es-tablished by a corresponding decision of the BSPC Standing Com-mittee on 3 September 2017 by the Baltic Parliamentary Confer-ence on 5 September 2017 at its 26th annual conference in Ham-burg.In accordance with this decision, the scope of work of WG MIshould cover, but not be limited to the following main items:A. Migration and integration in the Baltic Sea region - asurvey on the current situationThe refugee crisis as well as the topic of migration and integrationdefer in the Baltic Sea region states. To find a common platform fordeliberations about common activities it seems to be necessary, thatthe working group elaborates a common fundament for the discus-sion by collecting information about the current situation in theBaltic Sea region countries and its immigration policies.The information base should cover migration routes not only fromthe South and East to the West and North of Europe but also fromother continents to Europe.B. Best practice examplesThe WG should, through e.g. expert presentations, study visitsand questionnaires, collect and compile examples of best practices,integration programmes and measures, follow and influence politi-cal initiatives.The issues should embrace various aspects related to migration andintegration. The aim is to get an impression of the state of migra-tion and integration in the Baltic Sea Region and to identify wherecommon action is possible and further action is needed. This willform one part of the base for the political recommendations of theWG. It should also be examined how the BSR countries couldbenefit from the experience of other countries.10 2. MandateC. Measures to Promote IntegrationThe WG should, by means of e.g. expert presentations, study visitsand questionnaires, collect and compile examples of measures topromote integration.The aim is to identify typical measures that have been applied andto assess the achievements made. This also serves to identify gapsand needs for measures to promote integration. This will form an-other part of the base for the political recommendations of the WG.The WG should further help to actively drive cooperation and de-velop recommendations for improving collaboration and exchangeof information between Baltic Sea countries in matters related toimmigration and migratory flows between various authorities, or-ganisations and other operators.D. Political RecommendationsThe primary outcome of the activities of the WG is to elaborate po-litical recommendations migration and integration. The politicalrecommendations should be based on an assessment of the specificrole and added value that the parliamentarians can contribute forthe promotion of integration. The political recommendations con-stitute a manifestation of the joint political push that parliamentar-ians of the BSPC can exert on the governments of the Baltic Sea Re-gion.11 3. Objectives3. ObjectivesThe overarching objective of the Working Group is to elaborate po-litical positions and recommendations pertaining to migration andintegration. For this purpose, the Working Group should establishand maintain contacts with relevant institutions, organizations andother actors in the Baltic Sea Region.The scope of work of the Working Group should cover, but not belimited to, issues such as• The state of the refugee crisis, migration and integration in theBaltic Sea Region;• Best practices in migration and integration;• Measures to solve current challenges;• Challenges and opportunities for integration;The Working Group and its members should aim at raising the po-litical attention on migration and integration, for instance by pur-suing those issues in the national parliaments of the members of theWorking Group. Moreover, the Working Group should contributeto the exchange of knowledge and best practices within its area ofresponsibility. It should furthermore help to actively drive coopera-tion in the BSR on this policy field and to follow and influence po-litical initiatives.The Working Group should provide political input to the Confer-ence resolutions of the 27th and the 28th Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConferences.12 4. Scope of Work – Programme and Work in Progress4. Scope of Work – Programmeand Work in ProgressAt its first meeting in Hamburg on 5 December 2017, the WorkingGroup discussed the following Scope of Work and agreed with itscontents:4.1The 24th BSPC Resolution in 2015, the 25th BSPC Resolution in2016 and the 26th BSPC Resolution in 2017 included sections onMigration and Integration, as follows:1. Expressing against the background of the current situationtheir solidarity with the refugees which are forced to flee theirhomelands, being aware of the big challenge to secure a safe res-idence (2015);2. to educate and integrate refugees into the labour market as soonas possible and to exchange experiences with best practice ex-amples within the Baltic Sea Region. And also embed the socialpartners comprehensively and at an early stage in these efforts(2016) and3. being convinced that the issues of Migration and Integrationpose a tremendous challenge to all countries in the Baltic SeaRegion as well as a great chance for their further development.Those issues call for intensive dialogue as well as close coopera-tion and coordinated policies also between the Baltic Sea States(2017).The BSPC Standing Committee had intensive discussions on thesituation of refugees in Europe and on the topics of migration andintegration in its meetings on 6 November 2014 in Riga, on 28 Jan-uary 2016 in Brussels, on 15 November 2016 in Hamburg, on 23January 2017 in Brussels and on 28 April 2017 in Hamburg. Themembers of the Standing Committee reported on the different sit-uations and discussions in the BSR member countries. It was point-ed out, that this topic is of great significance and poses a tremen-dous challenge to all countries in the Baltic Sea region. The Stand-ing Committee was highlighting that it is necessary to exchangeviews on own experiences, political approaches and perspectives13 4. Scope of Work – Programme and Work in Progressamong the parliamentarians Working on migration and integrationis furthermore one of the BSPC Priorities in 2017 - 2018, especial-ly finding solutions based on mutual information and best practic-es.In their speeches on Migration and Integration the 26th BSPC inHamburg 2017 Pedro Roque, President of the Parliamentary As-sembly of the Mediterranean, and Isabel Santos, Vice-President ofOSCE PA an the Vice-Chair of the OSCE PA ad hoc Committeeon Migration, pointed out, the only solution to cope with the mi-gration challenge is more solidarity and more collaboration by co-operating closely on the regional, European and global level and tostart having a dialogue on what type of migration policy can be de-veloped together in Europe.4.2The purpose of this Scope of Work (SoW) is to provide a back-ground and framework for deliberations on the scope and issues ofMigration and Integration, as well as on the added-value and rec-ommendations that the Working Group (WG) could deliver to dealwith the challenges of migration and integration.The draft SoW is a living document that will be adjusted andamended continuously. The SoW contains descriptions and analy-ses of relevant issues within the field of migration and integration,together with examples of practical efforts to promote integration ofmigrants. Input is gathered from topical external sources and can beadded from the Homework carried out by the WG members them-selves. This material constitutes the basis for the WG ́s assessmentof possible action needs and political recommendations with regardto Migration & Integration.The draft SoW could also serve as a template and raw material forthe structure and content of the mid-way report and the final reportof the WG.14 4. Scope of Work – Programme and Work in Progress4.2.1 Objective and Scope of the WGThe overarching objective of the Working Group is to elaborate po-litical positions and recommendations pertaining to Migration &Integration. Strong emphasis should be placed on integration. In-sights from previous BSPC Working Groups on Labour Mobility,Labour Market and Social Welfare as well as on Human T raffickingcould be incorporated.The scope of the Working Group should include, but not be limit-ed to, areas such as• A clear definition of which kinds of migration the WGwould like to discuss (refugees, migrant workers, smuggling &trafficking etc.)• Causes of flight;• Migration policy goals;• Governance guidelines;• Demographic development and migration;• Status and trends in migration;• Challenges of migration;• Challenges of integration;• Prospects of migration;• Best-practice examples of integration.The Working Group and its members should deepen the politicalattention on migration & integration, for instance by pursuingthose issues in the parliaments of the members of the WorkingGroup. Moreover, the Working Group should contribute to the ex-change of knowledge and best practices within its area of responsi-bility. For this purpose, the Working Group should establish andmaintain contacts with relevant institutions, organizations and oth-er actors in the Baltic Sea Region and beyond.4.2.2 Defining Migrants and RefugeesWith more than 65 million people forcibly displaced globally andboat crossings of the Mediterranean still regularly in the headlines,the terms ‘refugee’ and ‘migrant’ are frequently used interchangea-bly in media and public discourse. According to the UN HighCommissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the two terms have distinctand different meanings1:1 See: http://www.unhcr.org/news/latest/2016/7/55df0e556/unhcr-viewpoint-refugee-migrant-right.html and: http://www.oecd.org/els/international-migration-outlook-1999124x.htm15 4. Scope of Work – Programme and Work in ProgressRefugees are persons fleeing armed conflict or persecution. Therewere 21.3 million of them worldwide at the end of 2015. Their sit-uation is often so perilous and intolerable that they cross nationalborders to seek safety in nearby countries, and thus become interna-tionally recognized as “refugees” with access to assistance fromstates, UNHCR, and other organizations. They are so recognizedprecisely because it is too dangerous for them to return home, andthey need sanctuary elsewhere. These are people for whom denial ofasylum has potentially deadly consequences.Refugees are defined and protected in international law. The 1951Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol as well as other legaltexts, such as the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention, remain the cor-nerstone of modern refugee protection. The legal principles they en-shrine have permeated into countless other international, regional,and national laws and practices. The 1951 Convention defines whois a refugee and outlines the basic rights which states should affordto refugees. One of the most fundamental principles laid down ininternational law is that refugees should not be expelled or returnedto situations where their life and freedom would be under threat.The protection of refugees has many aspects. These include safetyfrom being returned to the dangers they have fled; access to asylumprocedures that are fair and efficient; and measures to ensure thattheir basic human rights are respected to allow them to live in dig-nity and safety while helping them to find a longer-term solution.States bear the primary responsibility for this protection.Migrants choose to move not because of a direct threat of persecu-tion, but mainly to improve their lives by finding work, or in somecases for education, family reunion, or other reasons. Unlike refu-gees who cannot safely return home, migrants face no such imped-iment to return. If they choose to return home, they will continueto receive the protection of their government.According to the UNHCR, the distinction is important for individ-ual governments. Countries deal with migrants under their own im-migration laws and processes. Countries deal with refugees throughnorms of refugee protection and asylum that are defined in both na-tional legislation and international law. Countries have specific re-sponsibilities towards anyone seeking asylum on their territories orat their borders. Conflating refugees and migrants could have seri-ous consequences for the lives and safety of refugees. Blurring thetwo terms takes attention away from the specific legal protectionsrefugees require. It could undermine public support for refugeesand the institution of asylum.16 4. Scope of Work – Programme and Work in Progress4.2.3. Status and Trends in Migration and FlightAt the end of 2016 more than 65,5 million people were forciblydesplaced worldwide, 22,5 million of them are refugees . 55 % ofthe refugees worldwide came from three countries: South Sudan 1,4million, Afghanistan 2,5 million and Syria 5,5 million. Over half ofthe 22,5 million refugees are under the age of 18. More than 60 %of the refugees worldwide are Internally Displaced Persons (IDP),forcibly displaced in their own country. (Figures published by theUNHCR on the 19th of June 2017.)2The following stats are extracted from the United Nations Depart-ment of Economic and Social Affairs/Population Division’s report“International Migration Report 2015”3:The number of international migrants worldwide has continued togrow rapidly over the past fifteen years reaching 244 million in2015, up from 222 million in 2010 and 173 million in 2000.Nearly two thirds of all international migrants live in Europe (76million) or Asia (75 million). Northern America hosted the thirdlargest number of international migrants (54 million), followed byAfrica (21 million), Latin America and the Caribbean (9 million)and Oceania (8 million).Between 2000 and 2015, positive net migration contributed to 42per cent of the population growth in Northern America and 32 percent in Oceania. In Europe the size of the population would havefallen between 2000 and 2015 in the absence of positive net migra-tion.The following topics are to be deepened in the further course of thework:4.2.4. Causes of flight and migration• poverty• crisis and wars2 http://www.bpb.de/politik/hintergrund-aktuell/250498/weltfluechtlingstag-20-06-2017 and http://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html3 See: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/migrationreport/docs/MigrationReport2015.pdf , http://gmdac.iom.int/global-migration-trends-factsheet and http://gmdac.iom.int/oecd-iom-and-undesa-organise-first-international-forum-migration-statistics17 4. Scope of Work – Programme and Work in Progress4.2.5. Migration policy goals concerning among others• integration of women, children and juveniles in terms of• safety• education• work• prevention of terror and recruitment of terrorists in ournations4.2.6. Governance guidelines regarding among others• welcoming culture• joint standards• joint political messages• conditions in the countries of arrival (like housing ...)4.2.7. Demographic development and migration• Perception of interdependencies• to take appropriate joint steps4.2.8. Challenges and prospects of refugees, migration &integrationPast BSPC Working Groups on Labour Mobility, Labour Marketand Social Welfare as well as on Human T rafficking partially dealtalready with the challenges and topics of migration & integration.In its final report to the 18th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference inNyborg in 2009, the BSPC WG “Labour Market and Social Wel-fare” wrote, for instance:In the Working Group’s discussions, it became apparent thatcross-border labour markets can contribute to improving employ-ment opportunities and to dynamic regional development, whichbenefits the economy, business and employees. Such markets pro-mote flexibility, open up options for experiencing different workingconditions, resolving conflicts in different ways, and conveying oth-er hierarchical structures, cultures and values.All the same, challenges exist, like information deficits, imbalancesbetween freedoms and rights on the labour market, uneven region-al developments, demographic challenges, labour shortages, labourdeficits in certain professions and various economic sectors, migra-tion of young and qualified employees, illegal labour, wage18 4. Scope of Work – Programme and Work in Progressdumping and working conditions, social-security issues whenworking in two countries, rehabilitation options, unemploy-ment-benefit issues in the case of casual work, vocational training,taxation of companies employing temps, lack of language skills,poor traffic infrastructures, deficits in the social dialogue betweengovernment, authorities, companies and trade unions, etc.Experience has shown that, when a decision is taken to seek workin another country or even in a neighbouring country, a whole hostof questions emerge for employees, but also for employers. In the so-cial area, these concern social-security issues, all the way fromhealth, long-term care and accident to unemployment and pensioninsurance. Labour-law questions, like protection against unlawfuldismissal, collective wage agreements or employee rights in a com-pany, play a similarly large role. To this must be added – against abackdrop of different fiscal regulations – questions of tax law. Oth-er subjects include the specific statutory social benefits, e.g. for chil-dren or families.Some regions and countries have already responded in recent yearsby setting up information centres, info points, Internet platformsor cross-border commuter projects. In other areas, comparable ini-tiatives do not exist.19 5. Working Group Meetings 1-35. Working Group Meetings 1-3Since the BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration waslaunched by the 26th BSPC in Hamburg on 4 September 2018,three meetings took place. Currently, up to three more meetings areplanned. During the Working Group meetings different thematicpriorities were chosen and reflected in the expert presentations.This report is supposed to be a mid-way report. Thus, the summa-ries of the expert presentations as well as the intensive discussionsduring the Working Group meetings will be part of the final reportof the Working Group.5.1 The Working Group on Migration and Integration, heldits first meeting on the premises of the Hamburg Parliament,the so-called Bürgerschaft, on 5 December 2017. Delegationsfrom the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, Estonia, Hamburg,Latvia, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden participated in the meeting. The meetingwas chaired by BSPC Vice-President and Vice-Chair of theWorking Group, the President of the Hamburg Parliament,Carola Veit.20 5. Working Group Meetings 1-3Mandate, Scope of Work and Work ProgrammeAt the beginning of the meeting, a number of key issues for the nexttwo years were discussed. The mandate of the Standing Committeewas confirmed, and an extensive work programme was adopted.The first step in said programme is to develop an overview of thedifferent approaches to migration policy and existing integrationprojects in the Baltic Sea countries.The scope of work covers primarily: a survey on the current situa-tion of migration and integration in the Baltic Sea region, best prac-tice examples and political recommendations.The Working Group plans to discuss the causes of flight and migra-tion, migration policy goals, governance guidelines, demographicdevelopment and migration, status and trends in migration, chal-lenges and prospects of migration and of integration.Speeches and presentationsPresentation by Ms Aydan Özoğuzhttp://www.bspc.net/ozoguz-bspc-migration-and-integration_5-12-2107hamburg/Ms Aydan Özoğuz stated that it was an honour to speak on this oc-casion. She applauded the BSPC’s decision to focus on migrationand integration as a timely and well-chosen signal. This underlinedthe urgency of the challenge all the represented countries were fac-ing. In her understanding, all parliaments agreed upon these issueshaving a significant influence on policies, economies and societiesas well as day-to-day lives – both in the present and in the future.In that regard, she noted the history of the Baltic Sea which saw thestart of one of the most influential migration processes in humanhistory, the so-called “Völkerwanderung”. In the first millenniumBC, tribes from southern Scandinavia and northern Germany hadbegun moving out of their ancestral territories to settle in the westand the south. Intensifying in the following centuries, the migra-tion period had culminated in the so-called barbarian invasions,changing the face of Europe most significantly. Current findingsshow that this period had not nearly been as barbaric and warlike asgeneral belief has it but instead had seen, aside from conflict, alsocooperation and exchange between different groups of migrants and21 5. Working Group Meetings 1-3locals. This exchange, the speaker went on, had stimulated trade,science and art.Hamburg, Ms Özoğuz said, served as a great example for the link-age between trade and migration. As part of the Hanseatic League,which had connected the region from the twelfth century onwardand made Hamburg wealthy, Hamburg had been importing saltedherrings from Sweden and dried fish from Norway, from Russia hadcome furs, wax and timber, while grain had been brought in fromMecklenburg – because Hamburg had been the most importantcentre for beer brewing at that time. In turn, the speaker went on,the beer from Hamburg – as well as other goods – had found aready market in the Baltic Sea region.The speaker emphasised that migration between the regions hadalso been increasing at that time: The booming cities along the Bal-tic Sea had experienced a strong rise in appeal, which would be de-scribed today as a “pull factor”. As an example, Ms Özoğuz noted alarge movement of people from Bremen to the Baltic Sea Region inthe 14th century. Sweden had established special rules for Germanimmigrants who had come to work as traders, merchants and ware-housemen. In the Russian City of Novgorod, Germans had evenfounded their own marketplace numbering almost 1,000 people, atan incredibly large scale for that period.Ms Özoğuz underlined that everyone had benefitted from trade, ex-change and migration within the Baltic Sea region during the lastcenturies. For that reason, she considered it all the more astonishingthat people tended to forget that migration was the rule rather thanthe exception. Migration had been normal in the history of Germa-ny and in all societies of the BSPC.To underscore this, she pointed out some numbers from Germany’sperspective:In the late 19th century, hundreds of thousands of Polish people hadcome to the mining industry in the Ruhr District. After the SecondWorld War, 12.5 million displaced persons from the former easternterritories of the German Reich had been successfully settled.Starting in 1955, 14 million so-called “guest” and contract workershad been recruited to Germany, more than 3 million of whom hadsettled and started families in the country. More than 350,000 ref-ugees had come during the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s. Immigra-tion from EU countries had increased both in the 1990s and fol-lowing the EU’s eastward enlargement in 2004, thanks to the rightof free movement. For example, the speaker continued, there had22 5. Working Group Meetings 1-3been influxes of 900,000 people in both 2014 and 2015. These hadnot been a topic of conversation because at the same time in 2015,over 1.3 million people, mostly from Syria, Iraq, Iran and Afghani-stan, had sought protection in Germany.Nonetheless, the speaker cautioned, it should not be forgotten thatin the same period, millions of people had also moved out of Ger-many. Ms Özoğuz noted, they weren’t only coming, but also going.Most of these had been former immigrants. Since 1991, for exam-ple, between 600,000 and one million people had left each year.That, she said, was migration.With regard to the countries of the Baltic Sea, the speaker men-tioned that in the present day, more than 1.9 million people with aPolish background were living in Germany. Some 400,000 of themhad been born in the country. People of Polish descent were the sec-ond largest group of people with a diverse background in Germany.The third largest group were men and women with a Russian back-ground, 1.2 million people.By stating these numbers, Ms Özoğuz wanted to make clear that theparliament’s work and politics should not be marked by fear. Thechallenges of migration and integration were not totally new.Yes, she agreed, more integration and social participation was need-ed in German society. As she pointed out, much was expected frompeople coming to Germany: learning the difficult host language,showing some interest in the host nation’s culture and of course re-specting its rules. But integration was not only a challenge for mi-grants and their descendants. It was equally a challenge for all 82million people in Germany.She said that societies had to be shaped in which all could live to-gether peacefully. Societies had to be developed into communitiesoffering a future to all their members: graduating from school, ob-taining professional education or achieving integration into the la-bour market; for each and every individual.Ms Özoğuz stated that, when she had taken office in January 2014,there had been a strong focus on dealing with the extensive abolish-ment of the so called “Optionspflicht” – which could simply be de-scribed as a national law forcing young people with foreign parentsto decide between the German or their parents’ citizenship uponturning 18 years of age. Exceptions had included for example EUmembers. An interesting outcome of that was that Polish peoplewere allowed dual citizenship, but Russian were not. This had beena highly disputed matter during the earlier coalition talks. After her235. Working Group Meetings 1-3appointment, as a member of the Federal Government, she and herteam had been able to change this matter together with the ministerof justice as well as the other ministries.Furthermore, Germany had back then registered a high number ofpeople from Bulgaria and Romania coming to the country. This de-velopment had caused a debate under the buzzword of “poverty mi-gration”. The speaker stated that many of these people from EasternEurope had come to already financially strapped communities inGermany, such as North Rhine-Westphalia or Berlin, settling in di-lapidated houses. Sometimes, 5 to 7 people had shared a singleroom. The neighbourhood had not accepted this process, forcingthe government to find ways to close down this kind of irregularmigration.But of course, Ms Özoğuz noted, the most challenging topic in thelast years – the arrival and integration of high numbers of refugees– had still been in the future. Her team had already noticed andmonitored the rising numbers of refugees in 2014 and had launchedinitiatives to support the many volunteer helpers. She noted thatshe had even held a Christmas reception in 2014 for a few hundredvolunteers in order to thank them and exchange thoughts.She went on to note that she and her office had actively accompa-nied the developments in the following years, when more and morepeople had been coming to Germany after Chancellor Merkel’s de-cision to receive those stranded in Hungary in the summer of 2015.245. Working Group Meetings 1-3She and her team had been able to support the legislative processesas well as the very practical challenges involved with integrating therefugees. They had continued and enlarged a project for trainingand advising volunteers in the field of integration. The speakerpointed out that volunteers had always been an important pillar ofhelping and integrating refugees.Other focal points of her work had been the integration of refugeesinto sports, projects with migrant organizations and mosque com-munities as well as the empowerment of female refugees.She had to admit, though, that the arrival of so many refugees hadtied up a great deal of strength and resources – sometimes eclipsingother ongoing integration processes. It was still necessary to dealwith those that had not come as refugees but subsequently as spous-es, those who had arrived as students or workers, not to mention theproblems and needs of those that had lived in Germany for two orthree generations.Another concern to her was that many people with a diverse back-ground did not have the same opportunities despite having lived inthe country for years or having been born in Germany. This was dueto names that did not sound German, an appearance that differedfrom what some would define as German or the educational back-ground of their parents.Ms Özoğuz said she had wanted to change this and thus had beenfostering the dialogue between the civil society and the FederalGovernment. Once a year, she had invited representatives of civilsociety and especially of migrant organisations to talk with the Ger-man Chancellor and the federal ministers about a special subject ofcurrent challenges. These “Integration Summits”, she said, had be-come an important element in German integration policy.The year before, the Office for the Equal T reatment of EU Workers– a very new institution – had become part of her remit. She ex-pressed her joy over having managed to successfully establish thisoffice, because the right to free movement for workers and theirequal treatment was an essential part of the European identity. Shefurther admitted that, as was widely known, that progress in this re-spect was not yet satisfying. Ms Özoğuz mentioned additional areasof her work – the fight against any kind of xenophobia and hatred,such as racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or Islamism – but add-ed that sadly, the work in these fields had become more and moreimportant over the last years. This, she assumed, was reflected in thecountries of the meeting participants.255. Working Group Meetings 1-3She went on to clarify that no society was immune to xenophobia,no society was immune to radicalism, no society was immune to ha-tred. As sad as it might be, these attitudes were present in every so-ciety. What was new, she said, was the scope of the right-wing pop-ulist threat they were facing as democrats. In her opinion, therewere two key elements helping these political arsonists gain groundat the moment: on the one hand, the popularity of an anti-estab-lishment rhetoric that could easily be exploited by anti-democrats;on the other hand, the public discourse about migration and inte-gration, which could all too easily be influenced by generalizationsand regrettably also many lies.It would be necessary to address both problems to turn the tide.Otherwise, more and more people would be turning away from lib-eral democracy in their search for simple but false answers to com-plex questions. She noted that they were seeing these tendencies al-ready all across Europe – as well as in the US -: populist parties weregaining more and more influence. Sometimes they had already be-come part of government coalitions or were even leading respectivegovernments. A further topic that would have to be dealt with werethe results of the harsh and confrontational discussion that hadpreceded the Brexit referendum in the UK.As for Germany, she stated that there were also strong concerns inparts of the country’s society. People were feeling overwhelmed byimmigrants. Some were fearing what they call Islamisation, despiteIslam having been a part of Germany’s reality for more than fiftyyears – and less than 5% of people in Germany being Muslim. Mostof the fears, Ms Özoğuz said, were based on subjective perceptions,fake news and right-wing propaganda. This development had to betaken seriously. The way diversity and equal participation was han-dled served an indicator of the state of a nation’s democracy, socialpeace and security. This development showed the deep divisions insociety and that many people were feeling left behind. To that, sheadded that this had rather little to do with migration or immigrants.Concluding her presentation, she shared some of her thoughts onthe matter with this working group:When it came to migration, they were facing an extremely emotion-al debate, making it much more difficult to talk about facts and findsolutions.Instead, the focus should be more on the fact that history showedthat migration and diversity had benefits for all members of society.If people understood the rules for migration, she noted, and thatthey were convinced that everything was under control, these265. Working Group Meetings 1-3problems and fears would shrink compared to the situation of 2015.Therefore, what was needed were immigration laws making immi-gration more transparent. In addition, with regard to refugee poli-tics, a European agreement was needed, detailing how to deal withsuch situations in the future. Ms Özoğuz was convinced that a fairdistribution key could help everyone.In addition, she said that it was necessary to keep in mind that thefields of migration and integration were complex and constantlychanging. They should stop trying to make it seem easy. The cir-cumstances of the preceding two years had shrunk the topic of mi-gration and integration to refugees and measures for this group. Shepointed out the tendency to forget that there already was a diversesociety with many challenges that also required attention.Furthermore, she emphasized that terrorism would not stop if refu-gees or migrants were treated badly or if it was made it as hard aspossible for them to integrate into society.Last but not least, she pleaded not to stop searching for data andfacts that would help to make migration and integration explaina-ble and understandable. The better these were understood, the bet-ter it could be explained what to do. Moreover, that would make itmuch more difficult for demagogues to sell their stories to the pub-lic.Presentation by Mr Ulrich Weinbrennerhttp://www.bspc.net/171204_prasentation_lstabgz_hamburguw/Mr Ulrich Weinbrenner thanked President Veit and noted he washappy to speak to the Working Group. He said he would be brief inhis presentation to allow more time for discussion later. Neverthe-less, he wanted to focus on a few points. First of all, he was clarify-ing his position and the role of the Ministry of the Interior in mi-gration and integration. The German Ministry of the Interior, as inmany other countries, was mainly a security institution but also hadother not strictly security-oriented tasks, among them integration.As a result of the so-called refugee crisis in 2016 and 2017, they hadcreated the Staff Unit for Social Cohesion and Integration which hewas heading. The idea was to put the integration representativesfrom the migration office under the new headline of cohesion with275. Working Group Meetings 1-3other tasks of the Ministry of the Interior which served as the over-all game of the social cohesion, i.e., crime prevention, violence pre-vention, terrorism prevention that was carried out in his directory.About 50 million euros were spent in the field of civil education, inthe “Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung”, which was a state-runagency with interesting publications to continue discussions andprovide facts on an array of topics.He noted as an example of the outreach programs the establishedrelationship between the Ministry of the Interior and the Jewishcommunity in Germany. They were supported with yearly fundingof 10 million euros. Furthermore, he noted the Islam Conferencewhich had been created 11 years previously, with structured dia-logue between the Ministry of the Interior and other ministries anda number of Islamic organizations in Germany. All of this was car-ried out in his directory, under the umbrella of social cohesion. De-mography, he noted, was also part of his remit.Mr Weinbrenner said he would focus on the activities carried out inthe mainstream, the language courses. It was only reasonable to saythat the important ministries were involved in the integration busi-ness. After the crisis of 2016/17, a wide range of coordination meet-ings had been established between the various ministries. Educationalwork, support in the scientific field to support integration, the minis-try of defence at the peak of the influx was influenced in the matterof housing. All the ministries had been involved in resolving the ac-tive crisis, and even at this point, there was still a great deal of work285. Working Group Meetings 1-3carried out, from the diverse ministries to support integrative meas-ures. On that count, Mr Weinbrenner pointed out that the federallevel was only one level, there was also the level of the federal stateseach of which was running their own programs, and the local levelwhere lots of activities were also being carried out. On top of thatwere citizen-run programs, with volunteers in the integration busi-ness. All of these many activities had to come together.One of the major challenges, he said, was something everyone in-volved in the practical side said, namely that it was not that easy toknow who was doing what, who was coordinating. A great deal ofmoney was being put into the integration, but coordination was thetrue challenge.After that preamble, Mr Weinbrenner went on to provide an insightinto the actual situation in Germany by providing a graph on thedemographic distribution at the moment, overlaying the representa-tion of people with a migration background over those without. Atthe top of the age graph, at 95 years of age, there was a surplus ofpeople without a migration background, while at the base of thegraph, Mr Weinbrenner identified near equality of both populationgroups. This indicated the challenge and the development of the de-mography.Next, he briefly provided an overview of the situation in 2015 and2016 when the number of asylum applications peaked at 750,000in the latter year, with processing of these applications taking a verylong time. In response, the German Integration Act had beenpassed. This had also marked the first time that the word integrationhad been used in the title of a piece of federal legislation. The Inte-gration Act encompassed inter alia early participation in integrationcourses, legal certainty during training, better management owingto allocation of a place of residence, employment opportunities forrefugees, no labour market priority check, settlement permits de-pendent on integration. The goal of the act was to provide early in-tervention, with a focus on language and employment. The act hadbeen passed on 6 August 2016.He described the integrated management of refugees, beginningwith the first phase of arrival and registration. In the second phase,the individual case would be heard. Then the third phase was eitherintegration measures or, if the application was rejected, measures toreturn the individual to their country of origin. This, Mr Weinbren-ner noted, was the general structure of the process.Switching to the topic of language courses, he noted the integra -tion courses which had been established in 2005 with the New295. Working Group Meetings 1-3Residence Act. These were aimed at individually training peoplein the use of the German language. Such a course totalled 600hours, five hours a day. This also included around 100 hours onGerman values, the culture and the like. Every person individu -ally given the right to stay was also entitled to attend such acourse.During the phase when application processing took a very long time,people from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Eritrea were allowed toparticipate in such a course even if their application had not yet beenprocessed. As for the overall numbers, 340,000 had newly startedcourses in 2016, while in 2017, the number was at 257,000 at thestart of December. Nonetheless, a considerably larger group of peoplehad been entitled to attend these courses. But, as Mr Weinbrennerpointed out, many of these simply hadn’t appeared at the courses. Hisstaff unit was investigating the reasons, with the goal of closing thegap between entitlements and attendance.He went on to note the funding: In 2017, they were spending 850 mil-lion euros on the courses all across Germany. By comparison, the fi-nancing had been in the 200 million prior to the influx of the refugees.He noted that the integration courses had been established with theNew Residence Act in 2005, with the purpose of unifying languagetuition and pulling together several systems. The goal for the partic-ipants was to reach language level B1 along with knowledge on so-ciety, politics, culture, history and so on. The latter was provided inthe so-called orientation course following the language course. Spe-cial courses had also been established because, as Mr Weinbrennernoted, they wanted to have as good an offering as possible to themigrants arriving, for young adults, women, parents, illiterate per-sons and those who had learnt German in a non-educational con-text. Furthermore, there was also the fast track option of complet-ing the integration course in only 430 lessons.The goal was to provide every entitled person with an individualcourse as soon as possible. For a course to become financially viable,it was necessary to put together 20 people for one course at its start.For example, in rural areas, this meant that it would take some timeto offer a new course for illiterate persons. This was a major organi-zational and management problem, to avoid people having to waittoo long for their courses.At the end of each course, there was a final test. Then there was a300-lesson repetition scheme for those who had not achieved theintended B1 level.305. Working Group Meetings 1-3Mr Weinbrenner pointed out that work had also been done on thequalifications of teachers, producing standardized criteria. Therewere actually only 51.4 % of the people attending the courses whoqualified for level B1 while 38.5 % reached level A2. This statistic,he noted, only encompassed those who were completing the cours-es, leaving out those who had left the courses earlier. As such, MrWeinbrenner returned to the original statistic, only one out of twopeople taking the exam were achieving the course goal of level B2.This was a concern that he and his team were constantly keeping aneye on and trying to improve.The teachers had to play a key role. Because teaching positionscould not be filled to cover the vast increase of individuals entitledfor the courses, there had been a pay increase to attract more. Thespeaker noted that the teacher problem was now solved.The second pillar of operations at the Ministry of the Interior was“migration advisory services”. These were targeted at adult immi-grants. The budget, he stated, had risen from an average 25 millioneuros in the years preceding the huge influx in 2015 to a 2017budget of nearly 50 million euros. The distribution of advisory of-fices was matching the spread of immigrants; in other words, of theca. 1,000 locations, rather few were found in eastern Germanywhile there was a dense concentration in North Rhine-Westphaliaas well as in the Frankfurt region and e.g. Baden-Württemberg.Furthermore, Mr Weinbrenner mentioned immigration projectsaimed at the social integration of migrants, strengthening theirskills and active participation as well as improving mutual accept-ance. 200 of such projects had been set up all across Germany, in-volving all the various ministries and institutions. The challenge, hepointed out, was the coordination of these.In closing, the speaker pointed out that Germany was in the processof assembling a new government. While it was still unclear what formsaid government would take, he was certain that migration and inte-gration form an important part. Next to digitalization, social securitywould very much put a focus on integration, undoubtedly. From theadministrative point of view of Mr Weinbrenner, he noted that theywere willing to do their utmost to work in this challenging field.The Working Group further discussed common questions to besent by each delegation to their respective governments. This way,the Working Group wants to obtain a better survey and results re-garding the situation in the whole region, learn from best practiceexamples and develop proposals to improve cooperation in the inte-gration of migrants.315. Working Group Meetings 1-35.2 The Working Group held its second meeting on thepremises of the Swedish Parliament in Stockholm on 19March 2018. Delegations from the Baltic Assembly, NordicCouncil, Åland, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hamburg, Latvia,Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Poland,Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden participated in the meeting.The meeting was chaired by the Chairman of the WorkingGroup, Hans Wallmark, Member of the Swedish Parliament.The Working Group discussed in its first meeting common questions to besent by each delegation to their respective governments. This way, theWorking Group wants to obtain a better overview and results regardingthe situation in the whole region, learn from best practice examples anddevelop proposals to improve cooperation in the integration of migrants.BSPC Vice-President and WG Vice-Chair Ms Carola Veit – who had sum-marized the questions and developed a list to be sent to the respective gov-ernments as homework assignments – informed the group at the begin-ning of the meeting on the preliminary results of the survey of the WGand the first answers of the governments.By the time of the meeting in Stockholm, the survey had been answered bythe governments of Åland, Denmark, Hamburg, Finland, Latvia, Lithua-nia and Sweden.325. Working Group Meetings 1-3Ms Carola Veit briefed the WG about first reactions which included de-tailed answers.A comprehensive comparison of the responses received will be submittedto the next meeting of the WG in Copenhagen.Expert presentationsThe meeting was provided with a number of very informative expert pre-sentations and had a lively discussion with the experts.Presentation by Mr Bernd Hemingway, Deputy Director-General of the CBSS Secretariathttp://www.bspc.net/cbss-soft-security-and-migration-in-the-baltic-sea-region-003/Mr Bernd Hemingway , Deputy Director-General of the CBSS Sec-retariat, reminded the Working Group that migration was back onthe agenda of the Council of the Baltic Sea States with the ministe-rial declarations of Warsaw and Reykjavík. These had been basicallya reaction to the events of 2015. This had focused more on the top-ic of refugees rather than migration governance. Mr Hemingwaypointed out that migration fit into all long-term regional prioritiesof the CBSS, because migration in itself was a horizontal policyarea. Migration was also related to security management as well aspart of social politics, education politics, health politics, foreign af-fairs regarding migration flows and also development cooperationand many other areas. He noted that this led to the disadvantagethat migration policy often had no specific home. In governments,it was most commonly the responsibility of the ministries of the in-terior. For the CBSS, it was important that the migration areashould not be left in the hands of populist politicians. Furthermore,Mr Hemingway referred to a couple of activities by the CBSS inthis policy area and to the results and recommendations by the softsecurity conference in Helsinki. He especially mentioned the rec-ommendation to implement one-stop shops where migrants wereable to receive all necessary services in one place. For further details,he referred to the PowerPoint presentation distributed to every par-ticipant.335. Working Group Meetings 1-3Presentation by the Swedish Migration Agency representatives,Mr. Marco Roman Loi and Mr Björn Bergström, specialists atthe International Affairs Departmenthttp://www.bspc.net/swedish-migration-agency-ppt/Mr Marco Roman Loi and Mr Björn Bergström , specialists at the In-ternational Affairs Department of the Swedish Migration Agency,provided detailed information on the development of migration. Inaddition, they spoke about the numbers of asylum seekers from 2010to the present day in Sweden and the shares of the individual coun-tries of origin as well as migrant labourers, approved work permit ap-plications and guest studentsThey provided some historic background on immigration and emigra -tion to and from Sweden. In the last 50 years, there had been peaksconcerning immigration to Sweden. The first had been in the late1960s when Sweden had demanded lots of labour, and people from theformer Yugoslavia, Italy and Greece had made their way up north. Thesecond peak had come in the mid-1990s during the war in the Balkanswhen people from that region sought refuge in Sweden. The third peakhad come in 2015 when around 160,000 people applied for asylum inSweden. They had mainly escaped from the war in Syria, Afghanistanand Somalia. Many of them where young unaccompanied males.In late 2015, the situation had become uncontrollable. In the late fallof 2015, around 10,000 asylum seekers a week had been knocking onSweden’s door. On November 24 2015, the government had an-nounced that the situation had got out of hand and that Swedenwould apply the EU minimum standard for immigration. The result,the experts noted, was that the number of asylum seekers at Swedishborders quickly dropped. Today, they said, Sweden was back to more‘normal’ figures with around 30,000 asylum seekers per year.Last year, for example, Sweden had received 25,666 asylum seekers.By far the most represented country in this respect was Syria, fol-lowed by Iraq, Eritrea and Afghanistan.In 2017, some 135,529 persons had received residence permits inSweden. The largest part, 48,046 persons, were granted residence sothey could be reunited with their families. The second largest partwere migrant labourers (32,294 people), and the third largest partwere refugees and other grounds of protection (31,685).The specialists further pointed out that Sweden had one of the world’smost liberal immigration policies regarding migrant labourers. It was345. Working Group Meetings 1-3not up to the government to decide which businesses required extralabour – that was the task of the companies themselves. By far thelargest group (over 8,000 people) who had come to Sweden on aworking visa the previous year had been citizens form India (mainlyin computer programming). Other significant groups were citizens ofThailand, China and the USA.Guest students were another group that had to be taken into account.In the preceding year, Sweden had received a total of 13,426 studentsfrom outside the EU/EES. The largest group had come from China,followed by India, Pakistan and Iran. The number of foreign gueststudents from outside the EU had dropped in recent years, since thegovernment had decided that they (unlike Swedish and EU citizens)had to pay a fee for studying at Swedish universities.Presentation by Mr Per Aldskogius from the Ministry ofEmploymenthttp://www.bspc.net/bspc-wg-integration_180319/Mr Per Aldskogius from the Swedish Ministry of Employment in-formed the Working Group on the reception and integration ofnewly arrived immigrants in Sweden. He underlined the principlesof the Swedish migration policy. The goal was to ensure equal rights,obligations and opportunities for all, irrespective of their ethnic andcultural background. The reception of newly arrived refugees was ashared responsibility on a national, regional and local level. The pol-icy objective was establishing work, education or training normallywithin two years after the issuing of a residence permit during theintroduction programme. These objectives were to be achieved pri-marily through general policy measures, supplemented by targetedsupport for the introduction of newcomers.In his presentation, Mr Aldskogius pointed out both the main chal-lenges and opportunities. He mentioned as main challenges: pro-longed waiting times; a lack of housing – uneven reception and set-tlement between different regions and municipalities -; insufficientcapacities in society, e.g. a lack of teachers and interpreters; earlyand efficient access to the labour market and education for thosegranted asylum and, finally, increased segregation. He highlightedas opportunities: a strong economy; a high employment rate andrelatively low unemployment; a high demand for labour meeting alabour shortage in many professions: many newly arrived migrantswere young and well educated; job opportunities were good.355. Working Group Meetings 1-3Mr Aldskogius also informed the Working Group about the main in-tegration measures between 2016 and 2018 in Sweden, specifically:increased state funding to municipalities; a new reimbursement sys-tem for reception of unaccompanied minors; early measures for asy-lum seekers; a new law forcing all municipalities to settle migrantsgranted asylum; several new initiatives in labour market policy, e.g.fast tracks, employment support as well as several new initiatives inmost policy areas, e.g. education, social and housing policy. MrAldskogius further briefed the WG about a 2-year introduction pro-gramme for new arrivals, coordinated by the Public Employment Ser-vice, including an individual introduction plan, based on the person’sneeds and previous experience. As part of this programme, he notedthat the Public Employment Service and the social partners were alsoimplementing tailor-made ‘fast tracks’ for occupations with labourshortages. He pointed out that this was a new concept created in closecollaboration with employers. It included tripartite talks with the so-cial partners, the Public Employment Service and other relevant gov-ernment agencies regarding the employer’s needs, validation of skills,vocational training and work. The first fast track had been presentedin 2015, creating opportunities for chefs, and extended to fast tracksin 14 industries by October 2017.Since the time from arrival to holding a steady job was a long timefor many immigrants, the government had introduced the so-called‘fast track’ for newly arrivals.For a long time, only 50 percent of the new arrivals had acquired aregular job after seven or eight years in Sweden. No one gained fromthat system, not the Swedish state and certainly not the immigrantsthemselves. That was one of the reasons the government had intro-duced the fast track for immigrants – shortening the time from ar-rival to work and independence.Now, Mr Aldskogius specified, the focus was on employment fromday one in Sweden. The first measure was mapping out the individ-ual. Who was this person? What skills did he/she have? What werethe future aspirations?Levels of education varied widely between immigrants and withinimmigrant groups. For that reason, an individual introduction planwas of utmost importance. Those immigrants with skills in shortageoccupations, such as for example engineers, could receive a tai-lor-made fast track to a job.In order to speed up the process, parallel activities were being used.The immigrant was able to study Swedish, get civic orientation andhave a subsidised job at the same time. The important thing was to365. Working Group Meetings 1-3keep them active, with a constant focus on getting real employmentsoon. Subsidised employment was another alternative where thegovernment paid a large part of the immigrants’ wages, in order tomake immigrants more attractive to hire.While it was the state’s role to provide reception of asylum seekersand to coordinate the introduction programmes, the municipalitieswere responsible for housing, education, civic orientation andSwedish language courses. Lately, the state funding for municipali-ties had increased to facilitate the introduction to living in Sweden.A new law had also been passed that could force unwilling munici-palities to receive immigrants although they did not wish to do so.There were, however, Mr Aldskogius admitted, also some challeng-es in offering everyone a smooth start. Due to the number of immi-grants coming to Sweden, waiting times tended to be long. A lackof housing, teachers and interpreters occurred not only in the largecities, but also in other places. This often led to increased segrega-tion. Another problematic factor was that many new arrivals didnot have higher secondary education.On the other hand, Mr Aldskogius said, there were also advantagesand opportunities. For the moment, Sweden was benefiting from astrong economy with a high employment rate and relatively low un-employment. The demand for labour was still high in many fields,and those immigrants with a higher education should be able tofind an occupation with relative ease.Presentation of how integration works in the Solnamunicipality in northern Stockholm by Arion Chryssafis,Deputy Mayor for Social Servicehttp://www.bspc.net/solna-ok-english-ostersjo/Mr Arion Chryssafis , Deputy Mayor for Social Services of the Solnamunicipality to the north of Stockholm, reported on the special sit-uation in Solna. This was characterized by 35 percent foreign-bornadult residents; 98 percent of the population lived in flats, a typicalsuburb with the resulting challenges. The Solna municipality northof Stockholm had been portrayed as ideal for integrating immi-grants. Since the municipalities were responsible for the integrationand introduction to a life in Sweden, they were playing an impor-tant role. Mr Chryssafis described how Solna, a municipality with ahistory of high unemployment, social problems and high costs for375. Working Group Meetings 1-3social benefits, had made a journey to something much more suc-cessful.Today, it was a city with low taxes, a good economy and known for be -ing business-friendly etc. Mr Chryssafis informed the Working Groupabout the ‘Solna Model’ including systematic efforts to assist Solnaresidents on income support to become self-sufficient through work,self-employment or studying. The ‘Solna Model’ was characterised bygood cooperation with the local enterprises, good knowledge of eachparticipant’s experience and by further efforts to find a way into the la -bour market, and it was seen as a model allowing the municipality tofight unemployment, especially among young people.While foreign-born nationals tended towards a much higher unem-ployment rate than people born in Sweden, Solna showed a signifi-cantly lower unemployment rate for foreign-born people than mostother municipalities in Sweden. In the whole country, unemploy-ment among foreign-born persons was at 21 percent, but it was nowdown to 9.1 percent in Solna. Overall unemployment in Sweden inearly 2018 had reached 7.7 percent in Sweden, but only 4.1 percentin Solna. This did not only have to do with Solna being part of a vi-brant big city region, since Solna’s figures were lower than those of themunicipality of Stockholm as well. Instead, according to Mr. Chrys-safis, it had to do with the aforementioned ‘Solna Model’, with itsstrong focus on work and not being dependent on social welfare.The ‘Solna Model’ could in short be described as systematic effortsto assist residents on income support to support themselves throughwork, self-employment or studying. This was done through map-ping and creating an individual action plan for every newly arrivedperson. With the help of coaching, career guidance and matching,385. Working Group Meetings 1-3each individual was offered a programme that hopefully would leadto either employment, entrepreneurship or attending studies.Mr Chryssafis mentioned as success factors the ‘Solna Model’:coaching – “Identify and overcome all obstacles on the way to get ajob” -; training; good relations with local and regional employers;education; matching employers and employees as well as the speedof delivery of the work force. He noted that Solna was affected bythe refugee flow in the short term since temporary housing wasneeded – limited housing space was available – along with a risingdemand for more and new municipal services and increased diver-sity. In the long term, effects included changes in the work force aswell as growing tax revenues and diversity. The reception for adultsand families with residence permits allotted to Solna according tonational/regional quotas included housing, settlement support, civ-ics orientation, Swedish for immigrants training, pre-school andschool education as well as social services support if needed.Those moving to Solna on their own received Swedish for immi-grants training, civics orientation, pre-school and school educationas well as support by social services if needed. Mr Chryssafis consid-ered as main challenges the very long, often inactive, asylum processperiod – affecting the motivation and well-being of asylum seekers– as well as the severe lack of housing in the Stockholm region. Fur-ther obstacles to overcome were the involvement of a large numberof authorities and stakeholders where smooth collaboration wasneeded, where temporary solutions were required as well as strate-gies on how to move from temporary to permanent housing. Headded that employment measures during the first two years shouldbe seen as a national responsibility rather than a municipal task,that it was difficult to organise efficient school education for newlyarrived youths due to extreme variations in educational back-grounds and that temporary residence permits made it difficult towork with long-term integration initiatives.Presentation by Ms Lillemor Lindell from the Swedish SportsConfederation on how they handle integrationhttp://www.bspc.net/ostersjosamarbete_19-mars_2018_riksidrottsforbundet-002/Ms Lillemor Lindell from the Swedish Sports Confederation gave avery insightful presentation about the structure, funding and effortsof sports in Swedish society and how the field was handling395. Working Group Meetings 1-3integration, a field that is perhaps often overlooked when it came tointegration.In order to achieve an environment where everyone, regardless ofage, gender, social class, religion, cultural and ethnical backgroundetc., felt that they belonged, she pointed out the necessity of an in-tersectional perspective. She explained intersectionality as a theoret-ical idea and an analytical tool used to understand how differentnorms and power structures together create inequality, discrimina-tion and oppression. She also highlighted sports as a way toward in-clusion, enveloping people in the community.Of about 10 million inhabitants, more than 3 million were mem-bers in sports clubs, Ms Lindell said.Most of the sports clubs were very welcoming to new members; 73percent of the clubs were organising sport-for-all activities for adultsand 86 percent of all clubs were offering activities for children andfor youths. Volunteers were responsible for a very large part of allthe work in the sport clubs.The idea of using sports as a tool for integration, she admitted, wasnot new, but it had become even more important in Sweden due tothe increased immigration over the last years.Sports could be accessible or non-accessible in different ways. Ac-cessibility could be more abstract and allude to structural problems.Despite the best intentions, it was not always easy to be an open or-ganisation. Many challenges and obstacles had to be met, and somewere easier to overcome than others.There were different types of barriers regarding integration andsports. Communicating without mastering the language was a chal-lenge and could create barriers. However, research had shown thatsports could be of great help to learn a new language and that, aftermastering it, it was easier to take on other parts of society and tocreate a network of contacts.Ms Lindell went on to note that physical barriers were anotherproblem that could not be ignored. Some neighbourhoods mightbe perceived to have a negative image for those who did not live inthe area. That image had an impact on the inhabitants who werefaced with prejudice or perceptions that were not created on the ba-sis of knowledge or facts. This might lead to some sports organisa-tions not wanting to establish themselves in the area. Or that theywould use the venue or training site without involving or invitingpeople living close by.405. Working Group Meetings 1-3It was also important to have an open mind and be open to newtypes of sports from a different country of origin. When populationof immigrants arrived, they might bring with them sports that werenot popular in their new country.Lastly, sports activities were not something only for children andyouths. The idea was that everyone should be able to participate athis or her level. Ms Lindell presented some examples on how toreach more than just a few people.• Activities for mothers: Significant importance is placed on in-volving parents; one way of doing so involved sporting activi-ties for mothers. By reaching mothers, it was also possible tocontact younger children who might not get in touch withsporting organisations on their own outside of school. Someorganisations set up walking groups which Ms Lindell consid-ered a great way to combine walking with socialising. Thatcould become a natural pathway into society by meetingfriends and creating a network.• Language training for adults and sport: In Sweden, there wereexamples of some sports organisations offering language train-ing for adults. Combining language training with education inhealth and sports gave parents the same level of knowledge asthe rest of the country’s parents. Thus, parents received help tojust be parents for their children.• Open training: A club could organise open training sessionswhere the aim was to meet and exercise. There was no prereq-uisite and no expectations on achieving certain results; in-stead, the focus was on having fun and offering both a contextand something to occupy oneself.Achieving integration through sports not only happened in Swe-den. There was also a European initiative in this field - ASPIRE -Activity, Sport and Play for the Inclusion of Refugees in Europe2017-2019.Ms Lindell said that ASPIRE was an international collaborativeproject, co-funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the EuropeanUnion, seeking to find out how to best support migrants and refu-gees, building on the wide popularity of sports and other forms ofphysical activity. ASPIRE could serve as a pioneer in the long-termperspective, offering a positive, evidence-based response with thehelp of sports to the many problems of inclusion related to the cur-rent migrant and refugee crises, during and after their settlement fa-cilitating their access to social services.415. Working Group Meetings 1-35.3 The BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integrationheld its third meeting on the premises of the DanishParliament on 21 June 2018. Delegations from the BalticAssembly, Nordic Council, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,Hamburg, Latvia, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway,Poland, Russia, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden participatedin the meeting. Chaired by Mr Pyry Niemi, Member of theSwedish Parliament, the Working Group discussed expertpresentations, results of an intergovernmental survey,possible recommendations for the resolution of the Baltic SeaParliamentary Conference and possible contents of a mid-wayreport.Presentation by Ms Ninna Nyberg Sørensonhttp://www.bspc.net/pp-parlamentarisk-ostersosamarbejde/The meeting was provided with a very informative expert introduc-tory presentation by Ms Ninna Nyberg Sørenson , research coordina-tor and senior researcher at the Danish Institute for InternationalStudies (DIIS) on Migration, Research and Policy Dialogue. She in-formed about the work of the institute and referred to some of itscurrent research reports.425. Working Group Meetings 1-3Ms Sørenson pointed out that a main role for research was question -ing some of the political assumptions taken for granted, underlyingthe policies implemented. Considering what had been called since2015 the unprecedented migration crisis, she appreciated that the rawnumbers were unmatched at any point in history. Current estimateswere that there were 244 million (including refugees) internationalmigrants globally (or 3.3% of the world’s population). While the vastmajority of people in the world continued to live in the country inwhich they were born, more people were migrating to other countries,especially those within their region. Many others were migrating tohigh-income countries that are further afield. Work was the major rea -son that people migrated internationally, and migrant workers consti -tuted a large majority of the world’s international migrants, with mostliving in high-income countries and many engaged in the service sec -tor. Global displacement was at a record high, with the number of in -ternally displaced at over 40 million and the number of refugees morethan 22 million. (IOM World Migration Report 2018). Taking thehistorical perspective, the historical migrations out of Europe werelarger when one considered the respective percentages of the popula -tion. It could also be seen that recent history had seen higher percent -ages of migrants among the global population, such as the 1960s andthe 1990s, than in the recent crisis, reaching a little above 3 per centof the total population. As a matter of fact, migration and refugeeflows were changing over time, she noted, mimicking a wave motion.She posed the question whether migration was out of control again,what control itself was, and which control mechanisms were put inplace. Furthermore, she asked if some political measures already inplace could be contributing to pushing migration out of control. Asan example, she mentioned an analysis conducted by her instituteon the European agreement with T urkey where the latter countryhad taken on the role of a European border guard. The result wasthat the agreement worked. Regarding stemming a migration flow,she pointed out that such an agreement was very effective. But whensecurity concerns were taken into consideration, as well as humanrights and other concerns, questions could reasonably be askedabout the long-term implications of that kind of deal.As for reasons why people migrate, Ms Sørenson noted that it wouldbe better to inquire how and when people were migrating. Manymore people than the three per cent of the population – most ofwhom were westerners, she mentioned as an aside – were thinkingabout moving between countries but were not doing so due to barri-ers between countries that sometimes were not conducive to otherforms of policies, be these trade policies or labour policies or fillingparticular labour markets. Posing the right questions might be theimportant aspect.435. Working Group Meetings 1-3Ms Sørenson considered the various types of migrations, notingthat they were all subject to the global media discussion whichsometimes inflated contexts. So, it was important to agree on theterms used. In general, every mobile person was a migrant, e.g.moving from the countryside to the city, but of concern in this con-text were international migrants, such as people moving abroad forwork for more than twelve months. These were economic migrants,also including international students or reunited families. Anothergroup was posed by asylum-seekers, i.e. people who were fleeing forfear of persecution or their lives but had not yet gained refugee sta-tus. When asylum claims were accepted, that person would gaincertain social rights. Ms Sørenson pointed out that 86 per cent ofglobal refugees were in developing countries, so these kinds of rightsmight be questionable; she raised the question if, in that regard, theinternational system was effective in offering adequate asylum con-ditions.Most of today’s refugees were actually internally displaced personsrather than international refugees. So, the largest problems were inconflict areas. She noted another category, that of climate or envi-ronmental refugees, such as people fleeing catastrophes or slow cli-mate change onset in their lives. This was an area with enormouspolitical interest, but it was again an area with a lot of uncertaintiesinvolved. The estimates of how environmental change would influ-ence future refugee flows, Ms Sørenson stated, were quite uncertain.Estimates were varying tremendously. Looking back historically atpast climate change, migration had always been an adaptive strate-gy to such change. Accordingly, the analysis should include how mi-gration could be a positive factor on climate and environmentalpolicies.Migration research, Ms Sørenson went on, had a long history. Mi-gration had been generally considered a positive influence as mi-grants had contributed to the development of the countries towhich they had come, but they had also sent back goods and finan-cial resources to their homes. Migrants had also contributed to thedemocratization of Europe, finding new ways of thinking aboutpolitics in foreign destinations. In that theoretical framework, mi-grants were usually understood as someone who, of their own freewill, made the decision to migrate. It was a free choice in those the-ories, allowing the migrants active agency, to do something to im-prove their own and their family’s economic situations.Refugee studies as an academic discipline on the other hand had amuch shorter history. It was a post-World War II academic field.She underlined that the common idea of refugees saw them as lack-ing agency, as persons without any choice, so that they deserved – if445. Working Group Meetings 1-3they lived up to conventions – to be protected. But the presentkinds of protection, she noted, often did not leave open e.g. accessto the labour market, to education and so on. These were the actualpathways for refugees to better their own situations.Ms Sørenson said that these theoretical implications were impor-tant for how foreign nationals were handled in the migration andrefugee systems. The same applied to the labour market systems.She introduced an analytical framework developed by DIIS to un-derstand current global migration flows, called “migration industri-al analysis”. To be underlined was that in most policy debates, therewas much talk of the so-called migration facilitation industry, espe-cially the human smugglers and traffickers, which was what policieswere combating, unless these industry actors were labour recruitersbringing in needed labour. Another industry much larger in termsof global earnings was the migration control industry which overthe past 20 years had developed enormously. It encompassed secu-rity firms which, also in the European Union, were conducting se-curity analyses of which kinds of border control measures wereneeded. These companies also sold their ideas as well as techniquesrequired to control borders. Countries and the European Unionwere using this industry to secure their borders, but they were alsooutsourcing and externalising parts of their politics to some of thesecontrol actors. The final industry in this regard was what the insti-tute had termed the rescue industry, i.e. the NGOs and the faith-based organizations, the humanitarian actors intervening. Thesewere important because states were more and more outsourcing tra-ditional state functions to civil society actors, be that handling asy-lum centres or assisting refugees upon return.455. Working Group Meetings 1-3With the goal of understanding migration issues more broadly, aswas often the case in discussions of these issues, Ms Sørenson statedher view that all these actors had to be seen in how they were influ-encing each other and how this outsourcing of political control toprivate actors might actually intervene in policies.She expressed her hope that the BSPC and DIIS could collaboratein the future.Introduction to the compilation of the answers of the governments inthe Baltic Sea Region to the questionnaire of the BSPC WorkingGroup on Migration and Integration by BSPC Vice- President andWG Vice-Chair Ms Carola Veithttp://www.bspc.net/2018-06-21-komplett-charts_umfrage_bspc_2018/The Working Group had already discussed in Hamburg commonquestions to be sent by each delegation to their respective govern-ments. This way, the Working Group wanted to obtain a better sur-vey regarding the situation in the whole region, learn from bestpractise examples and develop proposals to improve cooperation inthe integration of migrants. The BSPC Vice- President and WGVice-chair Ms Carola Veit had summarised the questions and devel-oped a list to be sent to the governments as homework assignments.Ms Veit presented the summary of answers delivered by the govern-ments with regard to the Migration and Integration issue in respec-tive countries and regions.She started with demographics and pointed out that the submittednumbers had shown significant variation in type, allowing only afew demographic comparisons. The homework assignment hadonly requested numbers concerning migration. While that mighthave been too unspecific, the numbers still presented a basis for in-vestigation. Ms Veit noted that, on the regional level, about a thirdof the inhabitants of Åland and Hamburg were migrants. In Ham-burg, half the population of minors had migration backgrounds.She considered the percentage of people with a migration back-ground within each age range: The largest age group were the 26- to40-year-olds, except for Lithuania where the age group between 51and 64 dominated, followed by the over 65-year-olds. This couldperhaps be informative on the reasons for migration. For example,comparing Hamburg to Åland, the under 25-year-olds comprised amuch larger group in the former than in the latter region. On the465. Working Group Meetings 1-3other hand, Åland had a greater proportion of over 25-year-olds ofthis grouping. That indicated at which time these migrants had ar-rived in the respective regions.Ms Veit further stated that each country in the Baltic Sea region hadits own set of immigration, asylum or aliens laws which were in-cluded in the rules of immigration. Ms Veit mentioned a few exam-ples: Germany had both a residence as well as an integration act;Lithuania had referred to a law on the legal status of aliens; for itsimmigration law, Poland had included a two-tier administrativeprocedure, the protection of the national work force, and the futurepossibility to determine how many people were admitted into thecountry.Another topic of the survey had been the requirements for requestingasylum. The criteria were defined in the previously mentioned laws ofthe respective countries. Due to the Geneva Convention or the con-ventions and international agreements on refugees adopted by suchnations, there were some similarities. In EU countries, European-lev-el initiatives also provided some more streamlining and similarities.For example, Sweden had listed as reasons for asylum the death pen-alty, torture, internal armed conflict as well as environmental disas-ters. Like Estonia, it also included the topic of stateless persons here.Germany concentrated on serious harm, concrete danger to life, dis-crimination, violence of international law, and internal armed con-flict. Some other exceptions were mentioned in Norway where theright to be recognized as a refugee did not apply if the foreign nation-al could obtain effective protection in other areas of his or her coun-try of origin than the area from which the applicant had fled. In Lat-via, a person might not apply for refugee status if he or she was a na-tional of more than one country and did not use legal protection inany of the other countries without justifying reason.Regarding dual citizenship, there were different answers: Sweden al-lowed additional dual citizenships, while Norway was preparing forsuch a regulation. In Lithuania and Estonia, one might acquire acitizenship by grant of refugee status or if he or she was a beneficiaryof international protection granted by Estonia or any other EUmember state. Of interest were the different principles allowing ex-ceptions. Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Poland, and Latvia by law al-lowed dual citizenships, defining the requirements by certain ruleslisted in the materials. These countries had originally not acceptedmultiple citizenships. Germany had indicated that “multiple citi-zenship should be avoided”.With regard to the topic of work permits, all responses, Ms Veitpointed out, had indicated that foreigners immigrating for475. Working Group Meetings 1-3economic reasons must be granted a work permit before enteringthe country. They were required to meet the labour market needs ofthe EU member states. Except for Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, andGermany, the answers to this question had not referred specificallyto refugees and asylum-seekers. Germany had specified that peoplefrom so-called safe countries were prohibited from working.All answers showed that advisory and legal services to foreigners,migrants, asylum-seekers, and refugees were differentiated by thestatus of the beneficiary. They existed to a certain extent in eachcountry and region. Against this background, Ms Veit had chosento highlight two best practise examples, i.e. Lithuania and Ham-burg. In Lithuania, there were three foreign integration centres inVilnius, Kaunas and Klaipeda. They aimed to provide a “one-stopshop” for foreigners, to facilitate them with a wide range of servicesat one desk, so as to speed up the integration into society and the la-bour market. In Hamburg, apart from the reception centre, wherenew arrivals were registered and given medical examinations, a pro-gram had started in 2015, called W.I.R. (Work and Integration forRefugees), founded to help refugees in a holistic manner. The majorconcern was to integrate them into the labour market.Regarding language instruction, in most of the countries and re-gions participating in the survey so far, there were language coursesas well as courses for civic education, less often vocational training.Depending on their respective status, foreigners, refugees and asy-lum-seekers were commonly allowed to participate, and most of thecountries offered the courses free of charge. Five countries to somedegree obligated asylum-seekers to take part in the various integra-tion courses offered by the authorities. In Poland, participation wasexclusively voluntary.Ms Veit moved on to the topic of benefits. Most of the participatingcountries had yielded comprehensive information about these, suchas benefit payments, special requirements for eligibility to somebenefits, the monthly subsistence for asylum-seekers in euros or therespective currencies and how this related to the national income.Nonetheless, Ms Veit conceded that comparison was very difficult.She mentioned one example: In 2015, the average taxable incomein Finland was 28,000 € a year, i.e. approximately 2,300 € permonth. When comparing the average income to the allowances forasylum-seekers, it had to be taken into account that the latter wereprovided at least with accommodation and necessary health and so-cial services for free. Accordingly, that was difficult to compare, andit was up for discussion how deeply that should be investigated. ForLithuania, the official minimum wage was set at 380 € per month;the medium was 360 € per month; the monthly benefits for485. Working Group Meetings 1-3asylum-seekers were set at 10 per cent of the state-supported in-come amount.Family reunification was the next aspect raised by Ms Veit. This partconcentrated on family reunification for asylum-seekers and refu-gees. Every country granted family reunification to a certain extent,with some restrictions and narrative definitions of family. Her ex-amples included: The immigration rules in Estonia aimed to sup-port family migration; Estonia had transposed the family reunifica-tion directive for relevant asylum-seekers of the EU; beneficiaries ofinternational protection could reunify their families. Latvia statedthat a refugee or asylum-seeker, having resided in the country for atleast 2 years, had the right to reunite with family members in for-eign countries. An unaccompanied minor who had been grantedinternational protection and was not married had the right to re-ceive mother and father arriving from a foreign country. Since July2016, there had been a temporary act in Sweden, limiting the rightsof family reunifications for those who were eligible for subsidiaryprotection; the law would remain applicable until July 2019. Thesame applied to Germany. In Poland, marriage had to be recognisedby Polish law, thus leaving out polygamous or same-sex marriages.Regarding minors, the answers given showed that every countrytried to do its best to support unaccompanied minors. All thesematters, including best practise examples, should be discussed bythe Working Group.The next item concerned accommodation. The housing situationdepended on the asylum-seeker’s respective status – asylum-seekerswaiting for a decision, granted asylum, or an alternative status, anunaccompanied minor or a detained foreigner. Every country pro-vided accommodation in some form to the migrants. Usually, asy-lum-seekers were first housed at reception facilities. In Germany,Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Estonia, and Latvia, thesewere called transit centres or temporary accommodation, while Po-land had settled on the name accommodation centres.As for volunteers and the organization of their involvement, shesaid that civil society was playing a vital role in every country in theregion. Its involvement was encouraged by the state or by NGOs.Voluntary work was supported through civil society, governmentsand other actors in the public sector. She mentioned best practiseexamples in Denmark, Germany and Sweden.Ms Veit concluded that the responses and statements by the BalticSea Region governments in the BSPC Working Group’s survey werea good basis for further research.495. Working Group Meetings 1-3Presentation by Mr Veiko Spolitishttp://www.bspc.net/roots-of-the-refugee-dilemma_copenhagen/Mr Veiko Spolitis , Member of the Latvian Parliament, in line withan agreement of the WG in Copenhagen, gave a speech on the his-toric context of migration after the Second World War. He pointedout that his presentation specifically considered the Baltic Sea re-gion after the second world war because he was concerned whythere were different perceptions on what migration was, what refu-gees were in Scandinavian countries, Finland, Germany, Poland,and the Baltic states.These considerations formed the first part of his working paper, hesaid. His approach was to look at the reasons for these differenceswhich were objectively real, before investigating the problems of thecrises, such as wars. He agreed with Ms Sørenson that there wasnothing extraordinary to what they were witnessing these days. Hereferred to the Yugoslavian wars in the 1990s and earlier, the secondworld war.The problem of migration as seen from the Baltic perspective wasvery often muddled. Mr Spolitis had looked at two specific aspectsas understood by common people on the street. These were eco-nomic migrants and refugees. Both were covered by the United Na-tions conventions, with very simple to understand definitions. TheUnited Nations Convention on the Rights of Migrants for exampledefined the migrant worker as a person who used to be engaged, isengaged or has been engaged in a remunerated activity in a state inwhich he or she is not a national. Refugees differed from these eco-nomic migrants because economic migration usually took place ina world governed by laws whereas refugees were left alone. Accord-ingly, there was a need for UNHCR, the Red Cross, and the RedCrescent – all these organizations helping those downtrodden peo-ple who had to flee their homes. The UN definition of the 1951convention stated very specifically that a refugee was someone whohad been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution,war, or violence. A refugee had a well-founded fear of persecutionfor reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or mem-bership in a particular social group. Most likely, they could not re-turn home or were afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal, religiousviolence were stated as the leading causes of refugees fleeing theircountries.Given such clear definitions, the question was why there were suchdifferent perceptions in the Baltic Sea area where most of the505. Working Group Meetings 1-3countries were members in the Schengen area, the EU, and NATO.It the Baltic Sea region, he considered such a development inevita-ble, since only one totalitarian regime had been abolished after thesecond world war, while another – the Soviet Union – had stillstayed intact. Mr Spolitis cited an example for the different develop-ment: After World War II, twelve million Germans had had to berelocated back from the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, and soforth. However, Mr Spolitis went on, in Germany, in Scandinaviancountries, in Finland, it had been possible to accept the migrationsin a democratic way because there had been political parties, meet-ings, discussions, and what he considered most important: Thesenations had dealt with it as the current migration was handled, asshown by Ms Veit’s presentation, on the municipal level. When therefugees had been received, they had lived with the original inhab-itants in the same municipalities. He stressed that municipalitieshad to have a say in these matters.Differently, in the Soviet Union, which had occupied nations suchas Poland and East Germany, the locals had no influence at all inthese migration flows. People had simply come and gone, with thecommunist party dictating the rules all the way to 1975. At thatpoint, the Helsinki Acts had finally implemented changes, and hu-man rights had been admitted at the highest level of the CPSU inMoscow. That was the greatest difference, Mr Spolitis pointed out,why there was inertia stemming from the Soviet totalitarian past,that there was a certain perception what refugees meant and how todeal with them.There was another very important detail in the reception of thesemillions of refugees. It had been rather easy for Germany to acceptmost of the Germans because they were speaking the same lan-guage, they were akin, so there had been no cultural clashes. MrSpolitis noted that such clashes always occurred to some degree, butby and large, these had been the same European people who hadbeen relocated because of war ravages. Moreover, they had also re-ceived help from such organizations as the Red Cross and the RedCrescent. In the Soviet Union, though, the Red Cross had unfortu-nately been forbidden from operating.In a nutshell, Mr Spolitis summarised, these were the determiningfactors for the different cultures of receptivity towards migrationthat had developed. In Sweden, in Germany, in the Scandinaviancountries as a total, these populations had been part of the develop-ment of economic boom after these relocations. They had learnedthe language, they had learned the skills, and then they could decidewhether they wanted to stay in this newly adopted country orwhether they wanted to relocate back. Accordingly, the waves of the515. Working Group Meetings 1-3Portuguese, the Italians, and afterwards the Yugoslavians and theT urkish ‘gastarbeiters’ (guest workers) – everything went well be-cause they had been integrated into society. Political parties hadbeen making decisions, and on the municipal level, they had beenaccepted. This had been part of the bargain, Mr Spolitis stated.Everyone had shared the same views on how to deal with this,whereas in Poland, or in the Baltic states, or in East Germany – con-sidering the differences in public opinion -, that had never been thecase, as everything had been decided by the communist party.He next considered the end of the cold war when large numbers ofeconomic migrants had moved from the Baltic states and Poland inparticular to Ireland and Great Britain. These had also followed thesame procedure, acquiring new skills and a new language. Impor-tant here was that it had been the European Union which had fos-tered this movement, because one of the three liberties of the Euro-pean Union was free labour, next to free capital movement and afree market of goods and services. Aside from the free movement oflabour, another focus was the convergence of policies. Such policieshad been developed, particularly at the insistence of Germany –which could afford such and had been a driving force along withFrance -, that there would always be labour movement from theeconomic periphery. But with convergence policies working, it waspossible to see that most Italian and Portuguese who had arrived inGermany in the 1950s had gone back to their native countries be-cause their economic fortunes had risen.The same had also applied to the T urkish population, despite the re-cent backlash because of the political situation in T urkey. For awhile, greater numbers of T urkish people had moved back fromGermany to T urkey rather than the opposite way. Nowadays, thismovement had reversed.Mr Spolitis also considered the causes of the current refugee crisis.Outlined in broad strokes, Mr Spolitis saw that, in light of globalwarming, natural disasters were accepted. Whenever there was anatural disaster, people were very receptive, regardless of the regime,to refugees. A man-made disaster, though, was a different affair.Such could be a technological disaster but also wars. Wheneverthere was a man-made disaster, Mr Spolitis pointed out, peoplestarted questioning the influx of refugees. In democracies, after all,there was a right to question.Looking at what was happening in the Baltic Sea region over thepast twenty-seven years, there had been a tremendous transforma-tion in the Baltic states and Poland. Most of the work had dealtwith making the living conditions acceptable to the population.525. Working Group Meetings 1-3People living in the Scandinavian countries and Germany, he not-ed, accepted the fact that they could build and plan their lives assomething acceptable. For many countries in the world, Mr Spolitisstressed, this was a luxury. Coming back to your country to raiseyour children in peace, where you could make plans based on yourannual income, where you could raise your children and send themto school, that was often something unattainable. Accordingly, amajor policy goal for the Baltic states and Poland was to ensure thatpeople would start coming back. Considering the trends for the lastone-and-a-half years, that process had just started. People were be-ginning to trickle back from Ireland and Great Britain.Basically, Mr Spolitis continued, post-war lessons had taught theEuropean Union how to manage labour shortages, how to managethe reform of governance and education systems, and how to con-verge economies. These lessons could be applied both in a good orbad manner, depending on the political culture. But one thingcould not be managed from within, namely external shocks or wars.Mr Spolitis noted that it was often difficult to understand and graspthat Europeans could also work to end a war driving migrationflows in the Baltic Sea region. At the moment, he mentioned, therewere two such wars: the war in Ukraine and the war in Syria.Since 2015, there had been media hype related to refugees, such asthe reestablishment of the border between Sweden and Denmark,the still ongoing debate in Germany had even threatened the gov-ernment, and there was the forty-fifth president of the United Statesintruding in the whole debate.The bottom line, Mr Spolitis said, was that there were two millioninternally displaced persons in the Ukraine for example. There werealso internally displaced persons in Russia, and two million hadmoved from the Ukraine into Poland. At the same time, theseUkrainians were an economic boon for the Polish economy – whilerepresenting a brain drain for the Ukraine. With that in mind, ithad to be understood that war was never good. The only ones toprofit off war were the immoral businessmen who were e.g. sellingarms or shipping people.Mr Spolitis accordingly also looked at the United Nations charter.He emphasised because, as he said, it was always good to look atthe basic documents. Article 1 of the charter was very clear: ‘Wehave to maintain international peace and security to developfriendly relations among nations based on respect for the princi-ples of equal right and self-determination of peoples to achieve in-ternational cooperation and solving international problems and535. Working Group Meetings 1-3encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedomsfor all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.States must follow the basic principles as outlined in Article 2 ofthe Charter.’ Article 2, Mr Spolitis explained, clarified how thismust be achieved. These basic documents had been written bypeople who had known that there could not be greater disastersthan war. Out of the ravages of war, in San Francisco, in 1945 andin 1948 when the International Charter of Human Rights hadbeen written, they had understood that peace must be kept. There-fore, he found Article 2 interesting, explaining explained how thispeace had to be kept: ‘Nothing containing the present chartershall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters whichare essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shallrequire the member states to matters or settlements under thepresent charter.’ He pointed out that this showed the embedded-ness of the Security Council.Therefore, having these principles of international law, it was possi-ble to discuss this because the BSPC was an international organisa-tion. War and the breaching of basic tenets of human rights was un-acceptable behaviour in today’s European region, called one of themost prosperous, most open and most liberal regions. In 2015, un-controlled migration had made headlines in many media, and itcould be clearly said that the European public, including the media,had not been prepared in 2015, unlike in the 1990s, as could beseen from newspapers and other resources. Mr Spolitis said that Eu-ropeans had become complacent, that they had forgotten aboutthese problems but had to be ready for them.545. Working Group Meetings 1-3So, in 2015, it was learned that the Dublin directive of 2003 aboutasylum-seekers was defective. Without any international crisis,without war, the Dublin directive had managed migration prettywell. But it became problematic in a crisis where the flows of massmigration due to war were overwhelming the bordering areas. MrSpolitis pointed out that the debate accusing Hungary had beenpointless, and instead, the discussion should have dealt with theproblems with the Dublin directive. He predicted that the DublinIII directive would fail again.Accordingly, it was necessary to fix these matters on a fundamentallevel. As a historic note, Mr Spolitis said, in 1997, prior to the Am-sterdam T reaty, there had been debate about following up on Maas-tricht and introducing a common migration policy. Unfortunately,at that time, Helmut Kohl had an agreement with Jacques Chiracbut not the support of the German federal states in the Bundesrat.Therefore, a common migration policy had failed in 1997 becauseHelmut Kohl didn’t have the necessary support back home. As a re-sult, Europeans now had to live with a defective system where poli-ticians tried ad hocfixes here and there, with crises here and there.But, Mr Spolitis underlined, without a common migration policy,they were in the same position as they had been in 2015.Coming to the conclusion of his presentation, Mr Spolitis said thatthey had been speaking about possible policy responses in this broadtrack of problems concerning perception, with an eye on the warsin their immediate neighbourhood – i.e. Ukraine and Syria. Equal-ly of concern were economic migrants and their countries of origin,such as the Maghreb nations in northern Africa as well as Ethiopiaand Eritrea, both with authoritarian regimes. All these matters hadto be dealt with. Lacking a common migration policy, it wasn’tenough to strengthen Frontex and fix the Dublin directive becausedisagreements were rising in bordering areas, particularly Bulgaria,Greece, Italy, and Spain where the greatest pressure was experi-enced. Moreover, the Dublin directive stated quite directly thatcountries had to deal with these issues on their own merits. At thesame time, in 27+ EU member states, there were different levels ofunderstanding, different levels of reception, and different levels ofremuneration, as Ms Veit had outlined by the example of the BalticSea area countries.Therefore, possible policy responses had to first of all raise theawareness of these differences in our society. Mr Spolitis stated thatit was the role of parliamentarians to go out and approach mediaand explain that the differences were due to specific, historic devel-opments.555. Working Group Meetings 1-3Second, he said, they should not be shy to resist political correctnessand call facts and arguments by their own names.The third response suggested by Mr Spolitis was that parliamentaryassemblies – such as the BSPC itself – could appeal to the super-re-gional organizations, e.g. the Council of the Baltic Sea Countries,the Council of Baltic Cities, or the United Nations to raise aware-ness. Another possibility was to demand of the heads of states toalso raise this issue during the General Assembly Meeting in Sep-tember, if the group decided to do so and agreed on the goal. Re-garding the previous discussion, it could be seen that this processcould not continue and that impartiality was not acceptable.Finally, but not least, a fourth proposal was that the BSPC as an or-ganisation could coordinate information with like-minded su-per-regional organisations in this Baltic Sea area and jointly appealto the European Council to continue work in order to establish acommon EU migration policy.Further procedureThe Working Group further discussed possible recommendationsfor the resolution of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference andpossible contents of a mid-way report. In addition, the WorkingGroup agreed to hold the next meeting in Kiel on 17 December2018.56 6. Intergovernmental Survey6. Intergovernmental SurveyThe Working Group had already discussed in Hamburg commonquestions to be sent by each delegation to their respective govern-ments. This way, the Working Group wanted to obtain a better sur-vey regarding the situation in the whole region, learn from bestpractise examples and develop proposals to improve cooperation inthe integration of migrants. The BSPC Vice- President and WGVice-chair Carola Veit had summarised the questions and devel-oped a list to be sent to the governments as homework assignments.Ms Veit presented the summary of answers delivered by the govern-ments with regard to the Migration and Integration issue in respec-tive countries and regions.14 governments from the Baltic Sea Region have provided detailedcomments and responses to the working group’s surveys.Link to the website – WG M&I - DocumentsMs Carola Veit gave an Introduction to the compilation of the an-swers of the governments in the Baltic Sea Region to the question-naire at the third meeting in Copenhagen (see 5.3).57 7. Best practices – Examples7. Best practices – ExamplesOne of the best ways to improve integration policies is to learn fromeach other. For this reason, the working group has decided to gath-er best practices from all members. Only in this way can we getmore knowledge and share it.The BSPC Vice- President and WG Vice-chair Carola Veit has beenresponsible for gathereing different data from the member countriesin a survey in order to find best practices in each country.Each country in the Baltic Sea region has its own set of immigra-tion, asylum or aliens laws which are included in the rules of immi-gration. For example: Germany has both a residence as well as anintegration act; Lithuania has referred to a law on the legal status ofaliens; for its immigration law, Poland has included a two-tier ad-ministrative procedure, the protection of the national work force,and the future possibility to determine how many people are admit-ted into the country.Another topic of the survey has been the requirements for requestingasylum. The criteria are defined in the previously mentioned laws ofthe respective countries. Due to the Geneva Convention or the con-ventions and international agreements on refugees adopted by suchnations, there are some similarities. In EU countries, European-levelinitiatives also provide some more streamlining and similarities. Forexample, Sweden has listed as reasons for asylum the death penalty,torture, internal armed conflict as well as environmental disasters.Like Estonia, it also includes the topic of stateless persons here. Ger-many concentrated on serious harm, concrete danger to life, discrim-ination, violence of international law, and internal armed conflict.Some other exceptions are mentioned in Norway where the right tobe recognized as a refugee does not apply if the foreign national canobtain effective protection in other areas of his or her country of ori-gin than the area from which the applicant has fled. In Latvia, a per-son might not apply for refugee status if he or she is a national ofmore than one country and does not use legal protection in any of theother countries without justifying reason.Regarding dual citizenship, there are different answers: Sweden al-lows additional dual citizenships, while Norway is preparing forsuch a regulation. In Lithuania and Estonia, one might acquire acitizenship by grant of refugee status or if he or she is a beneficiaryof international protection granted by Estonia or any other EUmember state.58 7. Best practices – ExamplesWhen it comes to housing, it depends on the asylum-seeker’s re-spective status – asylum-seekers waiting for a decision, granted asy-lum, or an alternative status, an unaccompanied minor or a de-tained foreigner. Every country provide accommodation in someform to the migrants. Usually, asylum-seekers are first housed at re-ception facilities. In Germany, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Swe-den, Estonia, and Latvia, these are referred to as transit centres ortemporary accommodation, while Poland has settled on the nameaccommodation centres.In Sweden, the goal is to ensure equal rights, obligations and oppor-tunities for all, irrespective of their ethnic and cultural background.The reception of newly arrived refugees is a shared responsibility ona national, regional and local level. The policy objective is work, ed-ucation or training normally within two years after the issuing of aresidence permit during the introduction programme. These objec-tives are to be achieved primarily through general policy measures,supplemented by targeted support for the introduction of newcom-ers.The main challenges in Sweden include prolonged waiting times; alack of housing – uneven reception and settlement between differ-ent regions and municipalities -; insufficient capacities in society,e.g. a lack of teachers and interpreters; an early and efficient accessto the labour market and education for those granted asylum and,finally, increased segregation.There are, however, also opportunities: a strong economy; a highemployment rate and relatively low unemployment; a high demandfor labour meets a labour shortage in many professions: many new-ly arrived migrants are young and well educated; job opportunitiesare good.Right after the migration crisis in 2015, between 2016 and 2018,there was an increased state funding to municipalities. A new reim-bursement system for reception of unaccompanied minors; earlymeasures for asylum seekers; a new law forcing all municipalities tosettle migrants granted asylum; several new initiatives in labourmarket policy, e.g. fast tracks, employment support as well as sever-al new initiatives in most policy areas, e.g. education, social andhousing policy.There is also a 2-year introduction programme for new arrivals, co-ordinated by the Public Employment Service, including an individ-ual introduction plan, based on the person’s needs and previous ex-perience. As part of this programme, the Public Employment Ser-vice and the social partners are also implementing tailor-made “fast59 7. Best practices – Examplestracks” for occupations with labour shortages. This is a new conceptcreated in close collaboration with employers. It includes tripartitetalks with the social partners, the Public Employment Service andother relevant government agencies regarding the employer’s needs,validation of skills, vocational training and work. The first fast trackwas introduced in 2015, creating opportunities for chefs, and ex-tended to fast tracks in 14 industries by October 2017.Another concrete example comes from Solna municipality north ofStockholm. It is In many ways a typical suburb where 98 percent ofthe population live in apartments and the foreign-born inhabitantsare about 35 percent of the whole population.Here, the “Solna Model’ was launched. It includes systematic effortsto assist Solna residents on income support to become self-sufficientthrough work, self-employment or studies. The ‘Solna Model’ ischaracterised by good cooperation with the local enterprises, goodknowledge of each participants’ experiences and by further effortsto find a way into the labour market, and it is seen as a model allow-ing the municipality to fight unemployment, especially amongyoung people.Success factors of the ‘Solna Model’: coaching – “Identify and over-come all obstacles on the way to get a job” -; training; good relationswith local and regional employers; education; matching employersand employees as well as the speed of delivery of workforce.Like many other Swedish municipalities, Solna was affected by therefugee flow in the short term since temporary housing was needed– there was limited housing space available –, the demand for moreand new municipal services and increased diversity. In the long-term, effects included changes in the work force as well as growingtax revenues and diversity. The reception for adults and familieswith residence permits allotted to Solna according to national/re-gional quota included housing, settlement support, civics orienta-tion, Swedish for immigrants training, pre-school and school edu-cation as well as social services support if needed.Yet another example on how to facilitate integration is throughsports, which has a long tradition in Sweden. In order to achieve anenvironment where everyone, regardless of age, gender, social class,religion, cultural and ethnical background feel they can take part.Sports as a way toward inclusion, enveloping people in the commu-nity.In this respect, ASPIRE, an international collaborative projectco-funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union, is60 7. Best practices – Examplesparamount. It is seeking to find out how to best support migrantsand refugees, building on the wide popularity of sports and otherforms of physical activity. ASPIRE can serve as a pioneer in thelong-term perspective, offering a positive, evidence-based responsewith the help of sports to the many problems of inclusion related tothe current migrant and refugee crises, during and after the settle-ment of migrants and refugees with regard to facilitating the accessof refugees to social servicesSweden is by no means the only country that can share their bestpractices when it comes to integration. All other member states cancontribute as well. The working group will continue its work by fo-cusing on best practices from the other members and that will beaddressed in the final report.61 8. Political Recommendations8. Political RecommendationsOn the basis of its mandate, the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Confer-ence Working Group on Migration and Integration has discussedfirst political recommendations as a result of its work. The followingrecommendations have been in cooperated into the draft resolutionof the 27th BSPC in Mariehamn 26 – 28 August 2018:Regarding Migration and Integration, to1. acknowledge objective differences in the political system as wellas in the historical and cultural background due to the scars ofthe Second World War, continue discussions and reflectionsabout flight and migration, and share best governance practicesto raise awareness in our societies;2. initiate a Baltic Sea-wide data basis on integration conditionsand measures to improve the public discussion on a factual ba-sis;3. intensify the dialogue on migration and integration betweenthe countries bordering the Baltic Sea;4. increase the offer of migration-specific advisory services andlanguage training in order to intensify integration efforts;5. enlarge projects for advising and supporting volunteers, localinstitutions and civil society organizations working in the fieldof integration and taking into account the unifying and inte-grating role of sports;6. consider migration and security perspectives in relevant otherpolitical agendas such as trade, labour rights and environmentalpreservation.7. seek holistic and multi-facetted solutions to the challengesposed by refugee and migration policies which include awell-coordinated combination of migration management, hu-manitarian assistance, political solutions, European and inter-national collaboration, fair trade agreements and developmentassistance.62 List of MembersList of MembersMemberParliamentMember MP Staff Point of ContactParliament ofSwedenMr HansWallmarkChair of the WGMr Pyry NiemiMr Ralph HermanssonSwedish Delegation to the NordicCouncilRiksdagenSE-100 12 StockholmSwedenTel: +46 8 786 5925Mobile: +46 72-716 59 25ralph.hermansson@riksdagen.seParliament ofFree andHanseaticCity ofHamburgMs Carola VeitVice-Chair of theWGMr MichaelWestenbergerMs Friederike LünzmannParliament of the Free and HanseaticCity of HamburgAdministration of the ParliamentSchmiedestraße 220095 HamburgTel.: (+49 (0) 40) 4 28 31-1352Fax: (+49 (0) 40) 4 27 31-2271internationales@bk.hamburg.defriederike.luenzmann@bk.hamburg.deParliament ofÅlandMr Johan Ehn Ms Maj FalckAssistant to the ParliamentThe Åland ParliamentPB 69AX-22101 MariehamnÅland IslandsTel: + Tel +358 18 25 353maj.falck@lagtinget.axjohan.ehn@lagtinget.ax63 List of MembersMemberParliamentMember MP Staff Point of ContactParliament ofDenmarkMs KarinGaardstedMs Louise Egholm HattensThe International Secretariat,The Parliament of Denmark,Christiansborg, DK-1240 CopenhagenK,DenmarkTel. +45 33 37 55 00Dir. +45 33 37 33 32Louise.Hattens@ft.dkParliament ofEstoniaMs Urve Tiidus Ms Ene RõngelepAdviser, Foreign Relations DepartmentRiigikogu of the Republic of EstoniaLossi plats 1A,15165 Tallinn,EstoniaTel: +372 631 6396GSM: +372 5122313Ene.Rongelep@riigikogu.eeParliament ofthe FederalRepublic ofGermanyN.N. Ms Dr Nicole TepasseDeutscher BundestagDivision International ParliamentaryAssembliesPlatz der Republik 111011 Berlinnicole.tepasse@bundestag.deTel: +49 30 / 227-32553Parliament ofFinlandMs MariaTolppanen,Substitute: MrKari Kulmala,Chairman of theFinnish delegationto the BSPC Mr Mika Laaksonen/Ms MaaritImmonenThe Parliament of FinlandFI-00102 Eduskunta,FinlandTel: +358 9 4321mika.laaksonen@eduskunta.fimaarit.immonen@parliament.fi64 List of MembersMemberParliamentMember MP Staff Point of ContactParliament ofLatvia Mr Veiko Spolitis Ms Ingrida SticenkoSenior Consultant,Interparliamentary Relations BureauSecretary of the Latvian delegation tothe Baltic AssemblySaeima of the Republic of LatviaJēkaba st.11, Riga, LV-1811LatviaTel: +371 6 7087335Ingrida.Sticenko@saeima.lvParliament ofLithuania andBalticAssemblyMr ValerijusSimulikMs Renata GodfreyChief Specialist, InternationalCooperation Division of theInternational Relations UnitSecretary of the Lithuanian delegationto the Baltic AssemblySeimas of the Republic of LithuaniaGedimino pr. 53, 01109 VilniusLithuaniaTel: +370 5239 6224Renata.Godfrey@lrs.ltMs Anete KalnajaSenior Consultant,Secretariat of the Baltic AssemblyCitadeles Street 2, room 616Riga LV-1010,LatviaTel: +371 67225178anete.kalnaja@baltasam.orgParliament ofMecklenburg-VorpommernN.N. Mr Georg Strätker,Mr Julien RadloffTel +49 385 525 1530/2619Tel +49 385 525 1531 (InternationalSecretariat)Landtag Mecklenburg-VorpommernLennéstr. 119053 SchwerinGermanyGeorg.Straetker@landtag-mv.deinternational@landtag-mv.de65 List of MembersMemberParliamentMember MP Staff Point of ContactNordicCouncilMr Ulf Leirstein,Mrs Karen KlintMs Jenny Pentler/Mr Arne Fogt BergbyNordic CouncilVed Stranden 18DK-1061 Copenhagen KDenmarkTel: +45 33 96 04 00jepe@norden.orgarfber@norden.orgParliament ofNorwayMr Stein ErikLauvåsMr Thomas FraserThe Norwegian Parliament0026 OSLONorwayTelefon: +47 23 31 35 91/+47 40 4554 50thomas.fraser@stortinget.noParliament ofPolandMr GrzegorzMatusiak, MPSubstitute: MrJacek Protas, MP Mr Piotr KoperskiSecretary of the Delegation of the Sejmand the Senate of the Republic ofPoland to the BSPC,International and European UnionAffairs Office,Chancellery of the Senate of theRepublic of Poland6 Wiejska Str.00-902 Warsaw,PolandTel +48 22 694 95 65mob.: +48 603 793 722koperski@nw.senat.gov.pl66 List of MembersMemberParliamentMember MP Staff Point of ContactState Dumaof the FederalAssembly ofthe RussianFederationMs ValentinaPivnenkoMs Yulia GuskovaSecretaryInterparliamentary RelationsDepartmentState Duma of the Federal Assembly ofthe Russian Federation1 Okhotny Ryad St.RU-103012 MoscowRussian FederationTel +7 495 692 2626fax +7 495 692 3513guskova@duma.gov.ruParliament ofSchleswig-HolsteinMs Aminata TouréMr WolfgangBaaschMs Jutta Schmidt-HolländerHead of DivisionState Parliament of Schleswig-Holsteinischer LandtagPostfach 712124 171 KielGermanyTel +49 431 988 1159jutta.schmidt-hollaender@landtag.ltsh.de67 List of MembersMemberParliamentMember MP Staff Point of ContactState Dumaof the FederalAssembly ofthe RussianFederationMs ValentinaPivnenkoMs Yulia GuskovaSecretaryInterparliamentary RelationsDepartmentState Duma of the Federal Assembly ofthe Russian Federation1 Okhotny Ryad St.RU-103012 MoscowRussian FederationTel +7 495 692 2626fax +7 495 692 3513guskova@duma.gov.ruParliament ofSchleswig-HolsteinMs Aminata TouréMr WolfgangBaaschMs Jutta Schmidt-HolländerHead of DivisionState Parliament of Schleswig-Holsteinischer LandtagPostfach 712124 171 KielGermanyTel +49 431 988 1159jutta.schmidt-hollaender@landtag.ltsh.deWG SecretariatMr Bodo BahrSecretary General of the BSPCSchlossgartenallee 1519061 SchwerinGermany+49 171 5512557bodo.bahr@bspcmail.nethttp://www.bspc.netMr Ralph HermanssonSwedish Delegation to the Nordic CouncilRiksdagenSE-100 12 StockholmSwedenTel: +46 8 786 5925Mobile: +46 72-716 59 25ralph.hermansson@riksdagen.seBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Secretariatwww.bspc.netBSPC SecretariatSchlossgartenallee 1519061 SchwerinGermany