The 31^st Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Stockholm – 12-14 June 2022

Statements of the Governments in the Baltic Sea Region to the 31 st BSPC Resolution The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) – gathered in Stockholm – unanimously passed on 14 June 2022 the following 31 st BSPC resolution: https://www.bspc.net/conference-resolution-31-bspc/ https://www.bspc.net/final-resolution__lv/ https://www.bspc.net/31-bspc-resolution-de/ https://www.bspc.net/conference-resolution-31-bspc_pl/ The priorities of the 31 st annual conference and resolution relate to: Peaceful and reliable neighbourliness and intense cooperation – how do we go forward in the Baltic Sea Region in times of crisis? Democracy and freedom of expression – how do we secure free media in the Baltic Sea Region? Mitigating climate change, preserving biodiversity and adapting to climate change Demographic challenges in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine; migration, labour market and the social welfare model It is customary that the delegations to the BSPC – or the parliaments as a whole based on an appropriate decision – inform their governments about the outcome of the respective annual conference. Furthermore, with the BSPC resolution, the delegations call on the governments in the Baltic Sea Region, the CBSS, the EU, and other pertinent actors to implement various actions or measures. The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference and its Standing Committee highly appreciate that the governments from the Baltic Sea area again sent statements on implementing calls for action in the 31 st resolution. Many comments were detailed and essential for political development in the areas addressed. Some parliaments explicitly decide that their governments implement the resolution within their competencies and report to Parliament on its implementation. To receive a comprehensive overview of the actions taken by the governments in the Baltic Sea Region in response to the resolution of the 31 st Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference, the members of the Standing Committee have asked their government to inform as far as possible on the following: Which measures, projects or actions have been a) planned, b) initiated, and c) implemented in support of the 31 st BSPC resolution, particularly regarding the calls for action? The statements and information the governments provide form a unique and valuable overview of developments in the respective policy fields in the Baltic Sea Region. Based on these statements and comprehensive information, parliamentarians can track progress in different policy fields and identify further action needs. The compilation will be updated as soon as further statements are received. You can download the statements of the governments here .

Following the 31 st Annual Conference in Stockholm, the BSPC has published a Report with all speeches and contributions during the conference. The compilation can be downloaded here and on the 31 st conference webpage .

In its second day, the BSPC Annual Conference talks about the challenges brought about by this latest wave of migration, now from Ukraine, to housing, education, health and child care. In its traditional General Debate, parliamentarians reinforce their support for Ukraine but also for dissidents in Belarus and Russia and look forward to Baltic cooperation without Russia. Finally, after an eventful and very successful two-year presidency in tremendous challenging times, Sweden hands over the baton to the incoming German Bundestag presidency of the BSPC. Fourth Session on Demographic challenges in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine; migration, labour market and the social welfare model Chair Carola Veit explained that the Russian war and the movement of refugees were deeply affecting the other countries, raising questions and challenges to which answers had to be found, in addition to the measures already taken: housing, education, child and health care, the labour market and the attitudes towards newcomers. Ms Ylva Johansson , the European Commissioner for Home Affairs, explained that while the Russian attack had taken many Europeans by surprise, the Baltic Sea region had lived in the shadow for many years. Just as well, the fast, united response by Europe had also been a surprise. She highlighted the volunteer work to assist the refugees from Ukraine as well as the citizens welcoming refugees to their homes. Ms Johansson reminded the Conference how divisive migration had been, stressing the unanimous decision by the EU. At the same time, challenges had arisen, among them human trafficking as a major problem that had been tackled from the very first week. A 10-point plan had been instituted to handle the challenges. Solidarity had been huge, with Poland, Estonia and Lithuania in the top six countries giving shelter to refugees. More support was needed, and Ms Johansson referred to the new EU Initiative Safe Homes to help those opening their homes. Some 400,000 Ukrainian children were going to schools in EU member states, of those 200,000 in Poland and 130,000 in Germany. The EU had set up a talent pool pilot to match refugee skills with employer needs at the European level. Around 6.5 million Ukrainians had entered the EU since the start of the war, of which about 2.5 million had returned. Approximately 4 million refugees were left, making up the largest refugee crisis since World War II. Of those, 3.2 million had applied for temporary protection and could now be registered on a shared EU platform. A solidarity platform had been established at the EU to bring, e.g., children with disabilities to regions where they could be supported, to help raped women and other such cases. The EU funds had been used as flexibly as possible and in a rapid manner, such as one billion euros from the Care Package, 3.5 billion euros in pre-financing. Ms Johansson had presented a new Pact on Migration and Asylum two years ago on which there had finally been agreement the preceding Friday on three important parts. This showed that member states were now ready to set up a much-needed European system to deal with migration and asylum. She cautioned her listeners that this was not over yet as Russia was fighting a war of attrition. Persistence and endurance were necessary for the future. Mr Kai Mykkänen of Finland asked about the Commission’s estimates of how many Ukrainians would stay longer term in the EU and how a repeat of the Belarus-Polish border situation of the previous year, also at other borders, could be legally prevented. Mr Johannes Schraps of Germany highlighted it was important to think beyond the EU borders regarding the solidarity, especially countries like Moldova. Mr Kacper Płażyński of Poland was disappointed that the EU was paying much more to Turkey to maintain those migrants than to Poland. Ms Ylva Johansson replied that the migration flux was different to ordinary refugees, with women and children coming first and many people heading back to Ukraine. There was also circular movement, especially in the border regions. So, there were no estimates for long-term stays, but registrations and school enrolments would provide more information over time. She approved of the Finnish emergency plans. Furthermore, she agreed that the outreach to and support for countries like Moldova was vital. As for the Polish comment, Ms Johansson underlined that the Commission could only use money that was already in the budget. They were at the beginning of the MFF, though, and that some 63 billion euros were slated for Poland, with the precondition of judges being reinstated and the judicial system brought back in line. She further underlined that the migration funds were not intended for housing and the like, so that cohesion and other funds could be used for the longer-term refugee situation. Ms Alske Freter of Hamburg pointed out the other refugees from places such as Syria or Afghanistan that received different treatment by EU countries, wondering if the Ukrainian crisis was changing that. Ms Anne Shepley of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern asked why the temporary protection had not been applied in 2014. Mr Jarosław Wałęsa of Poland pointed out that Ukraine, as the largest exporter of grain, could not supply its grain to northern Africa. He asked about contingency plans for the people about to escape this impending famine, putting additional pressure on the migration system. Ms Ylva Johansson acknowledged differences between refugees from Ukraine and those from, e.g., Afghanistan and Syria. She underlined that the former were receiving temporary protection rather than asylum. At most, it could be extended to three years. Asylum allowed longer protection. Different kinds of regulations were applied to different groups, Ms Johansson stressed. She regretted that the temporary protection had not been applied to Ukrainian refugees in 2014 and considered that a lesson learned, along with a more pragmatic approach in the present. As for famine refugees, she saw it important to reach out support along the routes before they would reach European borders. The countries had to be supported early on, also in terms of security issues as famine might reinforce terrorist activities. Ms Johansson underlined that this was a threat to people’s lives. Mr Hans Wallmark, former Chair of the BSPC working group on migration and integration and together with Ms Carola Veit BSPC Rapporteur on that issue – chairing the following part of the session – thanked EU Commissioner Ylva Johansson for her valuable input to the 31 st BSPC. Ms Justina Jakštienė , Vice-Minister for Social Security and Labour, Republic of Lithuania, noted that her country had been occupied by Russia for fifty years and could still recognise the propaganda from Russia. At the same time, they valued her friendship with Ukraine and supported their EU membership. She outlined Lithuania welcoming the third biggest share of refugees per capita, providing for them as if they were Lithuanian citizens. Housing was a challenge, she conceded. Nearly half of the refugees were children; out of ca. 20,000, some 1,200 were unaccompanied minors. Lithuania had signed a contract with Ukraine on the protection of children, focusing on their psychological status. All levels of education, up to university were open to them, currently in both Lithuanian and Russian, although efforts were underway to add Ukrainian-language classes as well. Although all Ukrainian children in Lithuania were registered, some of them were continuing remote schooling from their Ukrainian teachers at home. As for employment of the adults, Ms Jakštienė saw them as easily integrated into the labour market. 30 % of working age refugees already had jobs. Some two thirds of those were in medium-skilled jobs, 1 % was in high school jobs. Most Ukrainian worked as accountants, marketers, in manufacturing, social/health assistants, sanitation specialists etc. The support for disabled people would have to be extended, she expected. Furthermore, Lithuania was offering treatment for Ukrainian soldiers. She moved on to NGOs such as the Red Cross that had become close partners of the government during the recent crises. Regarding the challenges, Ms Jakštienė pointed out that demography was determined by mortality, fertility and migration. War migration was complicated and hard to define for the future. In one week, 1,000 refugees would reach Lithuania, and 500 would be going back. She saw housing, integration, education and special social support as measures to convince people to stay in the country until Ukraine would be rebuilt after the war. Professor Maciej Duszczyk , Centre for Migration Research, University of Warsaw, reiterated that the war was not over as refugees kept arriving from Ukraine. From the migration point of view, the war had begun in 2014, having tripled the number of Ukrainians living in Poland in the last four years. Exact data were available only on border traffic. The professor estimated 3.5 million Ukrainians had fled the war across the Polish border, although not all had stayed in Poland; using several methodologies – such as phone data or water usage -, there were presumably now about 1.5 or 1.6 million Ukrainians in the country plus 1.3 million people who had already lived there before February 2022. That came out to about 3 million Ukrainians in Poland. With movement back and forth, the question was how many would stay. 600,000 of them were children, 200,000 had been enrolled in Polish schools while the rest were following the Ukrainian curriculum remotely. The pyramid of challenges started with education, expecting to enrol 600,000 children in the Polish system within the next three months. The professor called this impossible, both in terms of the availability in schools but also because the children should not suffer trauma. The challenge, in his view, was to prepare the capacities to help and to keep helping, especially in learning as the pandemic had shown that remote learning was not a good option. Housing was another problem that needed urgent solving since 600,000 people were still staying in other people’s homes. Healthcare would become a concern in the autumn when children got sick more often. Compassion fatigue was a psychological reality, he said. That was why a systematic approach from the national government as well as the EU level was needed. Prof Duszczyk noted that there was yet another refugee crisis still ongoing since people fleeing more distant wars – Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, to name a few – were still trying to cross the border between Belarus and Poland. He posed the question if they could help everyone and stressed that the answer was no. However, capacities had to be expanded, although that was still not enough and necessitated different solutions had to be found. Prof Duszczyk underlined the importance of human rights as the top priority. Mr Maciej Koneczny of Poland agreed that there is fatigue among countries and especially families helping Ukrainians. Institutional solutions had to be found for the future. Clear and equal rights had to be enacted for Ukrainians and Polish or Lithuanian people as well as equal working conditions. The same had to apply to housing and healthcare. After the war, in the rebuilding effort, he called for Ukraine not to continue to be saddled with having to repay foreign debts. The European Union and other entities should cancel these debts. Moreover, in future contracts, the interests and benefits of multinational companies should not be prioritised over the best interests of the Ukrainian people. Instead, unconditional help should be given to the people. Mr Kacper Płażyński sarcastically commented on European Commissioner Ylva Johansson’s remarks about Poland using other funds for refugee aid and asked Ms Jakštienė about her and Lithuania’s opinion. Ms Justina Jakštienė conceded that helping the refugees, in particular assisting children and disabled people, was very expensive. As for Lithuania, the country had amended its budget right at the beginning of the war to create reserves. As for the European funds, they had already been allocated, and they were already working on using the funds of the next financial period. In particular, some present-day aid for refugees would be provided from Lithuania’s share in the following financial period. Their focus was on housing, education and the health system. Mr Sayed Amin Sayedi of Germany, representative of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, picked up on the Polish delegation distinguishing between so-called “real refugees” from Ukraine and other refugees. Mr Sayedi presented his own story of hardship in fleeing Afghanistan that had been compounded by six years of staying in Finland and Germany without any perspective for the future. He had not been allowed to go to university or work during that time. He found it disappointing that refugees received such diverse treatment. Furthermore, Mr Sayedi raised the point that the people who had fought and worked alongside and for the European and Americans in Afghanistan had essentially been forgotten. Instead, help should be given to them. General Debate Prof Jānis Vucāns chaired the debate session with Mr Jarosław Wałęsa , continuing a format that had been a part of the Annual Conference since 2018. Very well received, the debate offered delegations the opportunity to provide their perspectives on issues dear to their hearts. Prof Jānis Vucāns saw the BSPC in a new position, after suspending the Russian parliaments. Open discussion could now deal with topics that had been impossible with Russian participation, among them economic, energy and security questions. Energy would prove crucial for the Baltic Sea region. He underlined that “together” was a vital concept for their cooperation, also in the long-term support of Ukraine. Mr Jarosław Wałęsa encouraged the attendees to contribute to the debate from different perspectives. Mr Axel Eriksson of Sweden, representative of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, saw the security issue also as one of climate change and biodiversity loss, mentioning that for example water stress could trigger security conflicts. If the fundamental roots were not addressed, they could not be solved in the long term. He asked for fundamental roots of conflicts to be treated in addition to their consequences. Mr Simon Påvals of Åland considered the interface between first-hand experience of climate change and scientific research to be crucial. Only that way could it be understood what the future would bring. The effects of human interaction were difficult to predict, he said, citing the example of the stickleback fish’s stock numbers exploding with their natural predator, the herring, a favourite target of human fishing. The food chain was changing, but scientific institutions had yet to take notice. He stressed that the local people were the key to success against climate change and to preserve biodiversity. Mr Jarosław Wałęsa agreed, suggesting a return to a 1970s treaty limiting the sizes of the ships that could operate in the Baltic Sea. Ms Inese Voika from Latvia concurred that support for Ukraine had to extend beyond military help to reconstruction of the country, both in physical terms but also rebuilding its democracy. She further touched on Belarus and Russia and giving support for the democratic opposition. That had been much as the Baltic States had nurtured their sense of democracy during the Soviet occupation and been able to become independent. Ms Iveta Benhena-Bēkena , also from Latvia, quoted, “ Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you want peace, prepare for war.” Peace had to be the foremost goal on every level, and she believed that all sacrifices would be worth preserving their democracy. Mr Kacper Płażyński raised the idea of reparation payments for Ukraine from Russia. He insisted that one could not go back to business as usual once the war was over at some point in the future but that reparations would have to be demanded. Mr Ola Elvestuen from Norway saw the BSPC Annual Conference as sending a strong message of unity. At the same time, it was necessary to increase the military support with heavy weapons and ammunitions to make Ukrainian forces advance again, while also increasing sanctions and continuing support for refugees. Greater coordination was also necessary to tackle the wider crises across the world. Mr Hans Wallmark of Sweden found this conference to be relieved and free compared to previous ones, because there were no Russian delegations. The lack of restraints on discussions should lead to them investigating during the coming year what other challenges – in the security area, posed by Russia – should join the established topics. At the same time, this cooperation of free and independent countries and regions could find new opportunities as well. They could now create their own Hanseatic League of the present day. Ms Hanna Katrín Friðriksson of Iceland highlighted the role of a free and independent press and the fight against strategic propaganda as well as fake news. She stressed a suggestion made by Ms Valentina Shapovalova that the international news should be translated into Russian and made available to the Russian people to actually understand what was happening. Mr Wille Valve from Åland referred to the European ban on seal products for reasons of animal welfare. This created an awkward situation in everyday life for coastal life. Legally, the hunting of seals was allowed – and necessary due to the damage seals caused -, but it was not permitted to generate products from the small quantity of killed seals. While he approved of the overall ban, he called for a limited exception for artisanal local products. Closing Session BSPC President Pyry Niemi and Vice President Johannes Schraps chaired the final session of the 31 st Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference. The reports of the Rapporteurs began the session. Ms Beate Schlupp , BSPC Observer at HELCOM, said that the brutal Russian invasion had disrupted the work of multiple regional cooperation organisations that had taken decades to create. HELCOM was among those severely affected by the war waged by one of its founding members. All physical meetings had been put on hold until 30 June 2022. Yet the crises continued and demanded their joint efforts continue towards a safer and more sustainable Baltic Sea. The BSPC had confirmed its revised Rules of Procedure as well as its principles and objectives at this conference. For 20 years, the BSPC and HELCOM had been working together towards their shared goals. She outlined the recently adopted Baltic Sea Action Plan of HELCOM, in particular its cross-cutting goals. This should send a strong signal in the area of marine environmental protection. She wished the new Latvian presidency of HELCOM the best of success. Mr Philipp da Cunha spoke as Co-Rapporteur on Integrated Maritime Policy considered the impact of the war on maritime business, such as cruise tourism and supply chains. He noted that the former had already been deeply affected by COVID-19. Supply chain problems were visualised by maritime traffic jams, among others triggered by China’s zero-COVID policy banning harbours. Inland transport had suffered from a lack of truck drivers as well. He highlighted the role of the blue economy in the green and energy transition. Economic growth had to be decoupled from the use of resources. Currently, there were military, economic, energy and food uncertainties. Market expectations had changed dramatically, altering prices for all commodities. He highlighted a shared European approach to curb Russian fossil fuels and replace them with other reliable energy sources. BSPC President Pyry Niemi moved on to the adoption of the Resolution of the 31 st Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference. This had to be done unanimously, as per the old and new Rules of Procedure. Before that, the Conference adopted an amended version of paragraph ten of the Statutes and Rules of Procedure which had been unanimously proposed by the Standing Committee in the margins of the conference. The Conference adopted the 31 st BSPC Resolution. President Niemi hoped that the contents of this resolution would be acted on by the governments, ministries and other institutions around the Baltic Sea. In good BSPC tradition, BSPC President Pyry Niemi passed the baton of the presidency to the incoming president of the BSPC, Mr Johannes Schraps of the German Bundestag. Incoming BSPC President Johannes Schraps underlined in his outlook on the focal issues of the German Bundestag’s presidency the difficult times they were living through: Instead of showing signs of division, it was essential to underline togetherness. The 31 st Resolution did just that. Tremendous challenges continued to lie ahead of them, so that close and reliable cooperation were even more important than ever. Strengthening democracy and promoting peace accordingly would be the headline of the new German presidency. Reinforcing democratic resilience against challenges was vital, as was the promotion of good neighbourliness, peace and the sovereign integrity of all states. The vulnerability of democratic states to conspiracy theories had been revealed in recent years, so that democratic processes had to be made more transparent and a stronger, more diverse civil society had to be encouraged. Media literacy was a challenge for the whole population. On top of that, the climate crisis remained the overarching challenge, so that the German presidency had put the protection of the marine environment at the forefront. This included cooperation in energy aspects but also the topic of sea-dumped ammunitions. With regard to the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, Mr Schraps said that another instalment was planned in conjunction with the 32 nd BSPC Conference in Berlin in 2023. In closing, he said that each generation had and wanted to find its own answers for their age. The President of the 31 st BSPC and further BSPC Vice President Pyry Niemi thanked all who had participated in the Annual Conference and had contributed to its particular success in challenging times, the Drafting and the Standing Committee, all delegations, parliamentarians, governmental representatives, experts, guests and supporters in the background as well as the staff of the Swedish parliament, the Secretary General and the interpreters.

In the second half of the BSPC Annual Conference’s first day, the focus was first placed on democracy and the invaluable role of free and independent media, especially in light of disinformation and propaganda campaigns. The second focus considered climate change and biodiversity, with representatives from the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum as well as experts in a panel discussion. Second Session on Democracy and freedom of expression – how do we secure free media in the Baltic Sea Region? The chair of the session, Ms Bryndís Haraldsdóttir of Iceland, highlighted that free media and their working conditions played an all the more crucial role in these challenging times for our democracies. After the 30 th BSPC had mostly dealt with the issue of disinformation and fake news, this year would focus on the value of free media and good working conditions for journalists, particularly in the light of the new media law in Russia. Mr Michael Jarlner , journalist and international editor at Politiken , was primarily concerned with the task of understanding the role of the press. He cited Thomas Jefferson’s preference for newspapers over governments and Walter Cronkite’s declaration that freedom of the press was democracy. The Baltic Sea region numbered 90 million people, with so many resources and resourceful people, yet it was vulnerable to the presence of autocracies. Challenges to press freedom were posed by Belarus not allowing in reporters as well as Russia’s new media law which made journalists not feel safe. Mr Jarlner regretted the short attention span in both media and politics, especially with regard to the war in Ukraine. Yet the war affected the rest of Europe as well, and the media had to stay aware this was a long-term war. Mr Jarlner’s newspaper Politiken was seeking to counter this trend by keeping the topic alive and by identifying progressive journalists in Russia and Belarus to support them. Moreover, they had established a Russian-language version of their newspaper. Mr Jarlner insisted that what applied in peacetime still was true in wartime. In this regard, he pointed out that Reporter Without Borders had criticised Poland for increased state control of media while Denmark and Finland were prosecuting journalists over covering intelligence matters. This had to be taken seriously. Russia was a reminder what European nations did not want to be, he stated. Mr Kacper Płażyński from Poland said he considered free science to be as important as free media when its subjects countered popular opinion. Mr Michael Jarlner responded by saying he hoped for a diversity of views. Yet there was the difficult problem of where to draw a line. For Mr Jarlner that was when dubious science – such as the flat earth belief – was granted the same standing as established science. Mr Ola Elvestuen from Norway wondered what share of the Russian population could actually access outside sources, such as those Mr Jarlner had outlined, but also the role of the media in the spread of Russian and Chinese fake news. Regarding access, Mr Michael Jarlner explained that they were using channels such as Telegram, noting that they had to keep finding new ways of circumventing Russian censorship. As misinformation would be tackled later, he pointed out his biggest problem, namely that there was no good grasp of what was really going on in Russia. Opinions had to be separated from misinformation. Furthermore, checks had to be made on both sides, making sure that western media did not see any faults on their side. Ms Valentyna Shapovalova , PhD fellow at Copenhagen University, spoke about Russian disinformation and propaganda. To illustrate the current domestic climate in Russia, she mentioned that the world had been taken by the horrific images in Bucha. The Russian state-aligned media on this day, 4 April 2022, a very different coverage of the events had been presented: Instead of portraying the story as a tragedy and example of the Russian war crimes, it had been shown as a staged event created by the Ukrainian troops as a provocation to Russia. The presenter on a popular talk show claimed that the corpses were actually actors. The same opposition to reality was spread across other Russian state-aligned media. Fake fact-checking was one of the main strategies to turn reality on its head and fit the Kremlin narratives. Information and media control was one of the main pillars of authoritarian rule in general. Disinformation and propaganda had been used by Russia both domestically and abroad as tools of information warfare for years. Other examples cited by Ms Shapovalova were the war in Georgia in 2008 as well as the Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea in 2014. She outlined the disinformation and propaganda system, containing traditional and social media in Russia and abroad, controlled in a nuanced and multi-layered way from the Kremlin. Since 24 February, the magnitude of lies and manipulated facts had increased, along with Orwellian prohibitions on words like “war”. Before that day, Russia had already been in 150 th place in the press freedom index, but there had been a few independent outlets with wide reach to challenge the state narrative. The surviving ones had to move abroad and were not easy to access over VPN channels. Their present-day reach into Russian society was unknown, Ms Shapovalova underlined. She had identified a number of narratives in the disinformation sphere, such as the “special military operation” not targeting civilians in Ukraine; rather, NATO was indicted as waging war there with Ukraine a puppet state; the “operation” was supposedly conducted to counter threatened NATO expansion; Ukraine was claimed to be a Nazi state implementing genocide in the Donbas region; Russia was said to have the right to annex previously Russian territory; sanctions were presented as hitting the West harder than Russia. Russian further media ridiculed western leaders, institutions and values and also claiming western media were “Russophobic” and spreading disinformation about Russia. Ms Shapovalova mentioned three of the central goals of the disinformation: Firstly, it was to undermine the existence of factually verifiable information; secondly, to undermine the legitimacy of democratic institutions in the West; and lastly, to promote the Kremlin’s political and geopolitical as well as military interests. She considered it crucial that the leaders in the Baltic Sea region and the West in general understood that this was deeply rooted and widespread. Russian disinformation and propaganda had to be taken very seriously. Ms Anne Shepley of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern wondered about the development of the disinformation system in the future. Ms Valentyna Shapovalova was pessimistic, noting that it was increasingly difficult to get information through to Russia, with some VPN tools blocked by the state. She agreed that Western media should continue trying to funnel articles translated into Russian into the country, but they were only targeting the opposition. Getting through to the large core of people watching Russian television was very difficult. Ms Shapovalova stressed the danger of Russian propaganda which, when watched at length, could even affect her as a Ukrainian. It was her belief that the disinformation system would keep amplifying, along with an even more severe block on outside information. Mr Krzysztof Walczak of Hamburg asked about the speaker using disinformation and propaganda synonymously and the benefits of banning rather than countering narratives. Ms Valentyna Shapovalova explained that she had simplified her presentation; disinformation was defined as intentionally malicious and/or factually unverifiable, false information whereas misinformation was unintentionally false, malicious or misleading information. Propaganda did not have to be false, but it was information framed or manipulated to influence the public, was often polemic and played on feelings. As for banning, she considered this difficult and could not provide a clear answer. Mr Gennaro Migliore (PAM) pointed out the difficulty of getting social media operators to block malicious content. Ms Valentyna Shapovalova agreed that the platforms had a responsibility for countering disinformation and propaganda and also that legislators had to exert more pressure to curb their spread. The chair of this part of the session, Mr Wille Valve of Åland, introduced Ms Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark, Associate Professor, LL.D. and Director at the Åland Islands Peace Institute. Ms Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark noted that the major defenders of free speech in the late 18 th century in the Nordic area had come from Finland. As a result, Sweden had enacted a progressive freedom of press law in 1765. She saw these actions as precursors to modern minority rights. In the present day, Ms Åkermark saw a reflection in a marginalisation of minority groups in the western world. She mentioned Russian-speaking minorities in Nordic and Baltic countries that felt disconnected, but a similar kind of othering had been levelled against the people of Åland. Ms Åkermark referred to the Copenhagen School’s terminology of securitization when a situation was presented as an existential threat by taking measures beyond what was considered normal. She stressed her fear that minorities in the western world were also depicted as stupid, illoyal, problematic and dangerous. Here, she quoted UN Secretary General António Guterres’ “tsunami of hate” and the Tallinn Guidelines asking politicians to distance themselves from polemics. Ms Åkermark underlined that she did not have any answers but could only ask questions, such as how these tendencies could be countered. Co-chair Wille Valve continued to the open debate of the session. Mr Himanshu Gulati from Norway believed that the issue of free media would become ever more important in the coming years. This concerned not only the safety of journalists but also the independence of media. In light of disinformation, the interpretation was changing, raising questions such as whether free media should allow the unchecked spread of false information. Aside from authoritarian states like Russia, Mr Gulati pointed to the United States where many people were living in completely separate, parallel realities. It was necessary to understand how people in the same society, with access to the same range of information could live in separate realities, based on the news they choose to watch and the echo chambers they selected for themselves. He stressed that protecting the free media had to include the combat against disinformation and lies. Mr Simon Påvals from Åland underlined the importance of supporting the “other” Russia and Belarus, i.e., the ordinary people looking for a different future and liberal, democratic powers in those countries. It was crucial to remember that the target of the sanctions was Putin and the Russian regime rather than the people. He further highlighted the need to secure safe and free journalism in the present day and in the future. Ms Hanna Katrín Friðriksson from the Nordic Council agreed that free media was one of the most important pillars of democracy because people had to be fully informed to make their decisions, whether voting, protesting or supporting. She strongly believed that the defence of free media had to be at the top of the priorities to focus on. In that respect, she mentioned the Nordic Journalistic Centre as one of the tools to fight fake news and disinformation. Mr Wille Valve of Åland reflected that what one was allowed to say and when was a classic question. The current issue was massive propaganda, particularly in the Baltic States, the purpose of which was to destabilise the countries. Recently, Russian lawmakers had claimed Lithuanian independence illegal. This underlined the need to support the Baltic States by limiting the information warfare against them. Mr Aron Emilsson from Sweden saw the issue of media freedom also as a question of equal treatment of the people. The challenge lay on the one hand, in the support of the digital revolution and new media as the new opinion square while, at the same time, be able to defend free speech. Internet giants had the power to reinforce or block opinions, had more influence than small states. However, it required regulation to keep their power in check while defending free speech and free media. Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby of Sweden wondered who defined fake news, disinformation and propaganda. That was always subjective, depending on where one was. The situation in Russia was clear to outsiders, yet she posited a scenario of another government declaring an angle of discussion as disinformation that it does not agree with. All of them at the Conference were sure they were on the right side, but she wondered what history’s judgment would be. Mr Johannes Schraps of the German Bundestag considered free media a two-fold issue between those spreading propaganda and disinformation and those open to such disinformation. It was good for freedom of speech to be constitutionally protected, yet that also protected disinformation even though it threatened discourse and democracy itself. Mr Schraps pointed out the growing number of people believing fake news in their societies, despite having access to other information. Media literacy was a concern in his view. Responding to the remarks, Mr Michael Jarlner picked up on Ms Shapovalova’s commenting who could access the Russian-language news on Politiken . He confirmed that not every VPN client could reach information outside Russia, but he insisted that providing alternatives was necessary, not least to show that the “other” Russia and Belarus had not been forgotten. Concerning censorship and disinformation, he noted that some countries had forbidden Russia Today as propaganda. On the other hand, he wondered if that was not responding with the same toolkit, adding that he preferred marking state media as such. On who should decide what was disinformation, he pointed to responsibility laws in several countries applying to newspapers. This did not apply to social media platforms where one could say whatever one wished. That meant, Mr Jarlner underlined, that such statements had to be countered and confronted. In that respect, he pointed to American media fact-checking statements by Donald Trump. Unfortunately, there were no clear-cut solutions. Third Session on Mitigating Climate Change, Preserving Biodiversity and Adapting to Climate Change Chair Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby began by noting that climate change was the driver behind the dramatic increase of extreme weather events around the globe. It was obvious that efforts against climate change had to be speeded up if their sustainable development goals were to be met. She referred to the IPCC Climate Report. Mr Anders Grönvall , State Secretary to the Minister for Environment and Climate, Sweden, spoke about the Stockholm +50 conference, highlighting the importance of multilateralism in these matters, harkening back to the original Stockholm conference of 1972. 155 countries were represented with over 4,000 people in total. States and stakeholders were calling for urgent action. He noted one conclusion, the call for a phase-out of fossil fuels. Collaboration and solidarity had to be reinforced so as to build trust. Mr Grönvall considered trust-building as perhaps the most important outcome. He added that young people had been included in all aspects of the conference, with intergenerationality being recognised as a cornerstone in international policymaking. Moving on to the Swedish priorities in the Baltic Sea region, he stated that climate change was a threat to their forests, oceans and cities. At the same time, the region offered great opportunities for mitigation: More resilient forests could continue to provide biomass in the future. The Baltic Sea was stressed by deoxygenation, acidification and fast warming, severely impacting the ecosystem but also human populations, yet it could contribute to mitigation measures through wind turbines or coastal restoration. Shipping, agriculture and fishing had to be made sustainable. Climate change affected biodiversity, primarily through eutrophication by creating anoxic areas and algae blooms. Nutrient influx from agriculture had to be prevented as had pollution through microplastics, pharmaceuticals and other hazardous substances. The application of the ecosystem approach to fisheries was vital, in Mr Grönvall’s view. In light of the recently updated Baltic Sea Action Plan, he voiced his confidence that all of the necessary measures could be implemented. That had to be done right away. Mr Kacper Płażyński asked why nuclear energy wasn’t mentioned. Mr Kai Mykkänen of Finland inquired how the Baltic Sea protection projects were to go on without Russian participation for the next decade. Mr Simon Påvals of Åland inquired if Sweden planned to change its trawling borders. To that, Mr Anders Grönvall answered that industries were implementing the green transition, e.g., to green steel. Sweden was using 35 % nuclear power, but building nuclear power plants took a long time, and the urgently growing energy need would be supplied by wind power as a more lucrative power source. Regarding HELCOM and Baltic Sea protection, the State Secretary saw an important discussion ahead on how to continue. Trawling rights were intended to secure the herring in that area, so Sweden was looking at many aspects, among them moving the border. Chair Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby moved forward to the panel discussion on climate change and biodiversity, best practices and initiatives with Ms Inger Melander , Expert Fisheries and Market, WWF Sweden, Representative of the Baltic Sea NGO Forum; Mr Dennis Hamro-Drotz , senior programme manager at NEFCO; and the representatives from the Baltic Sea Parliamentarian Youth Forum, Mr Andreas Schoop and Ms Simona Jakaitė . The participants introduced themselves: Ms Inger Melander explained the background of the WWF. As best practices, she presented harbour porpoise, coastal and archipelago areas, the Baltic Sea Farmer of the Year Award, projects trying to limit nutrient run-off, data gathering and monitoring of sea birds, fish stocks, nutrient overloading and a seafood guide for consumers. Mr Dennis Hamro-Drotz said that NEFCO was the Nordic green bank. There were many good ideas how to combat climate change, but financing was often lacking. Founded by the five Nordic countries in the early 1990s, NEFCO was to address the environmental problems in the Baltic Sea, a mandate that had been extended to a global reach over time with link to Nordic countries. They had financed many wastewater solutions in the Nordic region but also Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. With respect to the various projects mentioned by Mr Grönvall earlier, Mr Hamro-Drotz said all of these areas had been covered by NEFCO and the Baltic Sea Action Plan. Every euro spent on such funds had resulted in seven euros coming in from other sources. More innovative projects were looking into nutrient reuse from animal husbandry; how to address greenhouse gas emissions from the seafloor in eutrophication areas; nutrient removal from the sea by fishing and processing low-value fish. Mr Andreas Schoop and Ms Simona Jakaitė presented the final recommendations of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum. After two days of deliberations of sixty young people, they were asking for increased biodiversity and carbon sequestration efforts; conservation of forests, wetlands and natural rivers; stopping clear-cutting; countering forest fires and pathogen spreads; research into emergency causes; common monitoring programmes. On innovation, their recommendation was to phase out fossil fuels and investing more in renewable energies; to support businesses in their transition. For greener cities, they were asking for greener and cheaper transport accessible not only in city centres; more car-free zones, more space for bikes or pedestrians; more diverse cities; more involvement of youths in city planning; legally binding quotas for fishing and determining what fishing nets could be used; regulating single-use plastics; restricting agricultural wastes before reaching the waters. Mr Gennaro Migliore applauded the commitment of young people, noting that the PAM also had a youth platform. He stressed that the Mediterranean was the region most affected by climate change and therefore most interested in developing the blue economy. He seconded the Stockholm +50 conference’s call to intensify efforts against climate change. Furthermore, reinforcing renewable energy sources would help the phase-out of Russian fossil fuels and contribute to the green transition. The PAM would hold the first-ever Euro-Mediterranean Forum in Tangiers in early December 2022, with environmental issues surely a focus of discussion. Mr Kacper Płażyński from Poland conceded that his country was also investing in renewable energies, such as wind farms, but insisted that renewables were unstable energy sources, but only coal and nuclear were stable and reliable. He talked about nuclear power plants as zero-emission and competitive and wanted more of them. Mr Kai Mykkänen pointed out that eutrophication was common in Finnish archipelagos as well as the benefits of the circular economy. In that respect, he wondered if NEFCO was already investing in such projects. Prof Jānis Vucāns, President of the Baltic Assembly , believed the topic of resilient cities from the youth forum should also be considered in the working group. The best definition described them as aggressively and practically designing strategies to be able to cope with future shocks to the infrastructure system. Self-sufficiency and energy efficiency were crucial in future-proofing. In the course of the Russian-induced energy crisis in the Baltic States, the Baltic Assembly had looked into stabilising the energy supply. Their solution was hydrogen; although currently very expensive, it was getting cheaper and cheaper. It could serve as an energy storage solution for wind and solar power. Energy storage – beyond hydrogen – was a major issue that the Nordic and Baltic countries should explore. Mr Dennis Hamro-Drotz considered many of the Baltic Sea problems as transboundary and thus more difficult to solve. He personally did not see any need to import any more chemical fertiliser from outside when the circular economy could exploit the excess of nutrients flowing into the water. There were novel technologies experimenting here as well as regenerative agriculture and forestry. NEFCO did finance Nordic SMEs and start-ups but mainly projects of an international nature, although they were interested in more projects within the Nordic region. He pointed out that there also were the Nordic Investment Bank and the Baltic Sea Action Plan Fund for financing opportunities in piloting projects. The most urgent action for policymakers in the view of Ms Inga Melander was marine conservation management. It was crucial to implement what was written in legislation and conventions. She called for an ecosystem-based management approach and a precautionary approach rather than waiting for new research and reacting too late. Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby mentioned that most projects examined by the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity were at the local level because the whole society needed to be a part of it to make the project successful, from governments down to the local people. To the question of how to achieve this involvement, Ms Inga Melander reiterated that a project had to be implemented and not put-upon individual citizens’ responsibility to choose what to consume or to recycle. Best practices were good, but she placed the focus on policymakers. Mr Dennis Hamro-Drotz reflected that financially viable projects related to the Baltic Sea were hard to find, compared to climate change-focused projects. He saw a need, also for legislation, to force a way in a certain direction and to funnel soft money, such as grant financing or cheap loans, into such efforts. They would need a lot of time to become financially viable and attract private capital. Mr Andreas Schoop pointed to sea-dumped ammunitions as a vital challenge to be resolved, requiring policy decisions. Ms Simona Jakaitė Ms Jakaitė believed in education to shape the next generation’s minds and opening them to finding solutions. Mr Wille Valve was interested in the future of industrial fishing, specifically regarding herring. Ms Inga Melander highlighted economic and environmental sustainability, while an ecosystem-based approach was necessary to manage herring stocks with regard to size and age but also other species and habitats. The Swedish consideration of an expanded trawler border could provide more shelter for marine animals, primarily cod. Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby asked a final question to the panel on how to keep the focus on climate change in these troubling times. Ms Inga Melander said one had to remain hopeful, reiterating the ecosystem-based approach. Mr Dennis Hamro-Drotz noted that crises such as the pandemic and the war in Ukraine had shown that financial means could quickly be provided to solve them. Prevention was far cheaper than solution but much harder to finance. Mr Andreas Schoop agreed about prevention, even on the small scale. Ms Simona Jakaitė hoped that more creative approaches could be found for prevention.

The 31 st Annual Conference of the BSPC gathered over 160 participants in Stockholm – delegates from 20 parliaments and parliamentary organisations, guests and experts from the Baltic Sea region and beyond. The Conference was the final highlight of the Swedish BSPC Presidency from 2020 to 2022 and took place in the second chamber of the Riksdag. The situation in the region shaped the programme. The delegates, the experts and guests discussed the Future of the Baltic Sea region in a time of fundamental upheaval. They firmly stated that the answer to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is strong democracies, protection of human rights and sustainable development. The Conference reaffirmed the decisions of the BSPC Presidency and the BSPC Standing Committee to suspend the Russian parliaments. The Conference also discussed how the current situation might affect future cooperation within the Baltic Sea Region. The delegates adopted amended Statutes and Rules of Procedure to reflect the new historical circumstances considering Russia’s suspension from the Conference and its subsequent decision to withdraw as a member. The high-level speakers reinforced the united front of democratic nations – parliaments, governments and civil society. The opening of the Conference featured speeches by the Speaker of the Swedish Parliament, the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs and the President of the BSPC. The keynote speaker in the first session was former UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson, who spoke about the importance of international cooperation in times of crisis, followed by an open debate. Addresses by the Norwegian and the German Foreign Minister as current and future presidents of the CBSS and speeches by partner organisations followed that. Opening BSPC President Pyry Niemi opened the Annual Conference 2022. The speaker of the Riksdag, Dr Andreas Norlén , welcomed the Conference, noting that this was the fourth time it had been held in Sweden and the first physical Conference since 2019 because of the pandemic. After COVID-19’s shadow had hung over the previous two digital Conferences, another threat dominated the present event, namely Russia’s war against Ukraine, with a huge impact on cooperation in the Baltic Sea region and the BSPC itself. The present times would affect the world for generations to come. On 24 February 2022, they had felt horror at the human suffering and rage at the unjustified war. At the same time, they had realised that the European security was undermined by Russia. The democratic countries had swiftly imposed sanctions on Russia and moved to support Ukraine. The Swedish government had provided military support and three months after the invasion had made the historic decision to apply for membership in NATO, in close partnership with Finland. Dr Norlén stressed the importance of parliaments in safeguarding democratic values and international law. Democracy and freedom of speech were prerequisites for peace. Since 1980, there had been a positive trend of more and more nations moving towards democracy. However, the past two years had seen a reversal towards authoritarianism. The BSPC Conference addressed the vital question of freedom of expression and free media. It was deeply worrying that these aspects had also suffered from backsliding. Threats against journalists were threats against democracy, Dr Norlén stressed. In these troubled times, cooperation, especially among parliaments, was becoming increasingly important, underlined by the 31 years of BSPC history. Parliament was at the heart of democracy, as the Baltic Sea was for their region. He highlighted the BSPC’s youth work, with the second Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum accompanying this conference, to give a voice to young people’s engagement, passion and courage. The Swedish presidency of the BSPC’s theme of democratic sustainability was reflected by the 100-year anniversary of Swedish democracy. In 1918, the first parliamentary decision had been universal and equal suffrage, and the country’s yearlong celebration would end in 2022, 100 years after the first five female members of parliament had taken their seats. Democratic events in the past always seemed assured outcomes, but they should never be taken for granted. Democratic values, participation, equality before the law and trust in the democratic system had to be protected and developed. Ms Ann Linde , Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, highlighted the serious backdrop of Russia’s unjustified aggression, a flagrant violation of international law. Sweden and the democratic community demanded that Russia cease its invasion and unconditionally withdraw immediately from the entire territory of Ukraine. The repeated attacks by Russians against civilians were appalling. All violations of international law had to be systematically documented and investigated. Respect for the fundamental role of international law was at the core of all international and regional cooperation. Russia had for the foreseeable future disqualified itself from all such cooperation. The democratic nations’ support for Ukraine had to continue during and after the war. Ms Linde pointed out the increased repression within Russia, restricting freedom of expression and other human rights, with Russian state media offering a distorted image of reality. Whenever the respect for democracy was compromised, the risk of armed conflict around the world increased. Where there was accountability through free media, freedom of speech, an independent judiciary or the risk of being voted out of office, there was restraint for governments’ use of violence. Therefore, cooperation to protect the region’s democratic institutions was of the utmost importance. They had to unite behind those whose voices had been silenced by the Russian aggression – free media, independent journalists and human rights defenders. In 2019, Sweden had launched a Drive for Democracy as a foreign policy priority that should be taken up around the Baltic Sea. Russia’s break with cooperation came at a time when climate change and other global threats had increased the need for collaboration. Sweden was determined to continue the important work of the CBSS through its Action Plan, highlighting three vital areas: firstly, supporting Ukraine through combating human trafficking; secondly people-to-people cooperation, not least with the young people; thirdly, the environment where the Stockholm +50 conference had given new impetus to the green transition. The democratic countries of the Baltic Sea region had to work together to preserve their freedom and open societies. In his opening remarks, BSPC President Pyry Niemi reflected on the hope a year before that the vaccine would bring better days. Now, though, they were facing a brutal war in Europe. As proud as he had been the year before of the BSPC’s continued cooperation, he highlighted this year’s fast and united response to the horrifying situation. On 25 February 2022, President Niemi, Vice President Johannes Schraps and Secretary General Bodo Bahr had at once adjourned the Standing Committee meeting planned for 28 February. In a statement of that day, they had condemned the Russian military attack, appealing to Russia to cease its aggression and arrive at a peaceful solution. On 12 March, the heads of the BSPC delegations had reiterated this. Furthermore, they had decided to freeze all their relations with the Russian member parliaments of the BSPC. In April, the Standing Committee had reaffirmed the statement and the suspension of the Russian parliaments as well as amending their Rules of Procedure to underline the BSPC’s peace-oriented core values based on international law. Earlier that morning, the Conference had adopted these revised rules. The BSPC’s main goal for thirty years had been to overcome the Cold War and contribute to stability and prosperity in the whole Baltic Sea region. The current war had energised the need for cooperation. The BSPC had to remain to promote democratic development in the region. The current Swedish presidency followed the headline of sustainable democracy and had focused on common challenges in a changing world. Preserving the democratic cornerstones of the BSPC had been their priority throughout the year. These were also connected to the Swedish parliament’s celebration of 100 years of democracy. That reminded them that the right to equal representation, the right to vote and democratic values could not be taken for granted but had to be defended every day. Trust in the democratic system, inclusion and participation were further vital pillars of the presidency, as evidenced by the second Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum the Saturday before. The sixty participants represented the future of the Baltic Sea region – the title of the current conference. President Niemi mentioned the efforts of the BSPC towards a closer cooperation with the Baltic Sea NGO Network and highlighted the preceding November’s statement voicing the BSPC’s concerns about the situation at the Belarusian border with Poland. The war in Ukraine had dominated the April meeting of the Standing Committee in Warsaw, with a focus on the migration of refugees out of Ukraine. Climate change and biodiversity had been on top of the BSPC’s agenda through their working group. The BSPC’s cooperation with partner organisations had been further deepened, among them the CBSS and HELCOM as well as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean, the Nordic Council and the Baltic Assembly. It had been said that the Baltic Sea was not just a sea but a bridge between neighbours. The cooperation was largely built around concrete issues concerning the sea, the heart of their region. More than that, it was about political democratic dialogue between neighbours and friends. The Russian invasion of Ukraine had wounded the work of the BSPC. However, with new strength and revised Rules of Procedure, the BSPC would continue to fight for democracy as well as environmental sustainability, in many ways stronger than before. First Session Peaceful and reliable neighbourliness and intense cooperation in times of crisis BSPC President Pyry Niemi introduced the incentive speaker, Mr Jan Eliasson, the former deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations and former minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden. In light of the greatest challenges of this generation – the pandemic, the cruel war in the middle of Europe, an upcoming catastrophic global famine as well as the ongoing climate crisis, made the speaker’s input all the more valuable. Mr Jan Eliasson saw the world at a crucial moment in history, with their actions of great significance for their countries, the region, Europe and the world. In light of Russia’s brutal aggression, he highlighted Ukrainian resistance and resilience. He saw this as a challenge for all of them to show courage and resilience in standing by Ukraine. The stakes were high – the sovereignty of Ukraine, the European security order, the cohesion and strength of the EU and of NATO, the respect of international law and principles and norms for international cooperation, global food safety, and most importantly, the standing of democracy. Democracy was fighting an uphill battle today, in light of backsliding from democracy or authoritarian systems becoming totalitarian. All of this made for a serious agenda for all of them. The people of the Baltic Sea region could look back at a very long period of collaboration, for reasons of geography, history, interests – economic, political, social – and today, the shared values. Mr Eliasson stressed how the outcome of the Second World War, with the UN Human Rights Charter, the Charter on Refugees, had shown the world another direction history could take. Yet the Cold War was another outcome, a dark time that came to end with the Fall of the Wall, bringing independence to previously Soviet-controlled nations. After that, there was a period of hope and expansion of possibilities. The current Russian move was trying to change everything in a drastic manner, yet Mr Eliason saw several positive aspects on which could be built: Democratic nations were united more than ever by interests but also by values. Multilateralism could be strengthened to fight three major battles in the world: the existential issue of the climate crisis, the fight for democracy and international cooperation. In his view, the most important word in the world was “together”. Mr Himanshu Gulati from Norway raised Sweden and Finland’s application for NATO membership, asking Mr Eliasson about further paradigm changes in the European security system. The speaker saw particular potential in the future of the Arctic which could be a playground for power interests, but he saw it important to maintain principles, such as environmental concerns, in that regard. The primary result, though, was that the Nordic countries were now unified and could play a much larger role vis-à-vis the EU and NATO. Ms Bryndís Haraldsdottír noted a change of the dynamic in the Arctic Council in which Russia was faced by all-NATO countries now. Mr Jan Eliasson stressed that international rules had to be enforced in an active approach by the other countries of the Arctic Council. Mr Johannes Schraps of Germany wondered how a lack of communication could be overcome in the long run. As former deputy secretary general of the UN, Mr Jan Eliasson pointed to the principle of universality in that organisation. He believed in a strong reaction to a blatant breach of values, yet it was up to every organisation to determine how to improve conditions. Mr Kai Mykkänen of Finland and Prof Jānis Vucāns of Latvia and the Baltic Assembly wondered about the future protection of the Baltic States. Mr Jan Eliasson did not see the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO making a significant difference as Sweden had already cooperated in security affairs with the Baltic States. He highlighted the united popular front of Poland and in particular Germany as well as the regional parliaments in their military support of the Baltic States. There was a tremendous potential in Baltic Sea cooperation, despite the ongoing war. Mr Kacper Płażyński from Poland called for more heavy weapons to be transferred to Ukraine to prevent the war from lasting many years. Mr Jan Eliasson agreed that if the Russian aggression was not meant with credible military opposition, Russia could meet its goal. On the other hand, he cautioned against escalation that might spill over the boundaries of the current conflict. As a life-long diplomat, compromise in this conflict likely meant ceding territory and thus breaking international law. This dilemma was extremely complicated to resolve. BSPC Vice-President Johannes Schraps explained that the following speeches would focus on their work in general, their values and fundamental challenges. In a video message, Ms Anniken Huitfeldt , the Minister of Foreign Affairs from Norway, pointed out that the Russian war against Ukraine had changed the map of Europe, not least through Finland and Sweden’s likely joining of NATO. Both the BSPC and the CBSS had suspended the membership of Russia in their organisations, allowing the democratic countries to move forward. In the Kristiansand Declaration, the foreign ministers of the CBSS member states had stated that Russia bore full responsibility for the war, acknowledging Ukraine’s enormous suffering and sacrifice in defence of their sovereignty and freedom. Ms Huitfeldt underlined that the CBSS regional networks against trafficking in human beings, for the protection of vulnerable children and the civil protection network were active in their support of the Ukrainian refugees. Yet the issues that had been of importance before the war continued to be crucial and had to be tackled to keep the Baltic Sea region globally competitive. Some 30 years of history of both the BSPC and the CBSS had shown the value of integration and cooperation in accelerating the region’s rapid development. The European Green Deal and REPower EU would provide speed and direction for the next step, the green and digital transformation. German Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ms Annalena Baerbock , spoke via a video message to the Conference about the value of cooperation among the democratic countries around the Baltic Sea. As upcoming president of the CBSS, she reflected on that organisation’s renewed importance in the present time of upheaval, highlighting its strategic value, not least in terms of energy. To that end, the German government had set three priorities for their presidency: firstly, a massive expansion of offshore wind power in the Baltic Sea in order to secure the energy supply, supported by a Baltic Offshore Forum with stakeholders from the public and private sectors to initiate concrete wind power projects; secondly, the intensification of youth work by turning the Baltic Sea Youth Platform into a permanent institution, accompanied by a Youth Ministerial Meeting in the run-up to the Ministerial Session of the Council, dealing with digitalisation, the climate crisis and the green transition; thirdly, the removal of the vast amount of sea-dumped ammunitions from the Baltic Sea through bringing together relevant experts to accelerate the recovery of these munitions. Ms Baerbock reiterated the need for Europe to stand together against Russian aggression, both at the moment and in the recovery period. The current chairman of the CBSS Senior Officials from the Norwegian presidency, Mr Olav Berstad, was on hand to answer questions. BSPC Vice President Johannes Schraps wondered if the topic of sea-dumped munitions had already been deepened at the Kristiansand meeting. Mr Olav Berstad spoke about the Kristiansand Declaration with its strong message of unity, highlighting also the safe and secure CBSS priority as well as a move away from fossil fuels, Russia withdrawing from the cooperative framework after the Cold War, the 30 years of progress since the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the Vilnius II Declaration providing a roadmap until 2030, with the hope that Russia would catch up and meet the goals in the future. The topic of ammunitions had not been raised; Mr Berstad pointed out the presence of sea-dumped munitions in the North as well as the Baltic Sea. BSPC Vice President Johannes Schraps moved forward to the addresses from other parliamentary assemblies and BSPC observer and partner organisations. The President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean (PAM), Hon Gennaro Migliore , highlighted the long-standing friendship between the PAM and the BSPC, as evidenced by their Memorandum of Understanding signed in November 2021. The Russian aggression had led all of them to reconsider what was the most secure environment for their countries. It represented a turning point in world history. PAM had condemned the invasion as early as 24 February 2022. International law and the UN Charter had been broken by a member of the UN Security Council. Around 15,000 suspected war crimes had been reported in Ukraine in the course of a cultural genocide, reminiscent of Nazi Germany before World War II. PAM had worked to establish a regional distribution hub for aid for refugees in Romania. Mr Migliore pointed out the food crisis triggered by the Russian war that could lead to famine and new conflicts in the Euro-Mediterranean area as well as Africa. He believed that interparliamentary work would contribute to ensuring the necessary political commitments to address these challenges and pave the way towards future actions. The PAM stood with Ukraine not just for their but also for the democratic countries’ survival. Ms Cecilia Widegren , the Vice President of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), noted that the IPU and the BSPC shared the same aim and mission – stability, peace and security, democracy, freedom, sustainability and prosperity. The IPU was the parliamentary dimension of the UN. She noted that the IPU had received a total of 8 Nobel Peace Prizes. Moreover, Ukraine was also a distinguished member of the IPU, receiving support from that organisation. She pointed out that there were more than 70 conflicts around the globe at this moment, more than there had been after World War II. Members of parliament had a task to fulfil in pursuing peace, alongside governments and civil society. In that regard, she highlighted the role of dialogue between opponents that could be opened by parliamentarians. Ms Josefin Calring , the secretary-general of the Baltic Sea NGO network, explained that a closer and deeper cooperation between sectors of society was necessary in a time after a pandemic and during a war. Civil society had worked tirelessly to meet the needs of refugees, mostly women and children, proving the role of NGOs in acute measures but also as civil defence both within and across borders. Trust was generated through people cooperating but could not be taken for granted, as had been shown during the pandemic. Ms Calring underlined that it was the people who were responsible for shaping the future they wanted to live in. Rather than talking about visions, urgent actions were required among and between people, civil society, business, academia and politics. A strong and vital civil society was the foundation for a strong democracy, the protection of human rights and sustainable development. It had to be involved, invited and prioritised in decision-making, provided with long-term funding and political will. The Baltic Sea NGO network stood ready to do its part for a more integrated Baltic Sea region. Ms Annika Annerby Jansson , President of the Regional Assembly, Region Skåne, also pointed out that the Russian aggression against Ukraine was an attack on shared values such as democracy, peace and cooperation. It showed the world that these values were fragile and had to be protected; moreover, it also showed them the strength and willpower of coming together in cooperation. She highlighted the incredible actions by NGOs, cities, regions and their national and European associations in Europe and beyond, providing shelter for refugees and emergency support for their Ukrainian neighbours. But it was also important to begin thinking about how to go forward in supporting the recovery and reconstruction of Ukraine. Ms Jansson highlighted the importance of cooperation. This was reinforced by the upcoming launch of the initiative European Alliance of Cities and Regions for the reconstruction of Ukraine, an international coordination platform, co-led by the European Commission and the Ukrainian government. It would serve to facilitate peer-to-peer cooperation and twinning partnerships between cities and regions within the EU with counterparts in Ukraine. Furthermore, it created a more secure framework to minimise the risks that local and regional authorities could expose themselves to by undertaking individual initiatives with Ukraine in an ongoing context of conflict. The official launch was planned at the next CoR plenary at the end of June. Ms Janssen reminded the Conference that multi-level governance was even more important in times of crisis, recalling the migration crisis of 2015 when regions and municipalities had dealt with the unprecedented flow of refugees. She hoped that this multi-level cooperation would be just as important in the future of Ukraine. Earlier than her planned participation in a later session, Ms Lilian Busse , outgoing chairwoman of HELCOM, addressed the Conference about biodiversity. The German presidency had been dominated by the corona pandemic as there was only a single in-person meeting, ending in a difficult geopolitical situation. However, the new Baltic Sea Action Plan had been adopted in the preceding October, with 199 actions and measures to be implemented by 2030. At the same time, a regional action plan on marine litter had been adopted as well as one on underwater noise and the HELCOM Science Agenda. The Baltic Sea Action Plan dealt with biodiversity, eutrophication, hazardous substances and litter as well as sea-based activities. The horizontal or cross-cutting issues were monitoring, marine-spatial planning, economic and social aspects, knowledge exchange and awareness-raising, hotspots, financing and climate change. Ms Busse pointed out that all the 199 actions and measures fed into the overarching concern of climate change. A large number directly affected biodiversity, such as the implementation of the Science Agenda, closing the knowledge gap on blue carbon, developing a strategic approach on ocean acidification but also developing work under HELCOM to limit the greenhouse gas emissions. Under the header of sea-based activities, she mentioned sustainable shipping, with an eye on the greenhouse gas discussions of the IMO. HELCOM and Baltic Earth had produced the Baltic Sea Fact Sheet as a summary for policymakers on the latest scientific knowledge on how climate change was currently affecting the Baltic Sea. It provided information on existing knowledge, what had yet to be determined and the political relevance in several indicators. The actions and measures of the Baltic Sea Action Plan had to be implemented on an ambitious level while the knowledge gaps outlined in the Fact Sheet had to be filled. The present geopolitical situation was making this difficult, Ms Busse conceded. Since 24 February, HELCOM had postponed all meetings and instituted a strategic pause until the end of June when the chairmanship would be handed over to Latvia. They were currently in discussions how to move forward during these difficult times. Pre-Session on administrative matters BSPC President Pyry Niemi welcomed the attendees to a special session devoted to approving the decisions made in the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. In light of the unwarranted Russian aggression, the BSPC Standing Committee had decided to suspend the memberships of the Russian parliaments in the BSPC and to change the BSPC Rules of Procedure to reflect the historical importance of the moment and to allow for the suspension or expulsion of members violating the fundamental principles of the BSPC. President Niemi noted that the ongoing efforts to track a new course for the BSPC without Russia had proceeded at a fast pace. That also concerned that the Russian parliaments had withdrawn from the BSPC. Therefore, the Conference approved the suspension of the Russian parliaments from the BSPC. The amendments to the Rules of Procedure mainly concern fundamental additions. These are also expressed in the new name ‘Statutes and Rules of Procedure’. These include the fundamentals and core principles to which the BSPC has unanimously committed itself in a series of resolutions as defined foundations of its cooperation. Furthermore, now the procedure is regulated if a Member State blatantly violates the foundations and core principles by the flagrant violation of the rules of international law. Further regulations result from the suspension and withdrawal of the Russian parliaments. Additionally, administrative adjustments to the decisions on the BSPC strategies and work programmes have been made on this occasion. BSPC Vice-President Johannes Schraps underlined that it was crucial for the BSPC to express the reasons behind their decisions to the public in a declaration. BSPC Secretary-General Bodo Bahr read out a draft declaration to explain the changes and the historical context in which the amendments were made. Prof Jānis Vucāns and Ms Bryndís Haraldsdottír contributed to the debate. The Conference adopted the new Statutes and Rules of Procedure which were supplemented the next day by an adaptation of a further rule on administrative matters and agreed to publish the mentioned declaration in conjunction with the publication of the new Statutes and Rules of Procedure .

The Future of the Baltic Sea Region The answer to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: strong democracies, protection of human rights and sustainable development In a time of fundamental upheaval, the conference will discuss the Future of the Baltic Sea region. The Swedish capital sets the ideal scene for the meeting of delegates from 20 parliaments and parliamentary organisations and their guests from the Baltic Sea region and beyond. The 31 st BSPC is taking place in Stockholm, Sweden. The themes on the agenda for this conference are peaceful and reliable neighbourliness and intense cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region in times of crisis; democracy and freedom of expression; mitigating climate change; preserving biodiversity and adapting to climate change as well as demographic challenges in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine; migration, labour market and the social welfare model. On Saturday, 11 June, the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum of 2022 will take place in connection to the Annual Conference of the BSPC, in an effort to promote dialogue between young people of the region and policymakers. The purpose is also to capture input from the young generation. Their representatives will discuss with parliamentarians how to strengthen democracy and peaceful original cooperation in times of crisis, ways towards a greener, stronger and more biodiverse Baltic Sea as well as climate change. On Sunday, the first day of the conference, the BSPC Drafting Committee and the BSPC Standing Committee will hold their first sessions in the Riksdag building. They will deliberate possible compromises in difficult policy areas and discuss the core principles of the BSPC in light of the current crucial challenges. In the afternoon, the delegates will visit the Baltic Sea Science Centre. On Monday, the conference will be opened by the Speaker of the Riksdag, Dr Andreas Norlen, the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ann Linde and BSPC President Pyry Niemi, followed by a speech by the former Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations and former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, Jan Eliasson, as well as addresses from the Norwegian and German Ministers for Foreign Affairs. Until Tuesday at noon, the delegates will intensively deepen in four sessions the themes of the conference. More Information here.