BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity 2020-2023

During the second day of its meeting in Maribo, Denmark, the BSPC Standing Committee toured the site where the Danish end of the Fehmarn Belt tunnel is being built. Set to fundamentally improve, facilitate and accelerate transport flows between Scandinavia and continental Europe from various perspectives, it is expected to become a major transport route. Afterwards, the Standing Committee discussed ways to better protect maritime infrastructure and to improve safety and the security landscape in the Baltic Sea Region. Presentations BSPC President Henrik Møller remarked that the Fehmarn belt tunnel was one of the most significant projects in Denmark in recent years. He believed that it would have a great impact on the Baltic Sea area in cutting down travel times, comparing it to the Rail Baltica project the BSPC Working Group had visited in Riga. Within four weeks, the BSPC had visited Europe’s currently hugest construction sites and informed about the progress. Presentatio n by Mr Jens Ole Kaslund, Technical Director Mr Jens Ole Kaslund explained how the Fehmarn Belt tunnel would reduce travel times. A car would pass through at 110 km/hr in 10 minutes, a train in just 7 minutes at 200 km/hr. Thus, the current travel time from Copenhagen to Hamburg of about 5 hours would shrink to half that, saving 160 kilometres. He explained that at 18 kilometres of length this would be the world’s longest immersed tunnel and, simultaneously, the longest combined road and rail tunnel. The individual elements of the tunnel were pushed into place by tugboats and then sunk into the prepared tunnel trench. Special maintenance elements were interspersed over the length of the tunnel, allowing traffic to continue for most maintenance operations. Looking at the bigger picture, he laid out the various other connections that had been built earlier, such as the Fehmarnsund bridge on the German side and the Danish Hinterland Railway in Denmark. Several of the railway connections in both countries had to be upgraded to accommodate greater traffic volumes. Zooming out even further, the Fehmarn Belt was part of the overall trans-European transport network connecting the continent from the high north to the deep south. Mr Kaslund moved on to the financing which was based on state-guaranteed loans over an expected amortisation period of 28 years, with additional support of 1.1 billion euros from the EU. He mentioned that they had already proofed this financing model in the earlier Great Belt Bridge and Øresund Bridge projects. Its construction budget of 7.1 billion euros (in 2015 prices) would be wholly covered by the future users since all cars, lorries, and trains would have to pay a fee for transit, comparable to a ferry ticket. To a question from Mr Himanshu Gulati , Mr Kaslund explained that the ticket price would likely be around 90 euros. Considering the execution structure, he noted that the contractors were responsible for design, execution, and quality while the stateside was monitoring and supervising operations to ensure the work’s quality. A large number of companies had already been hired for the tunnel, the portals and ramps, the dredging and reclamation process, installations as well as finally the railway contracts. Moving on to the timetable, Mr Kaslund noted that two work harbours had already been built at both endpoints. The tunnel trench had been almost finished, requiring some additional work in 2024. The first portals and ramps would be installed in the coming months, expected to run well into 2025. From 2024 to 2027, the tunnel elements would be produced and placed. Placing the final connecting element between both tunnel ends, the ongoing installation work, and thorough testing would take the project into 2029 for its estimated opening. Mr Johannes Schraps inquired about the original schedule. Mr Kaslund replied that earliest estimates at the start of the undertaking in 2002 had targeted 2018. The approval process had taken unexpectedly long; moreover, a lawsuit in Germany had delayed the project for two years. Mr Bodo Bahr remarked that, to his knowledge, there were 100 people working on the German side while the Danish side employed 1,700 people. Mr Kaslund knew of several reasons for this disparity, but primarily, it was due to the factory producing the elements with 1,000 employees was situated in Denmark. In general, it was a Danish project with Danish financing. As far as the work on the tunnel was concerned, about the same number of workers were busy, and the German side would catch up to the Danish progress soon. Mr Schraps asked about the major challenges. Among those, Mr Kaslund saw the early optimism about the speed of the German approval process as a top obstacle that had to be overcome. This had led to difficult negotiations in the contracting process. Aside from that, more – as he put it – classic challenges were coming in the construction itself, with the exacting work of depositing and connecting the elements. Ms Anna Kassautzki asked about the emergency response plans as well as the compensation plans for the environmental impact, especially regarding carbon-capturing seaweed. On the safety side, Mr Kaslund noted that emergency doors were placed every 100 metres throughout the tunnel, allowing evacuation from the railway tube into the car section. Conversely, in the case of a car accident, people could transit into the road section in the opposite direction. In both cases, they would be picked up by bus and brought to safety. The sections would be closed off, to prevent people from trying to walk up to nine kilometres to the exit. Furthermore, the ventilation system would keep the other tubes clear. Regarding the environment, he saw the major impact on land since the dredged-up soil would be deposited behind the dykes on the Danish side. Some of that would form new beaches for leisure time, others would serve renaturalisation efforts. After the tunnel was in place, the seabed would restore itself through sand movement covering the construction. As for seaweed, most of the tunnel was too deep for the plants to grow, so they were investigating the shallower ends for replanting. Prof Jānis Vucāns was interested in the financing and ownership. Mr Kaslund explained that his company managing construction and later operations was fully state-owned. To a further question about the ferries, he noted those companies believed they would continue their operations. He also confirmed a comment by President Møller that the ferry enterprises had lobbied to stop the tunnel project. Mr Kaslund showed a number of pictures outlining the construction process at both endpoints and the elements. He also referred to the recent heavy storm “of the century” surge that had caused no damage on the Danish side but had crested the dyke on the German side, delaying work for two weeks. Moving on, he spoke about his side’s strategic priorities for sustainability, categorized into environment, social, and corporate governance. In the social aspects, his side was engaging the local community, creating well-paying, diverse jobs along with training the staff. With 500 apprenticeships, these were not only jobs but ensured future capabilities. Community engagement was represented by a newsletter for neighbours as well as visitor centres and lookout points. In addition, there were civic meetings and events such as open site visits or World Cleanup Day. Regarding the environmental impact, he noted that the tunnel was set to last for 120 years despite the harsh marine surrounding; they were trying to use as climate-friendly as possible materials, but unfortunately the older substances were the ones proven to survive such long-term exposure rather than the less carbon-heavy newer materials. The areas covered by construction were counterbalanced by renaturalisation projects. A round-the-clock monitoring system called Aegir had been set up that allowed for full transparency. Environmental experts could follow developments minute by minute, and the relevant data was saved. Mr Bodo Bahr remarked that the safety of critical infrastructure was becoming a crucial topic and asked how that had affected the tunnel project. Mr Kaslund replied that the construction was conforming to all the regulations but had not taken extra measures. He felt that protection was up to the navy or similar institutions. Ms Anna Kassautzki asked if the construction reflected the likelihood of more extreme weather events such as the recent “storm of the century”. Mr Kaslund confirmed that there were pressure systems to prevent flooding, adding that the dykes were set up to prevent so-called ten-thousand-year rather than hundred-year events. Mr Himanshu Gulati inquired about comparisons to other projects. Mr Kaslund reflected that the Øresund tunnel of some four kilometres length had served as a template, along with a similar project in Hong Kong. The Fehmarn Belt tunnel was the latest incarnation with the most developed technology. Ms Kristina Herbst wondered about working from two sides towards the middle. Mr Kaslund saw this as offering more flexibility in the construction process, ensuring that one side would always make progress even if the other might be facing problems. Overall, it was simply a faster process. To another question, he answered that the deepest point of the tunnel would be 45 metres below the sea level. The participants deepened further questions with Mr Kaslund during the subsequent tour of the visitor centre and the construction site. Moving on to the next presentation in Maribo, BSPC President Henrik Møller noted that defence was one of the cornerstones of the Baltic Sea region’s security architecture and one of the Danish presidency’s core issues. Thus, he was glad to welcome Mr Tobias Liebetrau from the Department of Political Science at the University of Copenhagen as an expert. His current research covered four main areas: cybersecurity, great power rivalry and technology development, big tech international politics as well as maritime sub-sea infrastructure. His presentation to the BSPC Standing Committee was entitled: Maritime Infrastructure and the Baltic Sea Security Landscape. P resentation by Mr Tobias Liebetrau, University of Copenhagen Mr Tobias Liebetrau started by pointing out the increased interest in maritime infrastructure – not just because modern society was more and more relying on it but also because of recent incidents threatening it. First, he explained that maritime infrastructure consisted of the sectors transport – shipping but also bridges –, energy – platforms, pipelines –, communications – data cables –, fishery – ships and aquaculture –, and eco-systems – biodiversity, carbon sink, and beaches. The latter two were often not included, yet these were also important to consider and protect. It was just as vital to acknowledge that they were reliant on each other. Therefore, it made sense to look at maritime infrastructure as a whole rather than splitting it up into separate fields. At the same time, it was different from region to region, with the Baltic Sea region for instance being quite congested. Unfortunately, this infrastructure field was weakly defined from a policy point of view, with a wide divergence among nations in what was considered politically what was critical and what was not. Moving on to the threats to this infrastructure, one distinction was whether they were intentional or not. The latter were natural disasters and accidents contrasted with the former, i.e., acts of war, terrorism, grey zone and hybrid attacks. Mr Liebetrau stated that preparations against conventional war-time attacks were in place across the board, but those incidents intentionally straddling the line – such as sabotage – were more difficult to tackle. He pointed out that many of these were not easy to categorise, as, for instance, state-sponsored sabotage could be made to look like an accident or terrorism. Deterrence had not worked, he noted, referring to the Nord Stream attack. Thus, resilience was crucial. Specifically, he addressed a recent incident when a Baltic connector and a telecom cable between Finland and Sweden were hit on 8 October 2023. While an accident could not be ruled out, suspicious though inconclusive evidence linked a Russian and a Chinese vessel, underlining the difficulty of identifying possible culprits or even intent in the first place. To him, that indicated the need for better protection of these vulnerable pieces of the maritime infrastructure. At the same time, he argued for better surveillance of the locations and actions of ships – such as the Russian vessel in question. Mr Liebetrau pointed to a number of initiatives to improve critical maritime infrastructure on the EU and NATO level. At the same time, one had to keep in mind that each region had its specific characteristics with different types of infrastructure, various countries, and divergent threats. As an example, he explained that sub-sea data cables in the Baltic Sea mainly connected two countries, were owned by one company or nation, and tended to be thirty years old and would have to be replaced. In the North Sea, on the other hand, many American big tech companies owned intercontinental data cables. The next aspect was greater collaboration and information exchange across countries but also between the public and private sectors as well as in-between private companies. He highlighted the often complex ownership structure, adding to the difficulty. Yet there was a lack of institutions clearly assigned to this task. Subsequently, he spoke about surveillance, threat detection, and rapid response. He saw these areas equally underdeveloped. Technologies such as undersea drones were available and could be put into action at affordable costs. Contingency and repair were the next field Mr Liebetrau addressed as it might mitigate the impact of any grey zone attack – which would also lower the interest in such actions. As an example, coordination between industry and public authorities might speed up repairs to undersea cables that otherwise would take weeks or months. This led him to call for better aligned governance and legislation, both at the Baltic Sea and the European level. President Møller asked how the surveillance situation had changed with Finland and – hopefully – Sweden both joining NATO. Mr Liebetrau confirmed that this would increase the capacity for keeping track of the goings-on, but it would require more governance measures for this integration. This opened a window of opportunity to implement these, to improve surveillance as well as cooperation and information sharing. Ms Anna Kassautzki was interested in specific measures to protect the infrastructure. Mr Liebetrau pointed to sensors that could be installed in data cables and pipelines which could detect sound and movement for surveillance, although this was a costly endeavour. Moreover, multiple different measures were needed for better coverage. At the same time, though, they could also be used to investigate biodiversity and the seabed. Prof Jānis Vucāns wondered how countries could enforce that private companies setting up such infrastructure would implement security measures. Mr Liebetrau conceded that such incentivising was a challenge, and it had been for decades since nations had sold off their infrastructure. 9/11, the Madrid bombings, and many subsequent cases had led to airflight security being tightened, more recently cybersecurity. Some of this experience could be drawn upon to transfer to maritime security. Mr Bodo Bahr wondered about plans protecting core projects in the Baltic Sea area, particularly regarding maritime law and the IMO. Mr Liebetrau was not aware of any legal initiatives. Again, he pointed to a better alignment of national laws and the interpretation of maritime law as a way forward. As for specific measures, he noted that some offshore projects were being delayed because it was uncertain what should be imposed on the private companies and how that would affect their profitability. In Denmark, this was a huge discussion. Mr Møller considered that covert measures would seem more probable. Mr Liebetrau sketched out the most likely scenario involving the use of fishing vessels or other commercial merchant ships disguised as normal traffic. Cables and pipelines could be sufficiently damaged with an anchor or a dredge; no high-tech explosives were needed. This was also where their side was more vulnerable. In other words, simple and limited measures could exact considerable damage. BSPC President Henrik Møller thanked the expert for the profound insight into the current challenges regarding Maritime Infrastructure and the Baltic Sea Security Landscape. The issue will be further deepened during the Danish Presidency. The BSPC Standing Committee meeting was concluded with an outlook on its next meeting on 4 March 2024.

In preparation for the 32 nd. Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference on 27-29 August 2023, the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity (CCB) published its Final Report on its activities throughout the past three years. The Chairman will present the report at the 32 nd Annual Conference. It includes the deliberations and a compilation of the materials discussed by the Working Group. The report also offers detailed information on the expert presentations carried out by the Working Group. The content refers in many places with links to other materials already published on the website, particularly the detailed reports about the sessions and can be accessed here and at the Working Groups website . The report contains all political recommendations incorporated in the resolutions of the 30 th and 31 st Conference, statements of the Baltic Sea region governments about the implementation of these recommendations and 25 far-reaching and ambitious final calls for action on climate and biodiversity that have been incorporated in the 32 nd draft of the BSPC Resolution. These recommendations call on governments to increase efforts in implementing national climate targets, strengthen regional collaboration, encourage renewable energy development, and transition from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy systems. They also emphasise the need to urge the world’s three largest CO2 emitters to step up their efforts to achieve ambitious climate targets, incentivise renewable energy development, and address the risks associated with increasing dependence on rare metal suppliers. The WG also urges the implementation of coastal management plans to protect and restore coastal ecosystems, support research and innovation in climate change mitigation and adaptation technologies and promote cross-border cooperation on regional climate initiatives. The Working Group highlights halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030 while ensuring inclusive, socially, and environmentally sustainable economic growth and development. The Baltic Sea Action Plan and its associated action documents should be implemented quickly and strictly to achieve good ecological status by the decade’s end. Regional strategies should be developed to deal with transboundary emergencies caused by climate change and pollution. The report also provides examples of best practices in climate change and biodiversity from the Baltic States. They accentuate regional cooperation and support for clean environments, biodiversity protection, climate change mitigation, soils and cooperation on greenhouse gas inventory. The recommendations address the most recent international developments and agreements in these areas. The urgency of further, consistent, and comprehensive measures in these policy fields is emphasised. The report should be considered a strategic summary of the BSPC WG CCB’s work.

The BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity met for the final time in Gdańsk, Poland, to complete its intensive three-year-long work. Once more, the group listened to and discussed three expert presentations, two on nuclear power as part of the Polish strategy of transitioning away from fossil fuels and towards low-carbon energy systems and one on the Slovinski National Park and Biosphere Reserve. Afterwards, a lively discussion ensued to put together the group’s calls to action to the governments of the Baltic Sea region. The calls found unanimous approval in the end, underlining the excellent status of Baltic Sea parliamentary cooperation. About 25 participants from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Poland and Sweden attended the deliberations. Introduction Working Group chairman Philipp da Cunha welcomed the members to their eighth and final meeting in Gdańsk, highlighting the city’s long and varied history and merits in Baltic Sea cooperation. Working Group vice-chairman Jarosław Wałęsa , member of the hosting Polish parliament, also underlined his hometown’s tradition of jointly finding solutions but pointed out the new geopolitical reality demanding that the Baltic Sea countries pave the way towards the future together. The sustainable transition also had to be viewed within the social dimensions. United in solidarity, the Baltic Sea region could provide a strong example to the world in these measures. Mr Kacper Płażyński , also member of the hosting Polish parliament and member of the Working Group, introducing the experts, noted the importance of nuclear power plants, particularly for the Polish strategy of transitioning away from fossil fuels and towards low-carbon energy systems. Presentations Professor Dagmara Strumińska-Parulska , PhD, Assoc. Prof., Faculty of Chemistry, Laboratory of Toxicology and Radiation Protection, University of Gdańsk, spoke about natural radioactivity and radioactive contamination, which should be treated differently . She took the Polish point of view, mentioning that it equally applied to Europe. Poland’s energy policy until 2040 had three pillars: fair transition, zero-emission energy – including offshore wind energy and nuclear power –, and good air quality. The plan called for 25 % of the country’s future energy supply to come from six nuclear reactors. Despite some concerns, the population’s support for nuclear power was increasing and was already the highest in Europe. She insisted that nobody had died in the accident at the Fukushima power plant in Japan but only in the causing earthquake and tsunami. As for the planned Polish power plant near Gdańsk, Prof Strumińska-Parulska noted that her university was uniquely suited to overseeing the environmental effects. She explained the radiation dose limits set by Polish law, allowing 20 mSv for employees but only 1 mSv for other persons. These applied to natural radiation. Much lower legal limits were used for nuclear power plants, permitting 0.3 mSv per year. The professor addressed the Chernobyl nuclear accident, noting that its fallout had mostly avoided Poland, despite the proximity, and that recent studies had shown its impact to be much lower than initially expected. She cited that the impact of plutonium and caesium in, e.g., fish or mushrooms was very low. Furthermore, she pointed out that natural radiation was often forgotten in the discussion, reminding the audience that it was always present, e.g., in water or food. About half the radiation absorbed by a typical person in the UK originates from natural radon gas. Nuclear medicine accounted for 16 % and growing. The impact from other manmade radionuclides was very small, she said. Prof Strumińska-Parulska stressed that natural radiation accounted for the vast majority of the impact, listing as sources air, water, food, supplements, and cigarettes. She repeated that natural radiation in everyday food and drink was not mentioned in the debate about nuclear power. Listing several foodstuffs or supplements that her department had tested – such as algae or calcium pills –, she concluded that these carried much higher doses from natural sources, although she still described these as safe. Going back to radon gas, this was by far the greatest radiation source, as it was also emitted from walls. Moreover, it could concentrate in buildings, increasing human intake. Thus, the Euratom guideline limited indoor intake to 300 Bq/m 3 . The natural radiation made it difficult to calculate the dose absorbed by an individual, harkening back to the legal limits mentioned before. While the background radiation was comparatively low in Poland, in Iran, for instance, it amounted to 200 mSv. These had to be removed from the equation to determine the manmade effect. The problem in general here was that regulations targeted artificial radionuclides but did not measure the naturally occurring ones, even though they had a huge impact on humans and other biota. This led to a knowledge gap in science and also lacking awareness of the natural radioactivity in materials used in industry. Mr Płażyński inquired about the Chernobyl radiation and at what point it became dangerous for human health. Prof Strumińska-Parulska said the exclusion zone around the Chernobyl reactor was 30 kilometres. While humans were not supposed to live there, animals did – yet they did not suffer from cancer or other diseases connected with radiation. She further said that the Chernobyl accident had been connected to the experiment rather than the proper operating facility. In the case of the Fukushima accident, there had been less harmful agents involved and contamination had been contained. Prof Jānis Vucāns noted a visit of the BSPC Standing Committee to a nuclear facility in Belarus in 2016 and a Minsk hospital for children suffering from Chernobyl-caused diseases. Given that the wind had spread radiation, he wondered about analyses of wind directions for the planned Polish power plants and what countries would be affected. Prof Strumińska-Parulska conceded that this was part of the discussions with neighbouring countries before stating that the new plant would be very different from Chernobyl, precluding a similar accident to an extremely high probability. Even if such an accident occurred, the effects would be local only. Ms Claudia Müller noted that the Chernobyl effects might have avoided Poland but had affected vast swaths of other countries where e.g., mushrooms were still not allowed to be eaten. Prof Strumińska-Parulska said that they could be safely eaten. Ms Müller further pointed out that the Fukushima plant had been built to withstand earthquakes yet had suffered the accident. Moreover, there were higher cancer rates in the region than typical. Prof Strumińska-Parulska remarked that humans had evolved within average radiation and had accommodated that. As for cancer cases, she said there were many possible sources, such as toxic substances. It was very difficult to determine what was the actual cause. Moreover, she reiterated that the natural radiation was much higher. Prof Gudowski interjected to note that there were regulations for the safe construction of nuclear power plants which would be followed, provided an explanation for the sick children in Belarus, and assured Ms Müller that mushrooms were safe to eat. Ms Emma Nohrén pointed to the problems in Sweden with cooling water for the power plant and the expected warming of the water. Prof Strumińska-Parulska said that this had been taken into account in the planning. Prof Dr hab. Wacław Gudowski , National Centre for Nuclear Research – Świerk and Royal Institute of Technology – KTH, Stockholm, Senior Advisor to Orlen Synthos Green Energy – OSGE, spoke about small nuclear reactors (SMRs) which he explained were a worthy investment . The discussion of nuclear energy was biased towards the negative – due to Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and other incidents – but ignored the benefits. Medium-sized energy plants dominated Poland’s energy system, but most of these units were already forty-plus years old and would have to be shut down for age anyway. Gas had been seen as the solution before the war in Ukraine, yet it had been known since the early 1990s that leakage of natural gas of more than 7 % was more damaging to the environment than coal or oil. He pointed out that Russia’s leakage was double that. So, gas was a poor environmental choice, to begin with. The question was with what to replace the ageing energy infrastructure, specifically how to provide a base level of stable energy rather than the uncertain renewables. Even with the large nuclear programme of the state, there was a gap of 10 gigawatts, though, which would have to be filled. He noted the excellent district heating system of the country, although the same system was releasing large volumes of particle matter into the atmosphere. The choice of nuclear power instead of fossil fuel sources was evident to Prof Gudowski because it was highly efficient in its chain reaction. As for waste products, he noted that plutonium could be reused. 95 % of this material could be easily recycled. A few grams of uranium produced the same energy as one tonne of coal, corresponding to the needs of one person per year and creating just as little waste. That radioactive waste was kept under control all the time. He said that nuclear energy was the only low-emission energy source, even lower than geothermal or hydro power. In addition, small nuclear reactors in particular required less real estate to provide equivalent power than all other energy sources. Regarding the waste, he spoke about intermediate storage but insisted that most of the material that would go into a final storage was still recyclable. He further said that an area the size of two Olympic-size pools was enough to store all the nuclear waste from forty years of production in Sweden for up to 200 years in intermediate storage. Prof Gudowski spoke about the succeeding generations of nuclear power types, leading up to the generation four which he had been involved in devising. This should ensure the recycling of most fuel and be sustainable. Normal light water reactors employed uranium enriched up to 5 %. Waste was currently not being recycled. In the 2000s, interest in nuclear energy picked up enormously, producing several new designs that would be smaller and more efficient. Looking at the current needs of the country, Poland decided that the VWRX 300 model was the best choice, fitting the grid and being a mature design. The OECD had also rated this model as the most mature technology. Deploying small nuclear reactors of this type would save a great deal of CO 2 equivalent. Prof Gudowski highlighted the safety mechanism which did not require pumps and could easily shut down the reactor in case of a most serious accident. Furthermore, they did not require a lot of space, just about the size of a football pitch. Equally, construction time was a great deal shorter. As for costs, estimates ranged from 1 to 1.5 billion US dollars until starting energy production. This, though, applied to the first unit. Economies of scale and serial production would bring costs down to about half of that for the final power plants. He underlined that the deployment process was in full swing, including discussions with the licensing bodies, the government, the research community and the potential industrial customers. Site selection had been based on safety, environment, and economics. He concluded by asking whether nuclear energy was safe. The death rate per unit of production was 0.03, much lower than fossil fuel. He further underlined that nuclear power was not expensive at all. Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle noted that in her home country of Norway, hydro power dominated so that a nuclear plant had recently been decommissioned at a cost of 2.5 billion Euros. In line with that, she wondered about Prof Gudowski saying nuclear waste was easy to dispose of. Regarding SMRs she was interested in the maturation timeline. Prof Wacław Gudowski believed his chosen model would be ready to be built in 2030. As for the costs, he noted that Sweden had started a decommissioning fund when building the reactors, decades ahead of time, so that was already covered. Furthermore, money earned during operations should be set aside to take care of dismantling costs. Mr Simon Påvals asked whether the CO 2 costs of nuclear power included the mining of uranium. Prof Gudowski explained that his data were taken from the International Panel of Climate Change, including the whole lifecycle analysis. To a second question about storage, the professor explained that geological storage would be needed for nuclear ashes, but he expected recycling capabilities for uranium and plutonium. Ms Claudia Müller deepened the topic of the economic viability of SMRs and the necessary protection of nuclear sites from terrorism and theft. Prof Gudowski said that the stakeholders should not be the deciding factors. Conceding that security was needed, he put the responsibility first on the political level, second on the building level. Furthermore, SMRs distributed any risk from a single strike disrupting the energy supply. Prof Jānis Vucāns wished for clarification on the economy of scale which would be of greater importance to the Baltic states. Prof Gudowski answered that the solution had to be tailored to the needs of the customer, adding that costs had come down in other countries for large-scale reactors. Mr Philipp da Cunha wondered if nuclear energy would curtail renewable power in Poland. Prof Gudowski noted that renewable energy was prioritised in Poland as well, but he saw the future as hydrogen storing excess energy, despite the current over-enthusiasm among politicians. Mr Grzegorz Kupczak , Slovinski National Park (Słowiński Park Narodowy), explained that the park had the status of a biosphere reserve. One of the oldest reserves in Poland since 1997, the park had to fulfil three basic tasks: protection, development, and logistical support. As only the protective function had been fully met, the park had had to reinforce the other two in order to maintain its status as a biosphere reserve. Essentially building up a reserve from the ground up in-between 2015 and 2017, they had called on the help from stakeholders and set up a steering committee to pool resources and efforts. Located in the middle of Pomerania, the reserve had originally covered only the area of the national park itself and its buffer zone. As part of the agreement with stakeholders, that area had been considerably enlarged. Currently, they were still seeking to establish a buffer zone in the Baltic Sea. He underlined that the biosphere did not represent a nature protection zone – that was restricted to the national park itself. Instead, the biosphere reserve coordinated all kinds of land use, allowing both settlement and development to varying degrees. He next spoke about the name which originated in the ethnic group of Slovinski, i.e., the Slovenian people in the area who spoke their own dialect of the North-Polish Kashub language. Still, they had been treated as Germans after World War II, many of them forced to emigrate to Germany. Now Poland recognised their heritage and culture. Cultural heritage, Mr Kupczak underlined, was an important part of biosphere reserves and was reflected in an open-air museum in Kluki. Slovinski was part of the cooperation Biosphere for Baltic which had been launched in 2017 and included, among others, reserves in Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Estonia. The network was raising awareness of sustainability challenges in the Baltic Sea, highlighting the interconnectedness of land and sea as well as serving as pilot implementations of the sustainable development goals. The focus was on two broad themes: Source to Sea concerned the effects of human activities across rivers and deltas into the Baltic Sea, while Ocean Literacy promoted a better understanding of the ocean and its interaction with people. Biosphere for Baltic had set itself the goals of increasing the reserves’ dialogue, raising awareness among the stakeholders as well as exchanging experiences, best practices and ideas. The cooperation was implemented through exchange events, workshops, a joint Interreg project about learning sites to combat eutrophication in the planning stage and celebrating the Day of the Baltic Sea. Together, they had published booklets about projects and sustainable products, in support of the local markets. This was a strong network, Mr Kupczak underlined, benefitting each other. BSPC Secretary General Bodo Bahr referred to recent international agreements on maritime protection; he wondered if Poland was planning to expand its biosphere reserves. Mr Kupczak conceded that he did not know the answer. Almost all of the eleven reserves in Poland were connected to the national park. Expansion was planned for then national park, but these efforts were difficult because local communities were wary of the perceived limitations within reserves, although he was still hopeful. Since the biosphere reserves were not enshrined in Polish law, they were voluntary in nature. Ms Beate Schlupp asked how many private owners had joined this cooperation, noting that biosphere reserves did mean limitations in Germany. Mr Kupczak praised the German reserves before noting the differences between countries. His organisation did not have a private partner, but they were cooperating with their stakeholders and providing benefits, such as e.g., promoting their products. Mr Alexander Mohrenberg was curious about how to protect wandering sand dunes. Mr Kupczak explained that the 300 hectares of moving dunes in Slovinski national park were strictly protected, adding that they were shifting by ten to twelve metres per year. Tourist trails led through the dunes, along with education infrastructure. Chairman da Cunha noted that this day’s presentations would be featured in the final report, as were all the expert presentations from the working group’s three years. Working Group Calls for Action Chaired by Philipp da Cunha and Jarosław Wałęsa , the Working Group discussed the calls for action in the 32 nd Resolution of the BSPC at the Berlin Conference. The draft was based on the expert presentations, discussions, and input during the three years of the working group’s existence. Mr Kacper Płażyński , Ms Claudia Müller , Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle , Chairman Philipp da Cunha , Prof Jānis Vucāns , Mr Jarosław Wałęsa, Secretary General Bodo Bahr , Ms Emma Nohrén , Mr Simon Påvals and Mr Alexander Mohrenberg contributed to the discussion about the wording of the various calls. In particular, Mr Płażyński favoured a diversification of supplies in technology and resources, not to rely on challenging countries. Regarding the proposed inclusion of nuclear power in the calls, there were differing opinions from the various BSPC delegations, respective to their countries’ political approaches. Mr Bahr suggested a phrasing in line with e.g., the notes of the EU Commission during the CBSS offshore wind conference the week before in Berlin and the result of the working groups discussion one year before in Mariehamn to reflect the nations’ diverging energy strategies. This found the working group’s unanimous approval. Another point of discussion was how to involve the local level as a crucial aspect of climate change and biodiversity efforts. The call concerning carbon sequestration concerning forests also drew some discussion and the desire to mention various other areas, such as peatlands or mangroves. The issue of land degradation and forest management was also discussed to sharpen the call and create consensus. Finally, the working group considered the lack of transparency about actions and behaviour of the Russian Federation in the Baltic Sea which might hinder the goal of a clean and sustainable ocean to be taken into account by the BSPC Standing Committee for the 32 nd resolution. After further discussion, the Working Group unanimously agreed on 25 calls for action to the governments for inclusion in the 32 nd BSPC resolution and adoption by the Annual Conference. These recommendations also considered the proposals of the previous Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, in line with the results of the earlier consultations ( recommendations here ). Other Matters Chairman Philipp da Cunha noted that the governments’ answers to the working group’s survey had been detailed and informative, including the subsequent question regarding the policy changes due to the war in Ukraine. These statements were published on the BSPC website. The same applied to the working group’s previous calls for action to the governments incorporated in the 31 st BSPC Resolution. Prof Jānis Vucāns explained that Estonia, after its recent elections, was still forming its BSPC delegation so that there was a small delay with that government’s reaction. The working group agreed to include all the governmental statements received in the final report. In addition, the report would follow the format of previous versions and would also include the results of the present meeting. The working group agreed on the procedure to complete the final report for its presentation to the BSPC Annual Conference in Berlin. Furthermore, the working group agreed to attach an executive summary of the final report. The chairman further informed the group that the fourth session of the Berlin Conference would be devoted to the working group’s topic of climate change and biodiversity. This was when the final report would be presented.

The BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity assembled in Tromsø, Norway, dealing with expert presentations and the newest research results from the Norwegian Polar Institute, the Institute of Marine Research and the Arctic Council. The working group dealt with the dramatic effects of climate change in the Arctic and its impact on biodiversity, with consequences for the entire planet. About 20 participants from the Baltic Assembly, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Poland and Sweden attended the deliberations. Introduction Working group chair Mr Philipp da Cunha opened the session in Tromsø, Norway. He highlighted the importance of seeing the rapid changes wrought by climate change in person in the Arctic where the effects were progressing at three to four times the speed of the rest of the world. The expert presentations were introduced by Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle who underlined that the Norwegian Polar Institute was the premier institution on environmental monitoring, mapping of both Polar regions. Presentations Ms Nalan Koc , Research Director, Norwegian Polar Institute , explained that Norway believed research provided the basis for excellent management of the High North. Twenty institutions, like the Polar Institute, were united under the research umbrella. Her own institution, launched originally in 1906, was a directorate immediately associated with the Norwegian ministry of the environment, providing scientific research and management advice to the government regarding the polar regions. They handled topological and geographic mapping of Svalbard, Jan Mayen and Norwegian claims and territories in Antarctica. In the Arctic, they focused on Svalbard, Jan Mayen, the Arctic Ocean, and the Barents Sea, while in Antarctica, Dronning Maud Land, Peter I Øy, Bouvetøya and adjacent seas were their centres of attention. Their understanding of these regions fed directly into their management. Headquartered at the Fram Centre, Tromsø, it had research facilities in Sverdrup and Ny Ålesund as well as its own research vessel, the icebreaker Kronprins Haakon , and a zeppelin observatory. Thus, they were covering both land- and sea-based research in the Arctic and Antarctica. A wide array of research infrastructure had been established at both the North and South Pole which they were sharing, e.g., through an EU-monitored project called ARICE (Arctic Research ICEbreaker Council). Thus, the Kronprins Haakon was made available for international researchers without such marine resources available to them. A class 3 icebreaker, the ship could operate throughout the entire year, providing berths for 35 scientists on expeditions of up to 65 days. Moreover, the Svalbard Integrated Arctic Earth Observing System was a cooperating research infrastructure for improved knowledge of environmental and climatic change in the Arctic. The local instrumentation was open to other academics. Furthermore, there was a database providing all the research data gathered so far. The Polar Institute coordinated the research to make it as effective as possible. Since 1968, the Ny-Ålesund Research Station had served as an observatory, laboratory and field base for arctic research and environmental monitoring. It was also open to any researchers interested in the work. First set up in 2005, the station Troll in Antarctica was operating year-round with a minimum crew of 6 persons. Ms Koc described the wide and interdisciplinary range of natural science studies implemented in the Polar Institute’s work, considering among others climate change and monitoring, biodiversity, glaciers, and oceanography. She underlined that these efforts were indispensable but also very expensive. At the same time, to cover these huge areas, international cooperation was crucial. During the field work, ice cores had been harvested that documented the last 800,000 years of the climate. These showed that the current, human-caused levels of carbon dioxide were unprecedented, exceeding the maximums of ca. 300 ppm during the interglacial periods and reaching peaks of 420 ppm today. As for temperatures, a global rise of about 1 °C could be documented since the first records in 1880. The land areas were warming faster than the oceans. Furthermore, the Arctic was warming three to four times quicker than the rest of the globe. This “Arctic Amplification” also meant that containing global warming to 1.5 °C by the end of the century, as per the Paris Agreement, would still correspond to a rise of 3 – 5 °C in the Arctic. Already, the summer ice was thinning rapidly, reaching extreme lows in ice coverage in 2007 and 2012. Overall, some 40 % of ice coverage had been lost since 1980. With less solar energy reflected back by ice, the oceans were warming even faster, creating and reinforcing the amplification effect. At the same time, the winter storm cycle had accelerated, contributing to breaking up sea ice. Ms Koc quoted the IPCC predictions, indicating very little sea ice in the Arctic summer by mid-century. She added that the models for Arctic climate modelling were too conservative, though, and had to be updated to reflect current data, in particular the thinner ice layers, and new research. On the Polar Institute’s 2022 Arctic Cruise, two new moorings were installed to monitor data in addition to the 30-year-old moorings in the Fram Strait. This was to investigate what was happening in the central Arctic Ocean, specifically changes to the hydrography or chemistry and their effects on the ecosystem. In addition, they were pursuing the project SUDARCO with partner organisations in order to research risks to value chains and ecosystem services. Focusing on Svalbard, Ms Koc explained that local temperatures had risen by 6 °C in the past 100 years, leading to shrinking glaciers and now the occurrence of rain rather than snow, generating ice on the ground. Previously, fauna could dig through snow to get to the vegetation below, but ice proved an impenetrable barrier. Ms Koc concluded that there is hardly any region on earth warming as fast as the Arctic Ocean, opening up previously inaccessible areas and already affecting the ecosystem. Thus, new data was needed to enable effective management. Furthermore, Arctic changes were affecting the weather patterns in the whole northern hemisphere: What had been a relatively stable polar jet stream had become wavy, sending cold air as far south as Florida in the US and drawing warm air as far as Svalbard. At the same time, pollution was also pulled northwards into the pristine Arctic region. BSPC Secretary General Bodo Bahr raised the question about the intensity of political and public awareness and reactions, citing United Nations Secretary General António Guterres who pointed out a few days before at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that “our world is at a crossroads and our planet is at the crosshairs”, that “we are nearing the point of no return” and that “we are at the tip of the tipping point”. Ms Nalan Koc noted that the Polar Institute was advising and informing the Norwegian government. Ms Westgaard-Halle added that politics was aware of the severity of the problem, but there was a gap to the understanding of the public. BSPC President Johannes Schraps underlined that politicians had to make decisions rather than scientists informing them. Prof Jānis Vucāns asked for clarification if sea ice was now melting from both above and below which Ms Koc confirmed. Mr Andrius Mazuronis pointed to the global nature of carbon dioxide emissions, in particular huge countries such as China, India or Russia, inquiring about interest from these countries. Mr Jarosław Wałęsa wondered about the natural share of the otherwise human-caused increase in CO 2 . Ms Westgaard-Halle asked if there was ocean acidification. Ms Nalan Koc confirmed that the Polar Institute was working on acidification and chemical composition of the Arctic Ocean and would publish a respective paper soon. She further explained that they could derive trends from their data, showing that warming effects would happen faster than predicted in the IPCC report. As for international interest and participation, she pointed to a wide range of nations, including scientists from China, South Korea, Japan, India – going well beyond the Arctic countries. Dr Lis Lindal Jørgensen , Institute of Marine Research , explained that the environment was shifting very fast. Thus, adaptation to these changes was necessary. The title of her speech posited whether a 100 % sustainable management was possible. One of the largest such institutions in Europe, the Institute of Marine Research was concerned with monitoring, research, and advisory work. It was associated with the ministry of fishery. They provided the catch advice on 80 fish stocks as well as advising all aquaculture in Norway. At the same time, they researched the entire ecosystem towards the goal of an ecosystem-based management. The Institute had set itself the vision of clean and rich oceans and coastal areas. Part of that was sustaining biodiversity and halting the loss of species. A biodiverse ecosystem might suffer many pressures but had the potential to evade them, while a monoculture with one or two species could be wiped out with relatively little pressure. She explained that the former described the resilience of the ecosystem. Moreover, a preservation of biodiversity was called for by the UN’s new International Biodiversity Agreement, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and international agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. Dr Jørgensen noted that Norway was an ocean country – its sea area was six times larger than the landmass. Including all the fjords and bays, its coastline stretched for 25,000 kilometres. Moreover, the Norwegian sea had a mean depth of 2,000 metres. That meant a huge challenge for management. To that end, the Institute deployed a minimum of two ships at any time on the oceans, increasing to a whole fleet in the summer. Concerning the Arctic, she offered more details on the Barents Sea. The survey cooperation there had been going for a century by now, with more than 400 stations monitoring biodiversity, the entire water column, the climate – temperature, salinity etc. –, zooplankton, fish, pelagic and benthic species, marine mammals as well as sea birds. Their ships were packed with scientists of all disciplines. In the Barents Sea, the volume of Arctic water had been shrinking since the 1960s while the share of Atlantic water had been rising. Likewise, the Atlantic biodiversity of fish was expanding northward whereas the Arctic species were decreasing. Arctic fish were small and lived on the seabed, some 230 metres below the surface in the Barents Sea. As the sea floor further north dropped to 4,000 metres, they had to migrate eastwards. However, some fish species’ stocks were currently improving, although the warming of the water limited that expansion. All of these processes had to be understood, she insisted. Looking at the thousands of species on the sea bed, Dr Jørgensen noted that the Institute had found that fish trawls contained up to 100 species of benthos, allowing cost-effective surveillance with onboard capacities. This showed that since 2005, there had been a general change of dominance from Arctic to boreal species. Based on the findings of where vulnerable species were found, corridors had been locked off from trawling. Since 2019, those areas freshly freed from ice were being researched and temporarily banned before corridors could be established. Conversely, the fishermen’s work in the acceptable areas was rated as sustainable. Putting together the data on fish and benthic species with those on marine mammals, birds and zooplankton, the Institute was seeking to build a holistic understanding of how the ecosystem was functioning. Cross- and trans-disciplinary approaches were necessary for that; at the same time, this was the way forward. Moreover, more cost- and time-efficient monitoring had to be implemented. To establish 100 % sustainable ocean management, she called for an integrated management approach combining all the measures, from completely restricted to entirely free-use areas. A whole web of measures had to be put in place, based on the whole of understanding of the ecosystem. Yet, this also had to take into account the entirety of human activities affecting the ecosystem. As an example, she noted the noise coming from trawling or tourism. That would lead to a holistic risk assessment of the area for the respective species. In the view of Dr Jørgensen, this should be distilled into a simplified risk map, much like the weather forecast, so that it would be easy to see what actions were to be taken. An example would be that beluga whales were travelling through one area from June to August, so that should be avoided. All of this meant an ecosystem-based approach – a comprehensive system of management based on the best available scientific data. Dr Jørgensen underlined that very few of these areas and measures were constrained to one nation, making peaceful international cooperation indispensable. At the same time, it was also necessary to unite divergent views of sustainability; here, she mentioned Arctic indigenous peoples compared to multinational companies. She concluded by posing a number of questions to the politicians that were needed to direct the ecosystem-based approach, such as the objectives or the international interaction. Ms Anna Kassautzki mentioned that Germany was seeking a way to make fishery ecologically and economically sustainable, in the face of a huge crisis in the Baltic Sea. This was done in conjunction with the industry and with science. Currently, they were developing a database with all the information. Ms Emma Nohrén saw a deficiency in the data reflecting caught fish in tonnes but not the age or health composition. Mr Johannes Schraps inquired how the Russian aggression against Ukraine was impacting the Institute’s work, as the Arctic waters were shared. Prof Jānis Vucāns considered only the holistic perception of the Baltic Sea viable, raising the issue of invasive species that had to be resolved internationally. Mr Philipp da Cunha wondered if there was a best practice example for the integrated management approach. Mr Bodo Bahr wondered if the Norwegian Institute was also cooperating with researchers from the Baltic Sea or other oceans. In that respect, he mentioned HELCOM and their decades-long work. Dr Lis Lindal Jørgensen said she read a lot about HELCOM’s work, and some of her colleagues were cooperating. International programmes were highly important in her view. Moving on, she explained there would be an international conference in the next year elaborating the integrated management approach. She noted that the data need was immense. Regarding the Ukraine war, she conceded that there were considerable challenges, but on the fisheries’ work, Norway had decided to continue the scientific collaboration. Ms Kristina Bär , Head of Communications, Arctic Council Secretariat, gave an overview of the Arctic Council . The secretariat was the administrative body, she explained. The Arctic Council was the leading intergovernmental forum promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among Arctic states and Arctic indigenous peoples. As such, it was a soft law organisation, established in 1996 to focus on environmental issues and sustainable development. Among their fields of interest were Arctic peoples, biodiversity, climate, the ocean, pollutants, and emergencies. The eight Arctic states were those that had territories above the Arctic circle. Furthermore, the six permanent participants were organisations representing either one or several indigenous peoples – covering 40 peoples of 650,000 individuals in total – living in the Arctic. Ms Bär highlighted the unique feature that these had full consultation rights with any decisions. Moving on, there were six working groups and one expert group dealing with different issues, such as contaminants, monitoring and assessment, or sustainable development. In addition, there were 38 observers: 13 non-Arctic states, 13 intergovernmental and interparliamentary organisations, and 12 non-governmental organisations. She underlined that these contributed expertise in working groups rather than being passive. Looking at the working group concerned with biodiversity, namely, Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), she said that the findings were taken to the government and the residents. Monitoring, assessment, and expert research provided a good overview of the Arctic’s biodiversity thanks to their Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme (CBMP). This brought together national experts, governments, indigenous people to look at the core ecosystems in the Arctic: freshwater, marine, terrestrial, and coastal. They also investigated Arctic migratory birds as well as wildfires and mainstreaming biodiversity in mining operations. Every two years, there was a ministerial meeting setting the overall course. The chairmanship was rotated at this meeting, so that the current Russian chairmanship would be transferred to Norway in May 2023. The Senior Arctic Officials – usually government representatives – were overseeing the regular work which happened in the subsidiaries, the working and expert groups. The secretariat, funded by the 8 Arctic states, supported the work of the council’s chair. One of the major achievements of the Arctic Council were three legally binding agreements negotiated under their auspices, concerning enhanced international scientific cooperation, cooperation on marine oil pollution, and search and rescue. Mr Rolf Rødven , Arctic Council, Executive Secretary for the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, explained that they were monitoring and assessing the levels of pollutants, the impact of climate change, and the effects on the ecosystem. With their scientific assessments, this programme advised both the Arctic Council as well as organisations like the IPCC or the WHO as well as HELCOM. Their work included harmonising data to ensure that measurement errors were eliminated. As for climate change, the Arctic was getting much warmer, three times faster than the rest of the world – 3 degrees since 1971. Precipitation had increased by 10 %, with a lot more rain than snow. The permafrost was thawing while the sea ice had shrunk by half and land ice had also decreased. The layers in the sea were mixing more strongly. That, he pointed out, was affecting the societies living in the Arctic. The 4 million people mostly lived in small settlements, with some 64 % located on permafrost. The hunting season had shortened due to sludge. Transport generally was limited as driving on permafrost was no longer possible in many areas. Just in Alaska, permafrost thaw was expected to increase the infrastructure maintenance cost by 5.5 billion US dollars by 2100. Another effect was ocean acidification, showing some of the fastest rates in the Arctic. This worked to dissolve snail shells, endangering the animals. The combined warming and growing acidification greatly increased the mortality of juvenile cod in the Barents Sea. Thus, the permitted catch quota had to be lowered to one sixth, reducing the revenue from 285 million US dollars to just 37. To counter this gloomy scenario, Mr Rødven mentioned the various pledges at recent COPs to reduce carbon dioxide as well as methane in order to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. Mr Jens Toft , Arctic Council Secretariat, Project Coordinator on Youth Engagement, talked about the manifold interaction of CAFF with youth engagement. One of them was the Arctic Youth Summit, held in 2018 in Finland, which had dealt with biodiversity. The resulting Arctic Youth declaration had called for empowering Arctic youth voices, increased opportunities, and raising awareness of Arctic issues. Another organisation was the Arctic Youth Network, connecting more than 800 Arctic young people, aiming to give young people a greater voice in Arctic affairs. CAFF had facilitated youth exchanges between their member states, permanent participants, and observers. Moreover, they had arranged fellowships with the International Arctic Science Committee and the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists as well as internships. Online tool kits had been provided for teachers and young students, translated into various languages, such as Sami or Russian. Finally, a Youth Advisory Team had helped CAFF guide their Arctic youth engagement strategy. This was a six-year project outlining the need and value of youth engagement to develop creative solutions, supporting diversity, lowering of barriers and professional growth. One of the goals was to have the youths develop skills in biodiversity and related fields to take home and apply there. BSPC President Johannes Schraps pointed out the BSPC’s youth engagement through the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum. He suggested an invitation of Arctic Youths to the forum in August. He asked about Russia’s involvement in the Arctic Council. Ms Nohrén wondered what topics were of interest to youths. Mr da Cunha inquired whether young people were leaving the environmentally challenged areas. Given shared interests (and a number of member states), he proposed a collaboration for the future. Prof Vucāns was interested in the Arctic view of the planned project of a Nordic Silk Road. Mr Bahr wondered if there was work on legally binding agreements in combating climate change. Mr Jens Toft explained that he was working on recommendations how to increase the outreach material to youths and increase their involvement. In general, youths had to be included in matters affecting them, in a meaningful way. He confirmed that young people in the Arctic regions were moving south to more resilient areas. At the same time, national initiatives sought to increase the attractiveness of northern regions. Ms Kristina Bär added that a project – currently on hold – dealt with Arctic demography displaying gender balance, age distribution and the like in each region. That showed quite a variety of these factors. Regarding the ministerial meeting, she explained that the Russian chairmanship was planning on hosting it in Siberia. It would be in hybrid form. On the idea of a Nordic Silk Road, she explained that this project was more on the national level and therefore not a topic of the Arctic Council. Mr Rolf Rødven explained that climate agreements were usually negotiated based on national conventions and were not as binding as other international agreements. Rather than that, the Arctic Council’s recommendations were taken into account by the national governments. He doubted that in the current conditions, a joint legal agreement of the eight Arctic states was likely. Otherwise, despite the challenges in the past year, their work was ongoing, targeting a new report for 2024. Survey among the Governments Working Group Chairman Philipp da Cunha explained that the working group had directed a survey at the BSPC governments concerning climate change and biodiversity. The detailed replies had been published in a compilation on the BSPC website. An additional question on the effects of the war in Ukraine on climate policy goals and their implementation had been submitted with the last resolution. Should the answers affect the recommendations by the working group, the chairman invited the members to submit such considerations by 17 April 2023. The 32 nd BSPC Annual Conference in Berlin Regarding the conference, BSPC President Johannes Schraps remarked that a session was dedicated to the topic of the working group. That was still in the planning stage, with several speakers confirmed, although he considered inviting Dr Lis Lindal Jørgensen from the earlier presentations since her considerations might prove enlightening. He underlined that this was a vital session since the Final Report of the working group would be presented there. The report would become an integral part of this year’s resolution. Prof Jānis Vucāns asked about chairpersons for the sessions, volunteering the Baltic States for the session on peaceful neighbourliness. Mr Schraps and Mr Bahr explained that proposals from the delegations would be asked for, and the matter would be approached before the next Standing Committee meeting. The Final Report of the Working Group WG Chairman Philipp da Cunha remarked that the Final Report could be structured like the Interim Reports, with the detailed contents available on the website. BSPC President Johannes Schraps suggested to take into account to involve previous members of the Working Group, among them the former chairwoman, Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby, in the preparation of the report. Secretary General Bodo Bahr considered that a chapter on best practice examples from the individual countries could be added, as per the suggestions of the delegations. Prof Jānis Vucāns and Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle discussed the report. Further Matters BSPC WG CCB Chairman Philipp da Cunha noted that the governments had been asked to comment on the BSPC’s resolution from Stockholm. The regional parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern had accepted the resolution as a whole, he noted. Secretary General Bodo Bahr added that a reply from the German federal government had already been received. A compilation would be put together and distributed. Mr Jesper Josefsson of the Åland delegation and Mr Jarosław Wałęsa, Head of the Polish delegation to the BSPC were appointed Vice-Chairmen of the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity. Regarding the upcoming final meeting of the working group in May in Gdansk, WG Vice-Chair Jarosław Wałęsa , BSPC President Johannes Schraps and Ms Anna Kassautzki discussed the programme and suggested speakers or invitees. Polaria Tour After the negotiations, a guided Polaria tour through the world’s most northerly aquarium opened a deep insight into the Arctic environment. One of the highlights was a panoramic film showcasing the singularity of the Arctic. It was a mesmerising experience that gave the WG a glimpse into the unique natural phenomena in the Arctic. The tour also included a presentation about the impact of climate change on the Arctic ecosystem and its effects on the polar bear population. The presentation highlighted the importance of conservation efforts and individuals’ role in protecting the Arctic environment. It was an eye-opening experience that underlined the urgency of taking action to protect our planet. Another exciting part of the tour was a training session for the seals. The WG witnessed the trainers working with the seals and teaching them various skills. It was fascinating to see the intelligence and agility of these animals up close. Ms Anne Grete Johansen , the director of Polaria, provided a presentation about the Polaria future plans . The WG also discussed international cooperation with similar institutions in this field. The guided Polaria Tour was ideal for learning about the Arctic environment and its challenges. It was an excellent opportunity to witness the beauty and uniqueness of the Arctic and learn more about the efforts being made to protect it. Polar Museum Furthermore, the BSPC WG CCB Took a guided tour of the Polar Museum Tromsø. The participants valued that an impressive experience. The museum is dedicated to showcasing the cultural history of the Arctic and the polar expeditions that have taken place throughout history. During the tour, the WG learned about the many explorers who have ventured into the Arctic, including Roald Amundsen, Fridtjof Nansen, and Umberto Nobile, and saw the artefacts and equipment used on the expeditions. The participants also learned about the history of whaling in the Arctic and its impact on the region’s environment. Additionally, the museum features exhibits on the indigenous people of the Arctic, including the Sami people and their traditional way of life. The participants had the opportunity to see traditional clothing, tools, and other artefacts that showcase the rich cultural heritage of the Arctic. The presentation in the Polar Museum was a fascinating and informative experience on the history of Arctic exploration and the region’s cultural heritage. The participants of the WG meeting deepened the discussed issues and the day’s experiences in further conversations.

Across two days, the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity assembled in the German federal state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, visiting sites and listening to expert presentations. Topics on the first day included an eco-certificate programme, the state of the forests, ocean research as well as green hydrogen production, storage and transportation along with wind farm planning and implementation and the needed development of the electric grid. The second day dealt with peatland restoration efforts in biosphere reserves, at the European scale with a view to changing agricultural practices as well as a small start-up company growing medicinal plants on peatland. About 40 participants from the Baltic Assembly, Finland, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden attended the two days deliberations. Introduction The BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity was welcomed to Schwerin Castle in the German federal state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern by the Landtag’s president, Ms Birgit Hesse , noting the timeliness and urgency of the topic of the working group. In that respect, she pointed out Mecklenburg-Vorpommern setting an all-time heat record for the first time since 1994 but also stressed the recent environmental disaster in the Oder river with mass fish deaths. Ms Hesse highlighted the state parliament’s engagement in international efforts, particularly those of the BSPC. In her own welcome, Chairwoman Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby underlined the deep historical ties between Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and her own home country of Sweden. She further stressed the importance of youth work and that the BSPC had incorporated recommendations of young people in their annual resolutions. The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Conference Regarding youth participation, Ms Aline Mayr from the Secretariat of the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) and coordinator of the Baltic Sea Youth Platform underlined the cooperation in implementing this year’s Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, its success and a return of the format in 2023. She further spoke about the great success of the youth platform of the CBSS which had been and would be holding several events providing youth input. The primary goal was the integration of young people into policymaking in a meaningful way. Their recommendations should be taken up in the work of both the CBSS and the BSPC. Two representatives of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, Mr Andreas Schoop from Germany and Ms Simona Jakaitė from Lithuania, also members of the Baltic Sea Youth Platform, presented the recommendations of the forum . On forests, wetlands and biodiversity, the young people called for the protection of biodiversity, in particular for increased carbon sequestration through restoration of forests and wetlands as well as natural rivers. Furthermore, strategies for dealing with transboundary emergencies caused by climate change or pollution had been seen as necessary; the present Oder river disaster spanning Poland and Germany underlined the urgency. The innovation topic had been connected with the energy topic with the call for the fulfilment of the Paris Agreement and phasing out fossil fuels. More investments should go to renewable energy sources. Mr Schoop stressed this importance in light of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine and its effects. Furthermore, the young people viewed the circular economy as the best choice in the face of climate change and should thus be implemented, with the entire lifecycle of a product to be considered from the start. On the topic of resilient cities, young people wanted them to be green, more affordable, healthier and allowing free movement, albeit with car-free zones. Future design processes of resilient cities should involve minority groups from various backgrounds. The final topic of the recommendations was the resilience of the sea and coastlines. Here, they called for legally binding quotas for fishing which should incorporate a wide view rather than focus on single species. Furthermore, the removal of sea-dumped ammunitions – a priority area of the BSPC German Presidency – was important to young people. The influx of nutrients from agriculture into the Baltic Sea should be curbed, with a unified water deposit system for the whole Baltic Sea region, the regulation of single-use plastics and pesticides as well as investments to make shipping greener. BSPC President Johannes Schraps underlined that the recommendations would find their way into the BSPC annual resolution. He further noted the wealth of recommendations by the young people at the Youth Forum and the difficulty in compressing these into two for each topic. The president agreed that cross-border cooperation was crucial, in light of forest fires but particularly with the Oder river disaster. Presentations on Forests and the Sea Dr Sandra Kleine , Ministry for Climate Protection, Agriculture, Rural Areas and the Environment of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, spoke about climate protection and conservation in the German federal state . Dr Kleine noted the carbon sequestration benefits of forests, peatlands and even hedges. Such ecosystem services had to be translated into economic value, by making them visible, assessable and investable. In 2007, the federal state in conjunction with academic institutions had developed eco-securities, i.e., certificates enabling private investments into ecosystem services, such as 1 tonne of CO 2 per certificate. As voluntary investments, eco-securities complemented the mandatory market in climate protection. With the government providing the framework, this allowed rural areas to funnel in urban money for their ecosystem services. Moving on, Dr Kleine highlighted functional peatlands as the most powerful terrestrial carbon storage, yet drained peatlands were greenhouse gas emitters. Peatland restoration of the vast drained areas in the state thus was a highly effective mitigation measure. The so-called peatland futures were the respective certificate, based on the mitigated emissions of rewetted peatlands. All in all, the various eco-securities represented a strong regional brand in climate mitigation that could be easily communicated to the public. In particular the peatland certificates were also traded in three other German federal states – Lower Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein and Brandenburg –, comprising two thirds of all the peatland areas in Germany. The primary benefit was that rewetting of peatlands immediately stopped greenhouse gas emissions, but the restoration also aided in preserving biodiversity as well as improving water management, including flood regulation and retention of nutrients. Chairwoman Tenfjord-Toftby wondered what the peatlands were currently used for. Dr Kleine confirmed that most were in agricultural use; farmers were compensated through selling their land. At a question by Ms Silke Backsen , Schleswig-Holstein, Dr Kleine reported an interest of landowners to cooperate with the process. Ms Anna Kassautzki contributed that farmers were open to selling land and cooperating as long as they could continue their business, amidst changing regulations and demanding times. Johannes Schraps saw these eco-securities as another example of a best practice that could be transferred to other regions. To his questions, Dr Kleine explained that after the shift from Kyoto to the Paris Agreement, the certificate system was currently under revision so that sales would resume at some point in the future. Then, they would be sold as helping the public good rather than serving as compensation. Mr Alexander Mohrenberg asked if the project could be expanded to the national level and who the investors were. Dr Kleine saw increasing interest from companies all across Germany. She underlined the communication aspect of the futures, carrying the message into new target groups. As for the national level, she noted their connection to the German Emission Trade Authority. Secretary General Bodo Bahr asked for a clarification of the ratio between emissions generated in the state and the sequestration potential of the peatlands. Ms Mai Kivelä, Finland was interested in the working of the carbon market in Germany. Dr Kleine explained that compensation was no longer possible. To her knowledge, there was no regulation of the market. Mr Marcus Kühling , Team Leader, Competence and Information Centre Forest and Wood, Agency for Renewable Resources, spoke about the forests in Germany . Covering 32 % of the territory, Germany was one of the most-forested countries in Europe. Since WW II, more than 1.5 million hectares of forest had been restored, showing the identification of the German people with their forests. For the most part, the ownership lay with the citizens and the municipalities. The relative paucity of tree species – only 76 compared with more than 200 in the US – made adapting to the changing climate difficult. Spruce, pine, beech and oak were the most common, accounting for 76 % of the forest area. Without human impact, Germany would be covered almost completely by primarily beech forests. Sustainable forest management had ensured Germany’s forests to have the highest growing stock in Europe. Climate change-triggered drought had killed off 220 million m², most of them spruce trees. Apart from drought, windstorms were the leading abiotic cause of damage to woods, followed by snow and ice. Traditionally a minor factor, forest fires had recently become a greater danger. The drought had also promoted insect infestation, leading to nearly 60 % of harvested trees having suffered insect damage. As in all of Europe, air and soil moisture in Germany had decreased significantly in the past three decades, despite locally stronger rainfall. By 2100, all spruce and most beech trees were projected to have died off. To help sustain the forests, the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture had instituted several aid packages to forest owners, among them a forest sustainability premium and an investment program for climate-friendly wood construction. Currently, a 900 million euro funding instrument was being worked on, to reward the ecosystem service of the forest and climate-adapted forest management. Another dimension of aid was provided by research, development and demonstration, looking to find practical solutions. The difficulty lay in the very long-term nature of the forests, so that results were only visible after several generations. Mr Kühling noted a few example projects, such as one against forest fires, dealing with abandoned military proving grounds as well as deadwood in forests, and another assessing the future viability of different tree species. Other efforts introduced new species like Douglas firs and redwoods, analysing their survivability and effect. There were also European-level projects on developing a research and innovation roadmap as well as on innovating a forest-based bioeconomy. Mr Kühling pointed out the wealth of information generated by research institutes, but it had to be reworked to fit the scope of a forest owner so the latter could make use of the information. This was a task the speaker’s agency was working on, through brochures, field trips and the like. Mr Kühling concluded by noting the wide range of ecosystem services provided by forests, going well beyond timber and including water, biodiversity, food and the more. He underlined that it was necessary to use the forest, so that the key point was how to use the woods sustainably. Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle , Norway asked about the reception by local politicians. Mr Mohrenberg wondered if the rising timber prices had changed private forest owners’ reaction to these projects. Ms Tenfjord-Toftby noted the different views on how to use forests across Europe, asking for reflections on that. For Mr Kühling , politicians were – perhaps – not sufficiently focused on what tasks should be prioritised, although he agreed that most measures were vital. He further preferred timber as a construction but also heating material in the present energy crisis. As for rising timber prices, he noted that raw wood prices – due to die-offs – had been low while processed timber had garnered higher prices. As raw wood prices were rising, forest owners were proud of earning their living with the work of generations, so that more than just money was needed to involve them in state projects. Mr Kühling pointed out that forest management systems differed even within Germany, for one thing between private and state-owned woods. The forests themselves were also different across the continent so that clear-cutting – forbidden in Germany – could be beneficial for biodiversity in other locations, simulating the effects of forest fires. Therefore, a diverse mix of measures was the right choice in his opinion. Prof Dr Uwe Freiherr von Lukas , Ocean Technology Campus Rostock (OTC), focused on Co-Innovation for Smart Ocean Technologies . Blue growth was an important factor for science as well as the economy, concerning maritime tourism, shipyards, fishing and aquaculture. Renewable energies in the Baltic Sea region generally meant offshore wind farms. Here, the new German government had set ambitious targets for increasing the number of installations from around 8 at this point to 30 in the coming six to eight years. Prof von Lukas noted the growing awareness of sea-dumped ammunitions, a problem that urgently had to be tackled. After a thorough survey, the most crucial sites would have to be cleared. To that, state-of-the-art technology and innovation was needed. To be precise, an innovation ecosystem would have to be established, bringing research scientists together with politicians and companies. Following a Canadian template, the professor’s OTC was creating such an environment, starting with a focus on skill development to provide education both on the academic and practical level. Another aspect was creating the necessary infrastructure and environment for companies and other partners. One start-up at the OTC was working on autonomous underwater vehicles while the Fraunhofer organisation would be setting up a new research centre on this campus. Prof von Lukas pointed out that the OTC received support from both the federal as well as the state level, through funding but also international cooperation. The OTC focused on the sustainable use of the oceans through various pilot projects in the Baltic Sea. Currently, they were developing an infrastructure called the Digital Ocean Lab, a large water area near Rostock where sensors and communication equipment had been set up in an underwater lab. This was an efficient environment for experiments, e.g., on unexploded ammunitions but also cable connections to shore, as well as training, to speed up innovation processes. Expanding to the European perspective, the OTC had set up an innovation platform on sustainable subsea solutions, ISSS, bringing together partners from Spain, Portugal, France, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland and Germany to push forward international projects. R&D activities had to be supported in the future, and the professor saw it as crucial to do so not just on the national but rather on the international level. Presently, the OTC was preparing a workshop on unexploded ordinance for companies in September 2022, offering a very interesting commercial opportunity. BSPC President Schraps pointed out a Polish project of interest on decommissioning chemical weapons. Prof von Lukas confirmed that the OTC already was in touch with the group, noting that he had only mentioned the larger organisations involved in the ISSS. He was nonetheless keen to connect that open network with other applied research organisations in the region. Ms Tenfjord-Toftby commented that the permit process was a frequent bottleneck for wind farm projects, wondering what the situation in Germany was. In Sweden, there was also a discussion on who would be paying for the connection between offshore wind farms and the grid on land. She further asked about research on the negative or positive effect of wind farms on sea-based life. Prof von Lukas agreed that permission was indeed crucial, pointing to a German initiative to give this process a higher priority over other relevant perspectives. But even for their OTC, they were in the third phase of marine planning and had not even reached the permission stage after three years. As for the grid, he believed an interregional grid across the Baltic Sea region was required. Finally, he referred to Mr Kühling’s remark on clear-cutting having a diverse impact. With a complex ecosystem like the sea, negative impacts were likely for marine mammals, but grounding structures like the offshore installations could provide anchor points for other lifeforms. It was important to be aware of the impact of human changes to the system and being open to course corrections, if necessary, also on the legal level. Presentations on Energy Dr Peter Sponholz , CRO (APEX Group), explained that the APEX Group dealt with hydrogen projects on the one hand as well as hydrogen storage on the other . The projects dealt with hydrogen as a source of heat, mobility or electricity as well as the molecule itself for e.g., chemical needs. Renewable energies were used to create the respective hydrogen. The task of APEX was to provide the machinery for the processes from energy source to usable hydrogen, including electrolyser, hydrogen storage and fuel cell systems or refuelling stations. He noted that hydrogen was indispensable for steel manufacture; a change-over from gas to hydrogen in the process was comparatively simple. In general, any kind of high-heat environment needed for production would end up using hydrogen. APEX had built its industrial park near Rostock airport, in a so-called hydrogen valley. The energy used in the hub was produced directly on site. Hydrogen produced there could be re-electrified but also used to power vehicles. For the company Amazon, APEX was producing and transporting hydrogen to the former’s warehouse facility to be used in forklifts. Plans were in place to build a 135 electrolysis system, creating hydrogen to be pumped into a dedicated grid to power various targets in Berlin and the Leipzig area. Dr Sponholz pointed out that electrolysis generated a great deal of heat which APEX was planning to use for heating and powering nearby industries. The research group he was leading dealt with hydrogen storage itself, a forgotten piece of the energy puzzle: At the end of the day, after all the electrolysis processes, it had to be stored and transported. He highlighted energy density: While one litre of ordinary hydrogen could power a light bulb for about half an hour, a compressed kilogramme of hydrogen could keep the same bulb shining for about half a year. Accordingly, the form of storage was crucial. Together with partners, APEX was developing compressed storage solutions – both stationary and mobile – up to 500 bar of pressure. Even more massive amounts could be stored through chemical conversion. As for mobility, the company’s current experiments were based on a car, although Dr Sponholz was quick to note his doubt about hydrogen being viable on this platform. Instead, larger-scale transport solutions were the target, including those concerning the transport of hydrogen itself, e.g., from Canada to Germany. Although the hydrogen economy had already been mentioned 150 years earlier by Jules Verne in The Mystery Island , it was now time to implement it. Henrich Quick , Head of Offshore, 50Hertz Transmission GmbH, explained his company was the transmission system operator in five German federal states, covering about 20 % of the German population. The Baltic Sea had been a pioneer in offshore wind production, having seen the early installations as well as grids. In particular through interconnected systems like Bornholm, the Baltic Sea offered a great potential for future energy production in a Europe-wide system. Increasing efficiency had seen production rise from a paltry 48 megawatts over mid-sized systems producing 500 – 1,000 megawatts to the next generation representing huge wind farms at 2 gigawatts a piece. Furthermore, the number of cables had shrunk to just requiring one, thus reducing not only costs but also the environmental impact. The same applied to foundations, obtaining more power from the same investment and impact on the environment. Dr Quick underlined efforts to further reduce the impact but also to speed up the permission process. However, he underlined the value of the permits, balancing the various needs, uses and effects. In the German model, the TSO built the grid connection while the wind farm developer was responsible for just the generator. The cost for the connection was borne by the grid user. He raised an example of two wind farms which ordinarily would have been connected by 4 full-size cables. Thanks to the TSO-driven planning process, a 3-cable solution could be implemented instead, with a minor cable between the farms. He saw the TSO model as preferable in creating standardised connections optimised not for the energy producers but recipients. Chairwoman Tenfjord-Toftby asked how much the energy price would rise because of the grid connection and if there was opposition, given the already high prices. Dr Quick replied that it was about the entire grid costs, from the offshore facility and then distributing the energy to the customers. The grid costs in Germany from the TSOs was about 3 cents per kilowatt hour; the offshore surcharge two years before had been ca. 0.5 cents. Compared to the pure cost of energy, that was a bargain. He conceded that the energy transformation away from fossil fuels was not cheap but worth the investment since it would ensure reliable power for the next 30 – 40 years. The goal for his company was that 100 % of the energy in their control zone would be available from renewable energy sources in 2032, allowing for some flexibility. He noted that key here was sharing the various tasks, comparing the availability of land for onshore wind farms in comparatively empty Mecklenburg-Vorpommern with the densely built Berlin. Industrial companies were also interested in investing in renewable power sources. Dr Quick underlined the inherent complexities in creating such a system through finding smart solutions as the stable energy facilities like nuclear or coal were being phased out. He further pointed out that 10 years before, the present share of renewables in his company’s stable grid had been considered impossible. Solutions could be found by working hand in hand with science, institutions, politics and engineering. Politics in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in particular had created the pathway that now returned on that investment through jobs and new enterprise settling in the federal state. Mr Thomas Murche , Technical Director, WEMAG AG, Schwerin, spoke about the challenge of reaching climate neutrality by 2045 . In line with the global targets, Germany had raised its 2030 reduction goal to 65 % of 1990 carbon emissions. To that end, concrete expansion paths had been established for solar and wind power plants, specifically adding 10 gigawatts annually of wind power from 2025 on and 22 GW per year of solar power from 2026. A 2022 legislative package paved the way for further subsidies for innovative and storage technologies as well as an accelerated planning and approval procedure. This could only be achieved through sector coupling by integrating energy systems. More flexible grids and added storage solutions were needed to offset the fluctuations from weather-based and decentralised power generation. Moving to the federal state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Mr Murche noted its primary targets to achieve greenhouse gas neutrality by 2030 and to cover the entire energy demand (electricity, heating and transport) to be covered by renewables by 2035. Currently, a respective climate change act was being developed. Already, the state was the first in Germany to generate more renewable power than was consumed, thus targeting the provision of 6.5 % of the country’s power by 2025. He noted challenges on that path in terms of the expensive restructuring of the grid, developing needed storage solutions to ensure the stable supply and the public acceptance of new renewable power plants. Opportunities, though, also arose through the development of a hydrogen industry and the provision of inexpensive green electricity, making the federal state more attractive for industry. He went on to talk about the WEMAG Group with its focus on e.g., power supply grid, project development and telecommunications, employing about 800 people. Their networks covered a total area of 8,060 km². Since 2015, the amount of green electricity generated exceeded the consumption of all the customers in the grid. However, consumption and generation were often not perfectly matched, so that energy storage technologies would have to be developed and the installed renewable energy capacity in the grid would have to be doubled or even quadrupled. That was the challenge for the WEMAG Group which planned to expand their wind power capacity by 742 megawatts and solar power by 576 megawatts by 2030. Thus, the company was supporting the energy transformation. He saw the move away from fossil fuels driven by the transition towards electric vehicles, with an expected 7 million electric cars in Germany by 2030, consuming an additional 25 terawatt hours. The bottleneck in the transformation was the network itself, with the challenge being the synchronisation of power plants and the network. BSPC WG Vice-Chair, Mr Philipp da Cunha , Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, asked about the approval process. Dr Quick explained that the entire industry had learned a lot, not least in the dialogue with the population to quell worries about e.g., noise from transformer substations. This was the major hold-up in the process which could not be shortened by a lot. However, this could be implemented in parallel with the remaining development and investigation processes. Mr Jens-Holger Schneider, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, asked about grey and green hydrogen prices. Dr Sponholz answered that ca. 50 kilowatt hours were needed to produce one kilogramme of hydrogen. 60 – 80 % of the hydrogen costs were due to the price of electricity, so that determined the price of grey and green hydrogen. Mr Johannes Schraps was interested in the competitiveness of products like green steel but also public fears of pressurised hydrogen explosions. Dr Sponholz believed there should be a carbon price tag on products, making green supply chains more competitive. As for possible dangers, he noted that all kinds of fuels posed their own kinds of hazards, but hydrogen was well enough understood to enable safe handling. Mr Schraps wished to know more of the impact of offshore wind farms on marine life. Mr Quick reiterated that impacts and benefits had to be balanced. Furthermore, the industry had progressed technology to drastically minimise negative impacts on marine mammals during construction. Importantly, the established foundations served to increase some sea life in the area. Mr Alexander Mohrenberg asked about the various systems of hydrogen transportation. Dr Sponholz said they were developing type 4 tanks, using pressures up to 60 bar. For transportation, pressures went up to 350 – 500 bar. Regarding hydrogen carriers, there was no clear answer to whether methane, ammonia or methanol were superior. His company was using catalysts to bind the hydrogen in transport. Development was still needed to make a more precise assessment of the overall costs. Ms Tenfjord-Toftby mentioned the development of local hydrogen grids for energy and heating that would reduce the number of customers in the national grid. She further asked about the plans for a hydrogen grid around the Baltic Sea as well as whether stored hydrogen should be used for conversion back to electricity, cars or as a raw resource. Dr Sponholz said that decentralised hydrogen hubs were a good way to work with the gas. Hydrogen should be used where the energy was most expensive; currently, that was mobility. However, the bottleneck was still in the network of refuelling stations, although several German bus companies were switching diesel for hydrogen engines. For heavy-duty mobility, i.e., buses or trucks, hydrogen was of great interest. He agreed that the re-electrification process was very costly, so that local use was best. Steel and ammonia production, though, would benefit greatly from a renewable basis. Mr Quick mentioned the versatility of electricity on the one hand, yet for some uses, hydrogen was better suited, such as heating. Both applications had to be used in order to decarbonise the entire system. Using hydrogen for electricity generation might be useful as a back-up when solar and wind power are not being produced, along with batteries and other storage facilities. Ms Silke Backsen commentedthatthe loss of species was not due to renewable energy but rather due to agriculture and other causes. Mr Johannes Schraps clarified that public fears had to be understood in order to be countered. He also stressed that the streamlining of the permission process was something that politicians could tackle directly. Mr Bodo Bahr underscored that pressure was driving the needed innovation and that the current crises were providing a great deal of pressure. He noted a project of the STRING initiative, aiming for 5,000 hydrogen-powered heavy trucks going from Hamburg to Oslo by 2025. He also referred to the “IPCEI Hy2Tech”, the first ever Important Project of Common European Interest in the hydrogen sector, approved by the European Commission on 15 July 2022, involving 35 companies and 41 projects from 15 member states and including under the state aid rules up to €5.4 billion of aid which will be crowded in another €8.8 billion of private investments. Nevertheless, he worried that the many projects – national and regional – were too isolated, pursuing their own advantage over the others. Mr Bahr wished for more cooperation across borders. Dr Sponholz agreed that new technologies should be pursued, without looking too closely at the economics at the beginning. Dr Quick saw a lot of momentum in the development of storage technology as well as renewables. He cautioned that political outlooks – and industry responses – could change: Offshore wind power had not been high on the agenda some four years earlier but now was dominating many European countries as well as the USA. The industry had to catch up with the change, having to ramp up its manufacturing capacity. There would be difficulties to meet the set goals until 2030, though. To get going before that time, compromises might be necessary rather than looking for the best solution. Tour of the WEMAG Battery Storage Facility on 29 August Before the meeting in the State parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the members of the BSPC Working Group took the opportunity to visit the WEMAG battery storage facility in the state capital Schwerin. WEMAG storage expert Mr Tobias Struck underlined during the tour that “The 10-megawatt lithium-ion storage system stabilises short-term fluctuations in the grid frequency fully automatically with operating reserves. This allows wind and solar power to be integrated into the existing grid.” At present, the renewable energy plants from the WEMAG grid area supply a total output of just under 2,300 megawatts (MW). The largest share is accounted for by wind turbines at 1,125 MW and photovoltaic systems at 1,000 MW. Just based on the figures, it would already be possible to supply all customers in WEMAG’s grid area with electricity from renewable energy: measured in terms of end customers, the Renewable Energy Act (EEG) feed-in quota in 2021 was 283 percent. Mr Thomas Murche , technical director of WEMAG who also gave a detailed presentation during the meeting pointed out “that means we are already above the targets set by the German government for the year 2050 and would be able to supply our customers only with electricity from renewable sources.” For photovoltaic systems alone, the amount fed into the WEMAG power grid in the first half of 2022 was almost 500,000 MWh, compared to 283,000 MWh in the same period last year. During the tour of the battery storage facility Mr Tobias Struck answered numerous questions from the working members. More detailed information about the visit and the WEMAG can be found here and here . Presentations on Peatland on 30 August in the Biosphere Reserves Schaalsee Ms Anke Hollerbach , Head of Administration of the Biosphere Reserves Schaalsee and Elbe, explained that she was responsible for two biosphere reserves, based on a UNESCO programme. Starting in the 1970s, a worldwide network of now 738 biosphere reserves had been created. A dialogue with nature, poverty reduction and human well-being were at the heart of the global approach. An international coordinating council handled the designation process approving an area as a biosphere reserve and confirming the status every ten years. In Germany, there were 18 such reserves. Schaalsee was dealing with bog protection; aside from mesotropic lakes like the Schaalsee itself, there were also swamp areas. The reserves had to involve the local population and all interested stakeholders in planning and management. Their three functions were compiling natural diversity, economic development with social and environmental sustainability as well as logistics support for research, monitoring, education and training. Nature conservation and the development of the landscape was a particular focus, with the restoration of bog areas the primary concern of the last 30 years. 1,000 years ago, there had been a lot of wetlands in the area many of which had been drained to allow for agriculture, transportation ways and the like. A canal had been dug to connect the Schaalsee to the Baltic Sea, also lowering the water level. Ms Hollerbach differentiated several types of bogs, such as raised and intermediate bogs. Peatland restoration assisted in climate protection, in terms of carbon sequestration, water and soil protection as well as biodiversity. The process of rewetting the areas was still in progress. The speaker underlined that this was a difficult and long-term undertaking, requiring studies on impacts to surrounding areas – including agriculture and forestry – and planning. The most complex aspect was the implementation. Normally, the respective area was privately owned so the land had to be purchased or compensated. To that end, owners’ resistance and lack of comprehension had to be overcome. Public relations thus were vital throughout the process. Financing was equally relevant. Ms Hollerbach also stressed the importance of having experts on site, networked with the local population – such as the Schaalsee Biosphere Reserves. Only these contacts allowed them to tackle each following project. On the question if there was a national coordination authority, Ms Hollerbach noted that peat restoration was handled at the level of the federal state rather than the federal government. Mr Andreas Schoop asked if the compensation was long-term which Ms Hollerbach confirmed as a thirty-year time frame. That applied mostly to forest areas while agriculture lands were usually purchased outright. With respect to the Oder river pollution, Mr Johannes Schraps inquired about Ms Hollerbach’s contacts to Poland. The speaker pointed to the biosphere reserve network, noting that they were in touch with others on special topics. Apart from that, there were other contacts within Germany but also with e.g., Ghana and along the Elbe river. She cautioned there could be no preparation for disasters like the Oder. Dr Franziska Tanneberger , landscape ecologist at Greifswald University, Director of the Greifswald Mire Centre and Chairwoman of the “MV Future Council“ 2020/21, said that the Mire Centre was preparing the global peatland maps for the first ever global peatland assessment . She defined peatland as an area with a naturally occurring accumulated layer of peat at the surface that can be several metres thick, some up to 160 metres. In Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the average thickness was 10 metres. Peat was formed from the lower parts of plants, thus binding carbon. If drained, CO 2 was released. A mire was a “living” peat where new layers of it were being formed. A thorough survey of peatlands in Europe had been compiled over the course of 26 years. She highlighted the biodiversity of peatlands, not just at the species level but at that of the ecosystem. Sadly, many of the peatlands were in bad condition all over the continent: 25 % of the area was degraded. Often, this was due to agriculture. After Indonesia, the European Union was the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world from this source, with Germany leading in peatland emissions. Roughly 5 % of the total greenhouse gas emissions of the European Union came from drained peatlands, making it an important issue. Dr Tanneberger stressed that peatland conservation was most cost-effective: The peats that had not yet been drained needed to be protected. Rewetting the degraded peats stopped the subsidence and substantially reduced greenhouse gas emissions as well as nutrient release, with nitrogen of particular relevance. If peat had to be used for agriculture, that had to be adapted for it being wet. She pointed out that for most countries, peatland rewetting and paludiculture were the most important climate protection measure in this sector. Although peat only accounted for 3 % of the agricultural area of the EU, it produced 25 % of the greenhouse gases. Changing agricultural processes on a small proportion of the land thus could have a substantial effect for climate protection. Implementing this change and the rewetting of most peatlands would help achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 but would require massive state funding. The German government had assigned two billion euros for peatland protection in the current legislative period, half the overall climate protection budget. Furthermore, the establishment of a peatland rewetting authority was being discussed, following the example of Indonesia. Dr Tanneberger underscored the importance of involving the private sector which was keen to achieve climate neutrality. She further suggested alternative land uses, such as building solar panel installations on highly degraded peatland. The harvest from peatlands could serve such uses as construction or insulation materials. For Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, agriculture and land use were by far the leading greenhouse gas emitters, culminating in the federal state having the highest per capita emissions in Germany. The federal state had instituted a group from various backgrounds to develop a programme for the future of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern to start the transformation across all sectors as soon as possible. Mr Bodo Bahr was interested in Dr Tanneberger ’s view of the present implementation of that future programme. The speaker said that some areas were going well, but more discussion would be needed in others. To questions by Mr Alexander Mohrenberg , Dr Tanneberger replied that some bogs were fed water through rain, others through ground water. Peatlands only developed in areas with excess water. Agriculture on rewetted peatlands became possible after one year, though monoculture crops would take a while longer. Ms Tenfjord-Toftby noted that agriculture was very conservative. Dr Tanneberger confirmed her side’s frequent discussions with farmers’ associations from the European to the German level. She pointed out that farmers understood the importance of curbing carbon emissions but wanted some freedom to do what they wanted on their wetlands. That should be reflected in legislation. Dr Jenny Schulz , CEO, PaludiMed GmbH, worked on medical applications of plants grown in peatland. In particular, she was focusing on sundews , a plant group that had been used to treat asthmatic bronchitis and the like for centuries, dating back at least to the Middle Ages. She pointed out that plant medicine commonly did not have just one active ingredient but a combination of several. Such plants were also imported from China although it had been found that many of those had very little or no pharmacologically active substances left after having dried out. The sundew species native to Germany though had a much higher content and were available fresh or frozen. These were protected, though, making trade across borders difficult. At the same time, that also made the supply unstable. When collecting in the wild, it was difficult to control the circumstances. Cultivation trials so far had proven unsuccessful or very expensive. Given the high market potential, paludiculture could stabilise the supply under controlled conditions. The peat layer was conserved and did not degrade any further. The moss layer could even expand and form new peat. Paludiculture areas provided a habitat for many species. She explained that her own field was within the biosphere reserve, in a former peat mine so that the area was bare and thus not protected. Conflicts with nature conservation had to be avoided in such efforts. Although her company was a private enterprise, it had been supported as a start-up with a state loan. Dr Schulz underlined that the conditions in peat areas differed, so much that their early attempt to adopt a cultivation method from Saxony-Anhalt had failed at this site. Rainwater should have been enough to supply the field, but precipitation had been below average the last few years. Chalk prevented the construction of a well. Ditches had been dug to channel water into the area and retain it. The sundew population was planted through seeds. Frogs, grass snakes and adders as well as cranes and other birds had come back to the area. Wildlife in general, including plants, had increased. Regarding research, she mentioned that the species had different active ingredients, with one species providing antibacterial qualities. It was necessary to make sure phytotoxins would not remain in the final product. Ms Simona Jakaitė asked about the scaling up potential. Dr Schulz noted that sundew did not grow in many areas, and most of those were currently protected. Their field was a peat mine on state land; other possibilities were former sand mines. Lower Saxony had plenty of dried peatland for this purpose, though. She cautioned that harvest was costly as it was done by hand and resulted in only three kilogrammes per day. Furthermore, the economic inflation was one obstacle, exacerbated by the lengthy permission process for medical use. Mr Johannes Schraps wondered about the federal protected species list and whether a special permission had been needed for cultivation. Dr Schulz confirmed that. Her project was paludiculture – as opposed to wild growth – wherefore she was allowed to collect the sundew. Mr Bodo Bahr asked the three experts about the intensity of cooperation in the Baltic Sea region. Ms Hollerbach replied that her exchange was very limited. Dr Tanneberger had intensive contacts through the international mire conservation group, although there was space for more cooperation. Dr Schulz ran her own little company so there was not much call for exterior nature conservation contacts. Further Matters The Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity had conducted a survey among governments on important questions, receiving very informative answers from Denmark, Estonia, Hamburg, Germany, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden. These have been published on the BSPC website. The Working Group forwarded an additional question to governments to the Standing Committee regarding the impact of the war in Ukraine and related changes in political priorities on climate policy goals and their implementation. Mr Jarek Wałęsa extended an official invitation to host the Working Group in May 2023 in Gdańsk. Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle of Norway suggested hosting a meeting in her country in February/ March 2023 but further out in the wintry countryside rather than Oslo. This would mean additional travel time, though. Ms Anna Kassautzki , Mr Johannes Schraps , Ms Silke Backsen , Ms Tenfjord-Toftby and Mr Bodo Bahr discussed the issue. BSPC President Schraps proposed another meeting of the Working Group in-between this one and the next scheduled one in March, perhaps in digital form at the end of 2022. Secretary General Bahr agreed that this was a possibility, especially as a digital meeting, and could be discussed further. Since Chairwoman Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby will be leaving parliament after the autumn elections in Sweden, Mr Philipp da Cunha has been appointed her successor by the BSPC Standing Committee as per the wishes of the Working Group. Ms Tenfjord-Toftby said her good-byes to the group, pointing out that many of the members were young people representing the future. She was sure they would deliver a good report. With all that they had heard in the group, now it was time for the politicians to implement these measures. On behalf of the members, Secretary General Bodo Bahr and Chairman-to-be da Cunha thanked Ms Tenfjord-Toftby for her work.

The BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity (CCB) adopted on 4 October 2021 an intergovernmental survey to inquire the Baltic Sea region governments about their efforts and plans regarding climate change and biodiversity. In the meantime – mostly during the spring 2022 -, 11 governments have sent their statements and answers to their respective parliaments. The detailed questions concern general information on the measures and strategies on climate change and biodiversity in the BSPC member states and regions, the legal basis of the measures and strategies in the BSPC member states, specific areas and aspects such as maritime areas and protected zones, eutrophication, sea-dumped munitions, efforts towards zero pollution, the economy, innovation, international cooperation, adaptation and the involvement of citizens and stakeholders. Intergovernmental survey Adopted by the BSPC WG CCB on 4 October 2021 The answers provide a deep and unique parallel insight into the relevant activities of the governments in the Baltic Sea Region. The Working Group is considering updating the positions on the strategies and approaches since numerous energy policy measures are being initiated in the member countries because of the Ukraine war, also affecting the respective climate policy strategies. Therefore, it is important to explore: To what extent do the war in Ukraine and related changes in political priorities have an impact on climate policy goals and their implementation? It is envisaged that governments comment on this as part of their statements on this year’s BSPC resolution. The compilation will be updated as soon as further statements are received. You can download the current statements of the governments here.