The 32^nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Berlin – 27-29 August 2023

Strengthening the Resilience of the Democratic Baltic Sea Region Boosting Democratic, Digital and Maritime Resilience Based on Reliable Neighbourliness and Close Cooperation The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) – gathered in the German Bundestag in Berlin – unanimously passed on 29 August 2023 the following 32 nd BSPC resolution: https://www.bspc.net/final-version-32-bspc-resolution-v-28082023_v1/ https://www.bspc.net/final-version-32-bspc-resolution-dt/ https://www.bspc.net/32 nd -bspc-resolution-lv/ The priorities of the 32 nd annual conference and resolution related to: Peaceful and reliable neighbourliness and intense cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region based on fundamental values Boosting democratic resilience and promoting digital resilience Strengthening the resilience of maritime ecosystems Enhancing the resilience of climate and biodiversity It has been customary for many years that the national and regional 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. 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 national governments from the Baltic Sea area and most regional governments again sent statements on implementing the calls for action of the 32 nd resolution. Many comments are detailed and essential for political development in the areas addressed. Some parliaments explicitly invite their governments by a decision to implement the resolution within their competencies and to report to the 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 32 nd 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 32 nd 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 .

The 32 nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Berlin was an outstanding success. With the unanimous adoption of the resolution on ‘Boosting Democratic, Digital and Maritime Resilience Based on Reliable Neighbourliness and Close Cooperation’ the annual conference in the German Bundestag was successfully concluded. On the second day, the conference conducted an in-depth investigation into the impact of climate change, particularly on biodiversity, and what measures were taken and should be taken. The final report of the just concluded BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity was presented. In a lively and open general debate, many viewpoints and ideas were shared, before the BSPC Rapporteurs on Migration and Integration as well as on Sea-Dumped Ammunitions gave their annual updates. Finally, the BSPC-Presidency was transferred from the German Bundestag to the Danish Folketinget. FOURTH SESSION Panel discussion: Strengthening the resilience of climate and biodiversity Chaired by Mr Jarosław Wałęsa and Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle , the session was concerned with presenting the work of the BSPC in the past years. As the previous day had shown the frightening speed of climate change, Mr Wałęsa it was up to the parliamentarians to present ambitious targets and look for solutions. Presentation of the Final Report of the Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity by Chairman Philipp da Cunha Mr Philipp da Cunha explained that the report summarised three years of intensive parliamentary work and issues that would be defining challenges of the 21 st century. July 2023 had been the hottest on record, sea ice had been at a historic low, and global ocean surface temperatures had reached record highs. In the Baltic Sea, the rise of air temperature had exceeded the worldwide trend. The ice extent had shrunk while precipitation had increased. Moreover, the Arctic was experiencing up to four times faster warming than the rest of the globe, with severe impacts on marine life. The IPCC had emphasised this year that proof of negative impacts was increasing the urgency of worldwide climate action. Denying that would not prevent wildfires, droughts, storms, and other extreme weather events. No one country could solve these issues alone, making international collaboration indispensable. At the same time, successful mitigation work relied on working with local partners in local settings. Mr da Cunha thanked his predecessor, Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby, for leading the first two years of the working group. Topics that the working group had investigated and presented best practice examples on included sustainable fisheries, carbon sequestration, island habitability, and sustainable energy. Moreover, they had looked at climate change in the Arctic and restoring peatlands. In that, the group had spoken with government officials, entrepreneurs, researchers, representatives from civil society, and news representatives. In addition, two surveys had been conducted among the governments of the BSPC, considering in the first current and planned climate and biodiversity legislation as well as in the second the effect of the war in Ukraine on climate policy goals and implementation. The final report offered a unique and comprehensive overview of the knowledge, experiences, best practices as well as existing policies and projects in the region. The working group’s recommendations condensed the wealth of knowledge into 25 focused, far-reaching yet pragmatic calls that had been integrated into the BSPC Conference Resolution. Speech by Ms Ditte Juul Jørgensen, Director-General, DG Energy, European Commission Ms Ditte Juul Jørgensen mentioned the pipeline carrying natural gas from Norway to Poland as a good example of Baltic cooperation could help secure the energy supply, especially in a crisis situation. The European Commission under Ms Ursula von der Leyen had put climate change and biodiversity at the top of the agenda with the European Green Deal. The war in Ukraine had had a significant impact on energy security, yet solutions had been swiftly found that were in line with the EU’s longer-term climate neutrality objectives. That underlined democracy’s strength. At the same time, it had reinforced the necessity for energy diversity and autonomy, the latter through renewable energy sources. She noted that more work was needed on the impact of climate change on the energy system. 75 % of the CO 2 emissions in Europe came from the energy sector, requiring urgent action through energy efficiency, lower consumption, and more renewable energy production. In 2021, 22 % of renewable energy in the overall energy mix had proven a significant rise from the 10 % in 2005. This trend would accelerate, targeting 42.5 % for 2030 with the aspiration of reaching 45 %. Ms Jørgensen underlined that this ambitious goal meant nearly doubling the current share of renewables within eight years, yet it was necessary. The Baltic Sea with its potential for offshore wind was key in this endeavour. The recent Revised Energy Directive required member states to establish a framework for joint projects across borders and sea basins. She appreciated the already achieved agreements in the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection group, working towards 22.5 gigawatts in 2030 and more than doubling that to 50 gigawatts by 2050 ( https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/infrastructure/high-level-groups/baltic-energy-market-interconnection-plan_en ). The Baltic Sea region could set the pace and provide great rewards for Europe. Moreover, the region was vital for energy security as well. She approved of the three Baltic countries’ agreement to synchronise their electricity system with the European network, moving away from Russia. In general, more investments into the grid and system would be needed to achieve the region’s ambition in energy security as well as the Green Transition and to secure affordable energy. She stressed that biodiversity did not clash with climate change mitigation, although some procedures had to be harmonised to improve protection. Part of this and the roll-out of renewables was hampered by time-consuming bureaucracy. The Revised Energy Directive sought to facilitate an easing of that through strategic planning, comprehensive mapping across sea basins as well as identifying accelerated deployment areas for renewable energy. ( https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-directive-targets-and-rules/renewable-energy-directive_en ) In December 2022, the EU member states had adopted an emergency regulation to accelerate the rollout of renewable energy to secure the energy supply. This was a joint effort by all, she underlined. Speech by Ms Lis Lindal Jørgensen, Institute of Marine Research in Norway Ms Lis Lindal Jørgensen spoke about strengthening the resilience of the climate and biodiversity . That meant strengthening the resilience of science, to increase the accuracy and scope. Her institute was one of the largest in Europe concerned with marine research, mainly concerned with monitoring and advice. Communication lines between science and government were very short. Their goal was to achieve an ecosystem-based management of human activities, i.e., how to explore and extract the services of marine areas without harming the ecosystem. She listed three good reason to focus on biodiversity: The UN’s International Biodiversity Agreement (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the international agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine Biological Biodiversity of areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ). To that end, it had to be determined where the thousands of marine species were located in time and space. Her institute had a large fleet for monitoring, for instance in the vast Barents Sea. Standardisation was key, having each ship carry the same type of equipment. Through annual meetings, progress was discussed and standardisation deepened. Her institute was covering temperature, plankton, fish, benthos, sea mammals, and sea birds. Over the past sixty years, the share of Atlantic water in the Barents Sea had increased and that of Arctic water shrunk, decreasing the habitat of Arctic species. This had led to Atlantic species spreading more and more while the Arctic fish had been reduced to a tiny habitat in the high north. The spread of Atlantic species meant that the respective fisheries followed them up north into areas where there had not been any trawling in the past, endangering the biodiversity of bottom dwellers. To protect these vulnerable species, 400,000 km² had been closed to fishing after meetings with all stakeholders. Ms Jørgensen underscored that the same effect was happening in all their waters. Norway had established a huge programme called MAREANO to counter this by mapping all the species. Thus, they could open and close areas depending on the locations of fish fleets but also provide location guidance for offshore energy, deep-sea mining, and the like. At the same time, ice was receding, and there was even more activity within the oceans. Therefore, time- and cost-efficient monitoring had to be implemented to learn more about this. Comprehensive integrated management enabled action when it was detected to be necessary. This meant a transdisciplinary approach including scientists from many different fields, be they sea bird or seismic researchers or experts on seaborne human activities such as tourism. Understanding the pressures created and acting on populations meant that maps could be elaborated showing the risks for species in space and time. As an example, she noted whales spawning in spring in a certain area, resulting in a call to keep ships away; later on, the whales had moved on to another area but could be safely visited by tourism. All in all, her institute was looking to translate this highly complex information into easier-to-understand advice for managers. The speaker went on to pose questions to the assembled parliamentarians. She asked if the governments were ready to receive this kind of advice – meaning that the government side also needed to invite all their sectors to a table to discuss this information. Segregation into silos of sectors was no longer feasible. In addition, she asked how ecosystem-based management could be made more robust in the context of changing political priorities and economic interests. This had to be answered for science resilience. She extended an invitation to a conference on the Arctic in April 2024. Speech by Ms Prof Dr Daniela Jacob, Meteorologist and Director of the Climate Service Center Germany (GERICS) Prof Daniela Jacob saw a possible answer to the issues in the principle of climate-resilient development. That referred to the process of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation measures to support sustainable development for all. It was enabled by increased international cooperation, including improved access to adequate financial resources, particularly for vulnerable regions, sectors, and groups as well as inclusive governance and coordinated policy. These days, it was known that greenhouse gases had changed the atmosphere and how the weather system reacted to that. She pointed to the Paris Agreement and the 1.5 °C threshold. Scientists including her had worked on the 2018 IPCC report detailing the differences between a world at 1.5 °C and at 2 °C increase. From 1960 to 2010, the global temperature had risen by half a degree; just from 2010 to 2023, nearly another half a degree had been added. They were currently 1 to 1.2 °C above pre-industrial levels. This meant that weather extremes were accelerating, as evidenced by the present year. However, it was still manageable. Yet the speed of change was barrelling towards the unmanageable, and that made it urgent to reduce that. She underlined the integrity of the scientists at the IPCC. Now, they had shifted from a risk-oriented to a resilience-based approach which investigated how the human system was developing in conjunction with the ecosystem. The challenge was to integrate all of that. An April paper had looked at the burden on humans: Already in the present, 10 % of the population had been shifted outside the temperature niche of the species. Thus, they required either heating or cooling, i.e., energy. Even with the current pledges to reduce emissions, the trend was heading for a 2.7 °C increase over pre-industrial levels, in which 20 – 30 % of the world’s population would be outside the human temperature niche. Ms Jacob underlined that this was due to the behaviour of people today. Another aspect was lifetime warming: Someone born in 1960 had experienced warming of 0.7 °C, with most of the change only in the last 15 – 20 years. People born today in their lifetime would experience a massive change of 2 °C, 3°C, or even 4 °C. Stability would fall by the wayside. This meant that decisions today had to be taken in light of future effects – not just by politicians but by everybody. The choice had to be to go through the door of green solutions, of climate-based resilience. She called it a privilege to design a new lifestyle of sustainable development. Mr Jarosław Wałęsa asked when the point of no return would be reached. Everyone in the world had to work towards this goal. Until that happened in fact and not just on paper, they would not reach any of their goals. Ms Bryndís Haraldsdóttir asked Ms Lis Lindal Jørgensen how the severing of relations with Russia had affected her work. Mr Staffan Eklöf spoke of the tragedy of the commons, when people with access to a resource acted in their own interest and thus depleted said resource. This applied to the fishery, for instance. The solution was mutual restraint, such as fishing quotas. The Swedish delegation had been pushing to call for lower quotas. Ms Eka von Kalben noted that many people were resisting the steady news of climate doom. As such, she wondered how encouraging signals could be sent to create a positive mood for climate change mitigation. Mr Jens-Holger Schneider noted a statement by Prof Jacob in the margins that the nutrition content in C4 plants was dropping which would cause problems with feeding the human population. Mr Schneider wondered how farmers could react to that today. Prof Daniela Jacob replied that the point of no return depended on what one was looking at. The Earth would not be destroyed, she assured her listeners, but the question in this context was if it would be an Earth with humans living on it. What scientists expected were enormous regional damages impacting other areas, rather than wholesale destruction, by crossing roughly 2.5 °C at the end of the 21 st century. That would mean an ice-free Arctic, major shifts in precipitation and storm shifts, which would cause damage and droughts, destroy food production and technological infrastructure. This absolutely had to be prevented, and that was why global to local policy was indispensable. The local could not wait for the global to agree on the best way forward. Things had to be done now, regardless of others’ actions. This tied in with the need for rapid innovation – both technological and social. She likened this to the Apollo moonshot programme in the 1960s. Moving on to Ms von Kalben’s question, she insisted they still had a window of opportunity. Hiding was not an option; action had to be taken: regional products; de-sealing the concrete in the cities, adding more green to cities to lower the heat; renewable energy completely replacing fossil fuels; looking at the trading systems; innovation in start-ups. There were many positive things that could be done, she insisted. Rather than prohibiting things, she suggested people setting goals for their personal carbon footprint. Regarding the nutrients in plants, Ms Jacob clarified that she was not a biologist. Yet biologists’ reports were worrying. She also made clear that this was not about climate change but about the amount of CO 2 in the atmosphere. That was changing the substances in the plants, although more research was needed. Their nutrient quality seemed to be decreasing, thus affecting meat and fish quality. This underlined the need to keep researching food production and security. It was urgent to find ways to ensure that there would be enough food for humans to eat in fifty years’ time. Ms Lis Lindal Jørgensen pointed to the challenge with Russian participation. The Arctic Council had a rotating two-year presidency for each nation. During the recent Russian leadership, everything had been paused due to the war. Now Norway held the presidency, but Russia had threatened to pull out of the council if treated any differently. This made work extremely difficult. The same applied to the Barents Sea. As for fish quotas, they had to be agreed across borders since fish did not care about them. At the same time, fish might aggregate in one spot – apparently rich fishing grounds – even though the overall population was below sustainability levels. There were three different battlegrounds, each requiring different approaches: climate change, pollution, and species extinction. Ms Ditte Juul Jørgensen underlined the critical need for global action for climate change and the Green Transition. She agreed that there had to be forerunners to pioneer innovation and practice. The EU had shown that greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced while increasing the GDP. Economic growth had been harvested from climate action. More had to be done. The upcoming COP 28 in the United Arab Emirates would be critical. The EU was pushing for global targets and action to be agreed there, with more renewable energies across the world. Regarding the absence of Russia, she noted that the withholding of Russian gas had helped the energy transition. Thirdly, how to people bring aboard, she agreed with Prof Jacob. Change was a privilege, she underlined. The Green Transition brought jobs; renewable energy was the lowest-cost energy. Innovation was necessary to keep Europe pioneering new green technology to achieve the climate targets. Mr Jarosław Wałęsa concluded the session by noting that he was convinced Europe could be a leader in the global change. As a member of the European parliament, he had been involved in negotiating free trade agreements with, e.g., Canada or Japan. He had witnessed European power to convince others to join these agreements under certain environmental conditions. A united Europe could achieve these goals and take matters much further. GENERAL DEBATE The General Debate was chaired by Prof Jānis Vucāns and Ms Bryndís Haraldsdóttir . Mr Himanshu Gulati mentioned two issues he felt would be important in the future. Firstly, the dependency on other nations for rare earths and other minerals needed for technology and the Green Transition had to be lowered, which he deemed as vital as the supply of Russian fossil fuel had been before the war. Secondly, the extreme pace and all-consuming vastness of artificial intelligence (AI) would affect the world immensely. AI could be a great boon, but it also was a tremendous threat to many sides of society. There was a reason that big tech companies had called for a pause to AI research until legislative guidelines could be in place. Europe and the Baltic Sea region had to put this topic high on the agenda. Mr Simon Erik Jyrkaes , BSPYF, saw the production of biofuel as very important for many Baltic Sea countries and appreciated its inclusion in the Resolution as well as acknowledging the threat of dependence on China. Ms Hanna Katrín Friðriksson highlighted that democracy of today rested on the hard work of previous generations. That history had to be taught to young people, to give them the strength for democratic resilience. She appreciated the previous day’s panel on that topic, noting there was a clear connection from hate speech, disinformation and fake news to violence against minorities. She quoted Mr Nemitz from that panel that the European regulations against hate speech ensured freedom of speech and expression. This was enormously important. Ms Friðriksson further underlined the Nordic countries combined efforts to strengthen democracy together with like-minded countries, regions, and people. Together, they would continue to work for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Mr Tiit Maran underlined that climate change and biodiversity were deeply connected. He was also grateful for the idea from the previous session that great things started with seemingly small things. Next, he bemoaned that the school curricula had very little on ecosystems and ecology, so that humans felt removed from the natural world. Ms Ingveldur Anna Sigurðardóttir , BSPYF, said that everybody wanted to live in a world of individual freedom and democracy. The Russian aggression had reminded them that democracy was vulnerable. That’s why they had to stand with Ukraine, to keep Europe the continent they wanted to live in. Mr Kaspars Briškens noted the Baltic Sea region’s responsibility to jointly tackle climate change and biodiversity. They should achieve leadership in developing green technology and sharing it. Cross-border transport infrastructure as well as a coherent digital background mattered as well. He highlighted the concept for a working group on these points and hoped the BSPC would continue its work here. Mr Ola Elvestuen commented on the previous session’s powerful message to listen to science and to act on its findings. That was the task of the people in positions of power today, not that of future generations. This was reflected in the BSPC’s Resolution. Furthermore, freedom and democracy had to be defended. It was democratic countries pushing for action on climate change and biodiversity, creating the modern and green market economy. Ms Sidney Gregor-Wielan , BSPYF, referred to Dr Jacob’s suggestion of setting personal carbon footprint goals. Ms Gregor-Wielan was irritated by this because it shifted the focus away from big oil companies to the individual consumers. Fossil fuels were a thing of the past. She called on parliamentarians not to fall for the myth of the individual carbon footprint. Instead, the development of renewable energy had to be promoted. Mr Simon Påvals commented on populism rising today as it had a century before. Democracy required a certain measure of responsibility, interest, understanding, and knowledge acquisition of the population. Its opposite was populism, offering simple solutions to complicated problems, falsely claiming to express the majority view, exploiting people’s fears or ignorance, dismissing scientific facts or fuelling conspiracy theories. History showed the severe damage populism could wreak. Democracy needed constant maintenance and cross-border cooperation towards a better society for each individual. Mr Elias Arndt , BSPYF, raised the problem of verifying accurate information, especially in the digital sphere – given, among others, AI image and text generation. As a software developer, he suggested a data platform to inform journalists and individuals which social media entries were reliable or contained false information. The greatest danger lay in trusted media picking up on misinformation and spreading it. Mr Stanisław Kostulski , BSPYF, appreciated the ability to live a free life as a young person and also the intergenerational solidarity represented at this conference. Mr Marc Timmer highlighted the call in the Resolution to shortening the permitting process. Renewable energy was by now by far the cheapest form of energy. It was crucial to raise the acceptance on site. In that, he found financial support from civil society important. Ms Dominika Maria Łysień , BSPYF, saw energy consumption rising continuously. She saw this as the moment to go for green solutions through renewable energy production but vitally also energy storage. Autonomous energy production in Europe could make the continent independent from market fluctuations. Mr Jens-Holger Schneider argued for clean nuclear energy, the 3+ generation of power plants. He considered this as a bridge energy source superior to gas. Mr Thomas Krüger called for the local people to be involved in the expansion of renewed energy, making certain that they immediately benefited from solar and wind power installations in their neighbourhood. CLOSING SESSION The Closing Session was chaired by BSPC President Johannes Schraps and incoming BSPC President Henrik Møller . Rapporteur report on Migration and Integration by Ms Carola Veit Ms Carola Veit said that migration and integration were among the great challenges of this time for all the members of the BSPC. The various crises around the world had already set off massive departures of civilians from their homes, now adding more with one of the greatest humanitarian crises in Europe’s history with the war in Ukraine. Eurostat had stated that there had been over 72,000 first-time asylum applicants in April 2023 in EU countries, an increase of 34 % to April 2022. She underlined that refugees were human beings with their own histories and fates. Solutions had to be found for housing, education, labour, healthcare, and childcare, requiring common European solutions. Yet a joint European policy had proven a challenge in itself. The EU had now stated that acceptance of refugees should be compulsory, yet the overall goal had shifted to reducing the number of refugees coming to Europe. Ms Veit opined this showed greater emotion involved in migration politics, reflecting the rise of far-right parties claiming that migrants were threatening security. Poland was planning a referendum on accepting refugees; Sweden was aiming to tighten the requirements for family joining resident migrants; Finland had announced crackdowns on migrants; Denmark was revising its citizenship rules. Moreover, Finland and the Baltic countries were tightening their border security to Russia and Belarus. An OECD report highlighted that integration and inclusion investments benefited migrants, their families, societies, and economies while failures to integrate were costly. With shrinking work forces, efforts to integrate migrants were essential. The only conclusion was that this topic had to be kept at the top of the agenda. Rapporteur report on Sea-Dumped Ammunitions by Ms Anna Kassautzki Ms Anna Kassautzki began by saying a time bomb was ticking on the ocean floor. She noted that the number of 400,000 tonnes of submerged conventional munitions was only an estimate. Much of it had not been found yet. Since WW II, the shell casings were rotting, exposing the contents to the waters. A research project near Kiel had learned that mussels were taking in TNT and derivates and that 25 % of cod near the dump sites were showing liver cancer. The slow water exchange of the Baltic Sea exacerbated the concentration and thus effect of the substances. Aside from the BSPC, the CBSS and other organisations were also working on this topic. In December 2022, an expert roundtable had gathered 40 leading experts in Kiel, producing recommendations like a joint fund. By now, technological progress had made locating munitions easier, e.g., using AI to identify sites. In combination with the planned German disposal platform, this could be a gamechanger. Finding and destroying the ammunition above the waterline would be the best solution without damaging the ecosystem. Ms Kassautzki appreciated the European Commissioner Sinkevičius endorsing this project and hoped for EU funds to join the German federal government’s 100 million euro budget. The EU was ready to coordinate efforts and help develop respective tools and technologies. This, Ms Kassautzki underlined, was huge progress over the past year. Yet, the joint work by all the stakeholders had to be intensified so she called on everyone to continue filling the knowledge gaps and share best practices. President Schraps thanked all the rapporteurs for their efforts over the last year, noting that their reports were available on the website in full. Administrative Matters BSPC President Johannes Schraps invited the conference to adopt the recommended changes to paragraph 11 in the BSPC’s Statutes and Rules of Procedure, after already optimising and strengthening the foundation of their cooperation at the 31 st Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Stockholm. The Standing Committee had unanimously approved the changes to paragraph 11 at its meeting on 27 August 2023. The conference unanimously adopted the amended changes to paragraph 11 of the Statutes and Rules of Procedure. BSPC President Johannes Schraps thanked all the delegations for their work on the resolution of the 32 nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference and the respective labour of the Drafting Committee. He believed this was an excellent document. The conference unanimously adopted the Resolution of the 32 nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference. BSPC President Johannes Schraps voiced his hope that the governments of the Baltic Sea region would implement the resolution and also that this would lead to a better region. Next, he moved on to establishing a new BSPC working group. Before that, he thanked the members of the just concluded Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity for their work, singling out the chairs, Mr Philipp da Cunha and Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby. The Baltic Assembly had introduced a concept for the new working group which had been discussed and refined in detail at various BSPC meetings. The Standing Committee had forwarded the concept to the conference for approval. With the adoption of the resolution, the BSPC Working Group on Energy Security, Self-Sustainability, Connectivity, and Resilience had been approved. As the chair, Mr Kaspars Briškens had been nominated. Mr Schraps asked for the conference’s approval. The conference unanimously appointed Mr Kaspars Briškens as chairman of the new BSPC Working Group on Energy Security, Self-Sustainability, Connectivity, and Resilience. Mr Kaspars Briškens accepted the appointment. BSPC President Johannes Schraps said it had been a huge privilege to represent the BSPC and its core values at various conferences. This had been a challenge – because of the times and the efforts these had demanded – but also a great honour. With that, he passed the traditional baton of the presidency of the BSPC over to Mr Henrik Møller of Denmark. Newly installed BSPC President Henrik Møller thanked the youth forum for their contributions in resilience. Democracy should never be taken for granted and was a continued struggle to keep it intact. He went on to say that he would take on the task of the presidency with humility and dedication. The BSPC had been established in 1991 as a forum for political dialogue. Russia’s war in Ukraine had been a reminder of dark times that had seemed far away. The nations of the Baltic Sea region had been divided during the Cold War, but the spark of collaboration and cooperation had lit a passion in the 1990s. The BSPC played a crucial role in bringing together parliamentarians, experts, and stakeholders, facilitating joint strategies for tackling common challenges. It stood as an example of the power of cooperation and unity. The path of the Baltic States to freedom showcased how collaborative efforts could overcome even the most difficult circumstances. Mr Møller sought to continue on this path. Through upholding the principles of dialogue, understanding, and joint action, they would keep on harnessing the collective strength of the Baltic Sea region and build a brighter future. The urgent need for energy diversification had accelerated and scaled up low-carbon energy technologies. The challenges and opportunities of the future had to be navigated to ensure a secure, sustainable, and resilient energy supply. As important was the resilience to climate change, requiring government and gubernatorial practices to integrate scientific knowledge with local expertise. In conclusion, safety and defence in the Baltic Sea region was of utmost importance in light of the changed situation over the past five years. Mr Møller was looking forward to a constructive and fruitful collaboration. The conference applauded the speech with standing ovations. Outgoing BSPC President and then BSPC Vice-President Johannes Schraps thanked everyone involved in the organisation of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum and the 32 nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference. He thanked expressively Katalin Zádor and the whole Bundestag-team and Secretary General Bodo Bahr for the ‘outstanding job’, as well as all who had contributed to the perfect conference proceedings. With his whole delegation, he had been very delighted to see all participants in Berlin, in the Plenary Hall of the German Bundestag. He also thanked all the attendees for their participation and their contributions which made the conference as successful as it was. With that, he declared the 32 nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference closed.

The representatives of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum presented their recommendations, followed by an informative panel discussion on Boosting Democratic Resilience and Promoting Digital Resilience. In the next session, the conference investigated Strengthening the Resilience of Maritime Ecosystems. Second session Introductory remarks followed by a panel discussion on the topic of „Boosting democratic resilience and promoting digital resilience“ Ms Hanna Katrín Friðriksson and Mr Wille Valve co-chaired this session. Ms Friðriksson said as an introduction that value-based democracy had been under threat in recent years, not least through the rise of digital technology. Presentation by Ms Silva Laure and Mr Shahin Khosravi, representing the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum Ms Silva Laure and Mr Shahin Khosravi explained that the youths had produced eight unanimous recommendations on four topics. On improving digital resilience, they recommended prohibition of personal mass profiling based on data as far as these profiles allowed targeted advertising for disinformation; the parliaments should promote digital literacy education for all age groups regarding data privacy and supporting innovations to tackle disinformation. On youth participation, they called for youth involvement in political decision-making and youth civic engagement through increased political literacy; more platforms for young people with decision-making power and legally guarantee youth councils to advise local and regional governments on policies relevant to young people. Regarding social division and polarisation, they recommended developing and implementing civic education programmes and civil society initiatives to raise awareness of the dangers of extremism to democracy, including recruiting strategies; encouraging cross-border exchange programmes for citizens of all ages and diverse backgrounds focused on bridging societal division and combating extremism. To sustain faith in democratic institutions, they called for a guarantee on inclusive governance by including social groups affected by structural inequality in the formation of policies and establishing mechanisms for participatory budgeting for more equitable resource distribution and community empowerment; encouraging workers to join unions by promoting awareness and strengthening the institutional framework of the workers’ unions. In conclusion, the representatives also recommended that the BSPC implement a follow-up and monitoring process to track the progress of the recommendations presented here at the German Bundestag. Ms Laure called on the BSPC to involve youth participation at all working-level meetings of the working group on all policy areas. Mr Khosravi insisted that youth involvement could not be tokenism or “youth washing”; they had to be understood as active agents of policy making beyond so-called youth issues. Speech by Mr Stefan Seidler , independent Member of the German Bundestag for the South-Schleswigian Voter’s Association, Member of the Committee on Internal Affairs and Community Mr Stefan Seidler favoured the Nordic and Baltic forward-looking approaches to digitalisation. He noted that his parliamentary mandate marked the first time in sixty years that the Danish minority was represented in the German Bundestag. Subtle changes marked the shifts in the digital political landscape; the first to be targeted – and thus to learn – were minorities, as also evidenced by the Uighur situation in China or the LGBTQI+ community in Europe. The current major threat in the digital realm was Russia, finding many people in the West willing to believe their disinformation. He did not see the solution in technical or legal measures but rather in education, through strengthening media literacy in schools. Again, he pointed to the Nordic countries as best practice examples. Speech by Mr Paul Nemitz , Principal Advisor of the European Commission Although he agreed that education and boosting the civil society were important, Mr Paul Nemitz underlined that common rules were necessary as a framework for the digital world. The social media platforms were run by huge companies against whose power single countries could not stand. Common rules for the European Union could tie these firms into the engagement for democracy, unlike the autocratic forces of Russia and China. The data protection law of the GDPR was crucial for instance in the curtailing of AI. As such, he appreciated the youth representatives’ first recommendation to prohibit mass profiles as these constituted comprehensive surveillance that could be used to influence or even blackmail individuals. The Digital Services Act (DSA) for instance forbade self-preference. It also obliged major platforms to ensure that they were not a breeding ground for illegal content but also such undermining democratic values, even if that was legal. Structural measures had to be established to that goal. Currently, audits were started to review these measures. This was important, Mr Nemitz underlined, as these networks were competing with the free press. All media in Europe now were inherently obliged to prevent anti-democratic or harassing content, as opposed to the previous notice-and-take-down procedure. The democratic state could not stand idly by while the free press and journalists were wiped out. Thus, a level playing field for journalism in this competition had to be ensured. Moreover, participation in democratic decisions on all levels had to be boosted. A democracy had to be able to defend itself against its enemies. Speech by Mr Otto Tabuns , Director of the Baltic Security Foundation Mr Otto Tabuns saw the Baltic Sea region as a key area in the EU, from the point of view of security but also as a gateway to the Arctic. He also highlighted democracy and freedom as aspects other countries were lacking, such as North Korea or Russia, which made the latter attack these. China, furthermore, sought technological inroads to bolster its power and influence. In the area of defence, he called for better integration on a multi-national level, including both defensive and offensive cyber capabilities. For the environment, a secure renewable energy supply was vital. Moreover, vital services such as finances and transport but also the internet had to be integrated and secured. Regarding societal security and education, he bemoaned the rapid changes accompanying the COVID pandemic and the war in Ukraine, arguing for vertical, multi-lateral, and cross-border cooperation. Several processes had to be pursued at the same time. Mr Tabuns also raised the threat of personal profiles gathered by China through various means, among them TikTok, for surveillance and control purposes. Ms Anna Kassautzki moderated the following panel debate. In the quest to make the internet safer, she raised the concern over the poor working conditions of content moderators in social media companies – the people who had to review the reported hate speech or otherwise disturbing content. Despite their traumatising job, they did not have recourse to psychological support. She started off the debate by pointing to creating spaces safe from disinformation campaigns. Mr Paul Nemitz saw a number of things that had to be in done in parallel to secure such spaces as the foundation of democracy. The Council for the European Public Space sought to bring together all TV news from all member states onto one platform with automatic translation; the goal was to provide comparatively safe sources of information which had previously been blocked by the language barrier. Considering the strict controls of public news in Hungary and Poland, this contributed to domestic plurality of information. In addition, fake news had to be refuted. He also saw the vigorous enforcing of the structural requirements of the DSA as vital. Ms Anna Kassautzki remarked that people were starting to distrust the media but blindly trust social media comments. As such, she asked how trust in researched news and media literacy could be strengthened. Mr Stefan Seidler agreed that cross-border pluralism was necessary. He favoured education on digital literacy here, again praising the Nordic countries. More money had to be invested. As for the content moderators, he believed that those trained to review contents in the public sphere could be hired for more money by the large companies. Ms Silva Lare interjected that young people had contributed a project on tackling disinformation to the CBSS Ministerial Meeting. Steps were taken by the youth for the youth. There did not have to be a state-directed solution. Mr Shahin Khosravi felt that trust was connected to a feeling of being included in society. As good as some strategies were, they rarely reached the local level. All democratic forces had to be united towards this goal. Furthermore, there had to be local-level programmes to include older people. Ms Anna Kassautzki concurred that a strong civil society was the backbone of a strong democracy where all could participate, even though they might be part of a minority or immigrants. She pointed to the example of Twitter/X under Elon Musk’s ownership relaxing control: The first ones to leave were the minority groups. Indeed, these private companies had to be held accountable, with the European level approaches. Mr Otto Tabuns considered the fundamental differences regarding freedom of speech between the United States – where it was absolute – and Europe – where it was regulated – but also China – where it was non-existent. Primarily, research skills and academic honesty had to be taught at all levels, including the most basic ones. Debate skills were equally lacking. He believed that these skills in young people would make Europe more competitive in an economic sense. Mr Paul Nemitz vehemently disagreed with the perception that Europe was less free in terms of speech than the USA. The reality was that regulation maintained the freedom of speech through the absence of harassment, allowing more people to join in the discussion – especially minorities. American discourse lacked exactly that regulatory aspect introduced in Europe as a result of war and fascism. The debate was opened to the plenary at this point. Ms Bryndís Haraldsdóttir underlined Iceland’s high esteem for the BSPC as a unique forum for like-minded, mutual understanding in the region, after the Russian attack. The human suffering in Ukraine could not be ignored. Iceland was extremely concerned about sexual violence perpetrated by Russian troops. Furthermore, human trafficking exploiting women and children had to be combated with all means, including the virtual space. Democratic values, human rights, and the rule of law had to be defended vigorously, for everyone, irrespective of who they were, their gender, or how they self-identified. Mr Staffan Eklöf noted that democracy was the sibling of listening and reflection. Rigidity and prejudice stood in the way of the ongoing process of democracy. Trust, furthermore, had to be earned. Accordingly, personal integrity was the biggest asset in fighting authoritarian regimes. He called on the attendees to listen, to discuss politely, to think critically, and to analyse one’s own thoughts. Mr Arturs Pīlācis , BSPYF, warned of changes in society that contradicted common values in the Baltic Sea region. This applied to, among others, censorship, human rights, freedoms. Good intentions did not ensure good measures, and it was necessary to listen to the people on the opposite political side to chart a good course. Ms Amani Mahdi Basita Al-Mehsen , BSPYF, noted how deeply the situation in the world was reflected in young people and how strong their passion for democratic and just policies was. She called for a continued resilience in the here and now, not just put off into the future, choosing to do not what was easy but what was right. Listening mattered, for silence was toxic. Mr Martin Johnsen , BSPYF, stressed the value of youth participation, envisioning institutions to bring youth voices into political decision-making and shaping the future they wanted to live in. A renaissance of youth democracy was needed in his view, as young people were disillusioned for not being included. Mr Johannes-Emmanuel Allas , BSPYF, agreed with youth organisations having to be included in all policy decisions. Regarding digital resilience, he referenced the question of creating a proprietary platform in, e.g., Europe or continuing to work with the giant companies headquartered in the US. Mr Kaspars Briškens himself had been a youth parliamentarian 25 years earlier when all the same topics had been discussed – with the exception of digital resilience. Youth participation had been demanded with the same kind of dynamism and enthusiasm. He emphasised three key areas for youth participation: One was youth unemployment, the other was housing availability, and the third was inclusive societies where everyone could prosper regardless of their background. Ms Hanna Westerén was cheered by the youth representatives call for union involvement, in light of the lack of engagement by young people in political parties or unions in Sweden. A resilient and sustainable future required the people to facilitate participation in such institutions. Mr Tom Matzen , BSPYF, interpreted resilience as giving the tools to do so to the people. Yet there had to be a stop sign to cease spreading hatred and a go sign to cooperate more strongly. Mr Johannes Schraps summarised the preceding statements as proof of how many aspects had to be kept in mind to promote digital resilience and to strengthen democracy. A balance had to be struck between curtailing hate speech but also protecting the freedom of expression. This was a difficult task which he likened to a ride on a razor blade. He applauded that so many representatives of the youth forum had found the courage to take the floor and speak in this plenary hall. Equally, he appreciated that they had not just spoken from their own perspective but had also called for digital education for everyone across the generations. Regarding the trust in public institutions, Mr Schraps believed that a new discourse had to be found on how to deal with mistakes. When adopting laws as a legislative body, he thought that some room for manoeuvre had to be kept. The administrative body had such space but were afraid of making mistakes. As such, these problems had to be solved jointly and without this fear. Prof Jānis Vucāns remembered that the topic of resilience had first surfaced in the BSPC in 2014, after the Russian occupation of Crimea. Aside from the obvious hate speech, he also saw other effects at work, such as the availability of Russian TV channels and their influence in several European countries. This was part of a hidden attempt to spread post-Soviet ideas, which was why these channels and Russian products had been banned in Latvia. Resilience needed stronger cooperation and better understanding of these issues across the countries. Third session Strengthening the resilience of maritime ecosystems The session was chaired by Mr Jorodd Asphjell and Ms Anna Kassautzki . V ideo message by Mr Virginijus Sinkevičius , EU Commissioner for Environment Mr Virginijus Sinkevičius considered the BSPC a unique parliamentary bridge between all the countries of the Baltic Sea region. An objective of both EU and BSPC was to make the Baltic Sea clean and safe. Despite many efforts, the fish stocks remained under pressure, threatening the livelihoods of many local communities. Eutrophication through excessive nitrogen loads had to be curbed urgently. The sea-dumped ammunition was another threat that had to be tackled, and he cherished the BSPC’s repeated push on this issue. Strong regional collaboration by all stakeholders had to be the solution. Speech by Ms Steffi Lemke , Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection, Germany Ms Steffi Lemke pointed out that the work on environmental protection of the Baltic Sea had been encumbered by the ramifications of the Russian war of aggression. These were all the more visible in the Baltic Sea region, as evidenced by the halted cooperation in HELCOM. Yet the democratic nations were continuing the implementation of the HELCOM Action Plan. Beyond the Baltic Sea region, breakthrough developments in marine protection had been possible: Germany had called for a pause on deep-sea mining until relevant frameworks were established, based on the incalculable risks. This paradigm shift was important, she highlighted. By now, 21 nations had committed to such a precautionary pause. As relevant was the UN Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction treaty which had finally been agreed upon in March 2023, despite the difficult times. The goal was to have the treaty ratified prior to the UN Oceans Conference in Nice in 2025, requiring 60 countries to pass it. The Montreal biodiversity conference had called for 30 % of the seas to be turned into marine protected areas, which was only possible by covering areas beyond national jurisdiction. Moving on, she looked at the efforts to establish a legally binding treaty against plastic pollution. The second round of negotiations had taken place in Paris in April 2023. It was incumbent to reduce the amount of plastic in the sea, although a breakthrough had not yet been reached. As vital as recycling was in this issue, the current rate of plastic production meant it would not suffice as a solution. Instead, the production – especially of toxic and non-recyclable ones – had to be reduced. Ms Lemke spoke about the horrendous situation in the oceans, having reached unprecedented temperatures. This was also reflected by the increased hurricane season. Thus, it was all the more important for the Dubai COP to yield success in curbing temperatures. Otherwise, Ms Lemke put the raison d’être behind climate conferences in doubt. Given that any reduction in temperature would take a long time, she appealed to the parliamentarians to support the restoration law on the EU level. Nature was needed to support the amelioration efforts. Ms Lemke addressed the issue of sea-dumped ammunitions in the Baltic Sea which had been neglected far too long. She underlined the federal government’s pledge of 100 million euros to push forward the retrieval efforts. This should serve as a warning sign that in the future, munitions – or other items – were not simply dumped into the seas. At the latest in early 2024, the construction of a mobile marine disposal facility would begin, followed with pilot retrieval missions at the latest in 2025 in the German areas of the Baltic Sea. The plan was to continue this work in collaboration with other Baltic Sea nations. That, like so many marine protection goals, could only be achieved in joint efforts. All of these had to be pursued vigorously. Mr Philipp da Cunha noted that the BSPC had just completed its Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity, one of the organisation’s many efforts in that field. The group had investigated the situation in the Arctic on site in Tromsø, learning how much faster warming is happening there. Mr da Cunha wondered how the cooperation of the responsible ministers in the Baltic Sea region could be reinforced. He noted the working group’s in-depth examination of peatlands and respective emissions, asking how their importance could be underlined more strongly. Ms Steffi Lemke saw the collaboration between the European ministers on the environment as excellent, explicitly including Norway. In times like these, with so many challenges, it was important for parliamentarians to keep highlighting marine protection. The same applied to peatlands the draining of which had significantly contributed to increased CO 2 emissions. While this had created prosperity, it was now threatening to destroy it, so that the draining had to be reversed. In Germany, four billion euros had been provided through the programme Natural Climate Protection until 2025 for the renaturation of ecosystems. Using nature to combat climate change was a vital tool that she expected to play a major role at the COP in Dubai. Ms Anna Kassautzki underlined that the working group had discussed not only the state of the Baltic Sea but had also dealt intensively with peatlands. It had been a fruitful discussion across country and party borders. Mr Andreas Schoop of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum applauded the sea-dumped munitions problem finally being tackled. He wondered if the Baltic Future Conference could lead to a breakthrough and bringing all the countries together to solve the problem. Ms Steffi Lemke perceived a lot of attention surrounding that conference. She hoped for a powerful resolution, not just about ammunition but also concerning the climate crisis, global warming, and in particular the influx of nitrates and phosphates into the Baltic Sea. Whichever tools would be used, the influx had to be stopped. In that, she asked the parliamentarians to send a strong signal towards this goal so this would be in that resolution. Speech by Ms Emma Nohrén , Chair of the Committee on Environment and Agriculture; Member of the Swedish BSPC Delegation Ms Emma Nohrén spoke about how Sweden was dealing with complex environmental objectives. As a PhD student, she had been working with shallow soft sediment bottoms. These issues had led her to become a politician. Sweden had started its environmental objectives system in 1999, with the overall goal of solving the major environmental problems without increasing environmental and health problems outside Swedish borders. A council of scientists had been convened to provide suggestions on sharpening the approach to the government. Unfortunately, the advice had not fit with other political objectives, such as labour. 13 years earlier, a cross-party committee on environmental objectives had been established instead. This worked on complex issues outside every-day politics together with scientific experts to find solutions. Many reports had been produced, chief among them the 2016 report making Sweden the first country in the world to set a net-zero emissions target. In 2017, the first UN Oceans Conference had been held in Sweden. In the course of that, this committee had been charged with developing a marine strategy for the country. Ms Nohrén had been appointed chair, adding that members of all political parties were represented. It had been important to her to have experts on law, science, and everything in-between. The approach in Sweden was to have a 360° look around society, involving stakeholders, NGOs, municipalities. In this case, that also meant seafood chefs, small- and large-scale fishermen, local councils. If data was lacking in a specific area, the committee could commission reports. The mission statement was not to overcome any and all problems but to make sure they were acknowledged and addressed. This included the view that ocean and climate issues were intertwined. Their work ended with more than a hundred proposals, backed by all the parties in the Swedish parliament. These covered changes in responsibilities, various laws as well as minor alterations. Moreover, she had been able to take the Swedish proposals and raise them to the EU level. Afterwards, the committee had turned to the climate footprint of Sweden, again with the support of all parties. As the first country, they had come up with a proposal for long-time targets for Swedish emissions. This way of working had proven successful in Sweden, in particular on the complex topic of marine issues. Speech by Mr Christoph Humborg , Professor of Coastal Biogeochemistry and Scientific Director of Baltic Sea Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden Prof Christoph Humborg addressed coastal seas as key areas for climate change . Yet they had been mistreated for decades, with massive repercussions. The Baltic Sea was a poster child for this, being entirely surrounded by land and only connected to other waters through the Danish strait. Thus, the water residence time was about 30 years, retaining the pollutants longer than, e.g., the North Sea. From a scientific point of view, resilience was achieved by a higher biodiversity. It was the basis for successful fisheries, made the system more fit to cope with heatwaves, and it could serve as a carbon sink for climate mitigation. The average temperature across a hundred years had increased near the Finnish coast by at least 2 degrees, at 30 metres depth. Heatwaves drove up those figures, leading to marine fauna dying. A higher biodiversity, though, allowed faster recovery from such shocks. There were clear synergies between water quality, biodiversity, and climate change. 100 years ago, a typical ecosystem had a high biodiversity, numerous fish stocks, and key habitats like salt marshes and seagrasses binding carbon into the soil. Prof Humborg underlined that marine sediments were better carbon sinks than forest soils. In the present day, due to eutrophication, they had turned into carbon sources, much like previously mentioned peatlands. In Swedish coastal waters, methane emissions were on the order of 4 – 5 million tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. For the entire Baltic Sea, it was more than 10 million tonnes. Massive so-called dead zones were formed by algal blooms – caused through fertilizer influx into the sea – sinking to the sea floor. Yet there was hope, Prof Humborg underlined: The HELCOM Action Plan had contributed to lowering the nitrate and phosphate input, mainly through sewage treatment. This was unprecedented globally. The Baltic Sea region was one of only a few that had managed to reduce its nutrient inputs. Yet it was a long-term process: It had taken 50 years to ruin the Baltic Sea, cleaning it up would take another 50 years. Regarding fishery in the Baltic Sea, that was a disaster. For decades, more than 20 % of fish stocks were removed, threatening a crash of the population. The EU’s policy of squeezing as much fish as possible while just maintaining stocks was detrimental in a sea sensitive to such pressures. At the same time, scientific advice had often been too optimistic. Moreover, fishermen often fished a little more than advised. This had led to the cod population crashing. The situation for herring was not much better. Worse, he criticised that more than 90 % of all fish caught in the Baltic Sea was not for human consumption but fish meal or fish oil. His recommendations to achieve a resilient Baltic Sea were to first implement the Baltic Sea Action Plan, reducing the inputs into the ocean, and also implement the Green Deal as well as the Farm To Fork Strategy. A better water quality was the basis for a better biodiversity which in turn would switch the system from a carbon source to a carbon sink. Secondly, fishing should be done more carefully, eliminating big trawler and maximised approaches. That also created more jobs for local fishermen. Thirdly, and significantly, ocean sediments had to be returned to carbon sinks, removing the dead zones, by restoring biodiversity. Speech by Mr Ronald Lieske , Director of the Managing Authority and Joint Secretariat of Interreg Baltic Sea Region Mr Ronald Lieske coordinated a 25-years-old funding programme for the Baltic Sea region, on behalf of the local countries and the EU. The programme covered the eight EU Baltic Sea countries and the southern part of Norway, working with companies and organisations of at least three countries. His side also provided structural support to bring together cultures, different perspectives and expertise together to develop joint solutions. The four funding priorities were innovative societies, water-smart societies, and climate-neutral societies. The resilience of the marine ecosyste m was part of the water-smart societies. In addition, their fourth priority serviced technical support for the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. The main target groups were institutions implementing solutions – such as the NGOs in the regions and cities. Knowledge was to be shared, solutions tested, and ideas transferred between the regions. His side was part of the EU Cohesion Policy. As such, they were part of the EU seven-year funding scheme, currently in the 2021 – 2027 period. 14 months after the start, two thirds of the funds of 250 million euros had already been allocated, for 85 projects of different scales with 880 project partners from all region countries. Looking at solutions for marine resilience, his side was working on e.g., improving wastewater treatment systems, promoting sustainable agricultural practices, combating invasive species, adapting coastal systems to the effects of climate change, efficient water use and recycling, developing early warning systems to reduce the risks from natural and man-made hazards. Local knowledge was incorporated into the planning and decision-making processes. One specific project was testing water treatment processes to help water utilities better remove organic micro pollutants from the wastewater, developing guidelines in cooperation with HELCOM. It would be rolled out from pilot projects to countries all around the Baltic Sea. Another project was about harmonising land and maritime planning of various involved authorities, such as integrating the needs of offshore wind energy and tourism. This was an example of their bottom-up approach, with cities stating their needs and receiving support from the level of HELCOM or even the EU. As for dumped munitions, a call had been put out to get the best corporations working on the issue. Several of Mr Lieske’s side’s projects in previous funding periods had already targeted the problem, such as DAEMON II. The funds allocated for this goal were only 5 million euros but had to be considered on top of the 100 million euros provided by the German federal government. Strengthening marine resilience was a long-term goal that could only be solved by collaboration from all nations. Mr Simon Påvals was concerned with sustainable fishing quotas, especially the trawling of breeding herring in the Gulf of Bothnia. He asked Ms Nohrén how to make sure to protect small-scale coastal fishing as well as how to move the matter more effectively up to the international stage. Ms Emma Nohrén replied that her Swedish committee had already been aware three years earlier when that project had been completed. Although work had been done, it was still necessary to move the trawling zone further from the shore, lower the quotas, and perhaps ban industrial trawling in general. Prof Christoph Humborg added that Sweden and Finland were collaborating on the EU level since fisheries were most closely associated with policies. He noted that trawling was rightfully forbidden in the Great Lakes region in the USA, which was comparable to the Baltic Sea. When quotas were negotiated, the Baltic Sea should be treated as a special case because it was so different from the North Sea and the open Atlantic. Mr Wille Valve pointed out that there had been great success in reducing nutrient inflows since the 1980s although it might be the next generation to see a healthy Baltic Sea. Yet much more had to be done, and he called on his colleagues to make the Baltic Sea great again. Ms Alicia Wach , BSPYF, noted that as an environmental scientist, she had just worked on a project with GEOMAR in Kiel on carbon capture methods. The IPCC considered them vital tools for climate neutrality. She noted that seaweed fields could take up 35 times more carbon than rainforests in the Amazon, yet they were under pressure from agriculture and rising water temperatures. They should be protected through legislative measures. Secondly, carbon capture and storage was about trapping industrial emissions before reaching the air; although a somewhat risky process, the carbon could be bound to the sediment below the Baltic Sea. She encouraged the parliamentarians to look further at both methods.

Facing the Sea-Change in Politics With contributions from high-level representatives and partner organisations, the 32 nd BSPC Conference reaffirmed the realisation of the deep changes wrought by the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine and the need for reinforced resilience by the democratic nations of the Baltic Sea region, on the levels of defence, energy self-sufficiency, economy as well as society and in the digital sphere. Strengthening the Resilience of the Democratic Baltic Sea Region. Opening session BSPC President and head of the German Bundestag delegation Johannes Schraps welcomed the 32 nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference to the Bundestag plenary hall. He called on the delegates to deepen Baltic Sea cooperation and to set a decisive course for a better future of the Baltic Sea region and beyond. Welcome Address by Ms Bärbel Bas, President of the German Bundestag President of the German Bundestag Bärbel Bas welcomed the delegates, pointing out that Berlin had once been a member of the Hanseatic League. She underlined the importance of the Baltic Sea region for her and the entire German Bundestag. In that respect, she thanked Mr Schraps for guiding the BSPC during an unusually tumultuous period. This was marked by the brutal attack of Russia on Ukraine which had led to a rupture within the BSPC as the Russian delegations left and the democratic countries jointly condemned the assault. Ms Bas highlighted her close cooperation with her Ukrainian counterpart, Mr Ruslan Stefanchuk, and her own visit to Kyiv. It was crucial to her that the support for Ukraine must not wane. The democratic nations had to – and would – stand by Ukraine. After Russia’s departure from the Baltic Sea institutions, it was important for the other countries to cooperate ever more closely, both within the BSPC and the CBSS. Other cooperation formats were thriving, such as the EU and NATO. The accession of Finland and soon Sweden was reinforcing the alliance and the deterrence. Ms Bas highlighted the importance of the BSPC as discussing not just across country borders but also across parliamentary groups. Parliamentarians were closer to the citizens’ needs and wants than governments. Furthermore, the Bundestag president saw the strength of the BSPC in bringing together regional and national parliaments as well as international organisations. This had made the BSPC a particularly valuable format of dialogue, for now more than thirty years. The topic of this conference, the democratic and digital resilience, was vital because the openness of democratic societies made them vulnerable to attacks from enemies of democracy. Propaganda, hatred, and misinformation was spreading rapidly via social media and Telegram channels. Democrats had to defend themselves, online and offline. In that, they needed a strict prosecution with all the means provided by democratic law; platform and channel operators had to be held accountable; it was necessary to learn from each other about the most important strategies. Especially the Baltic Sea region was frequently the target of hybrid attacks, yet she cited a media study showing that these countries were leading in media competency. The best source of resilience was the citizens themselves. Well-informed citizens were needed to defend against disinformation, along with strengthened political involvement. Therefore, she appreciated the inclusion of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum’s participants and their ideas in this conference. Bundestag-President Bas called the Baltic Sea region a key area in Europe in which some of the decisions in the most important policy fields were made, such as climate change and the protection of maritime ecosystems. It was crucial to defend the Baltic Sea region as a place of good neighbourliness. BSPC President Johannes Schraps reiterated on the democratic parliaments’ condemnation of the brutal depravities committed by Russian forces in Ukraine, trampling on the principles that had been cornerstones of peace and stability for many decades. The reactions and decisions in the democratic nations were illustrated by the term “Zeitenwende”, coined by German chancellor Olaf Scholz. Division and fragmentation had to be avoided, and unity had to be the signal to the world. The BSPC had done so by recently reforging the foundation of cooperation, reacting clearly and consistently to the Russian war of aggression. Despite fundamental differences in some issues, the BSPC had continued to find unanimous decisions. These times of several crises were a turning point for this generation, requiring fundamental rethinking in societies. As such, in the past year, the BSPC had dealt mainly with climate change and biodiversity, sea-dumped ammunition in the Baltic Sea, and the strengthening of youth participation. He highlighted the efforts to remove the ammunition, developing new technologies, and that this problem had to be tackled right away. On climate change, he stressed recent breakthroughs on the expansion of marine protected areas, the renaturation of peatlands. The BSPC had kept its word in carrying the voice of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum into its resolution and its calls to governments. Not least through cooperating with HELCOM and the CBSS, the BSPC had shown that it was present. It had realised what it had set out to do: that the parliamentary dimension of cooperation in the Baltic Sea region was and would remain a motor for further development, direction and setting an example far beyond. First session Addresses by Representatives of other Parliamentary Assemblies, International Guests and BSPC Observer Organisations Ms Carola Veit and Mr Himanshu Gulati chaired this part of the session dedicated to the partner organisations of the BSPC. Speech by Ms Manuela Schwesig, Vice President of the German Bundesrat, Prime Minister of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Prime Minister Manuela Schwesig underscored the work of the BSPC since 1991 for a free and democratic Baltic Sea region. She also stressed the importance of involving young people and promoting their enthusiasm for liberty and the unity of the Baltic Sea countries. That was part of the defence against the divisive poison of hate and racism seeking to spread in each of those countries. The constitution of her federal state enshrined Baltic Sea cooperation, which was why Mecklenburg-Vorpommern had cultural, economic, and social ties to the other countries of the region. This made the rupture through Putin’s Russia all the more threatening, reinforcing the need to support Ukraine without question. Like the BSPC, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern also severed its ties to the St Petersburg region. A result of this rupture had to be all the other countries in the democratic Baltic Sea region moving further together. In light of the topic of resilience, this meant the security cooperation between nations and the safety of the critical infrastructure. As such, Germany had committed to reinforcing the security of the Baltic countries, with soldiers from her federal state serving to protect Lithuania. Cooperation also had to be strengthened in using the huge potential of the Baltic Sea region for renewable energies. The region could be a pioneer for living environmentally friendly, generating but also exporting energy and in peace and harmony. Ms Schwesig further underscored the efforts by Germany and other CBSS nations to clear the sea-dumped ammunition from the Baltic Sea, not least with the technologies and companies from her federal state. Speech by Ms Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam, President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam saw the Euro-Atlantic area at a crossroads, with the trans-Atlantic partners determined to defend the values of democracy, freedom, and the right of all nations to determine their destiny. The Vilnius meeting had established the NATO-Ukraine Council, along with the unambiguous statement that Ukraine’s rightful place was in NATO. The meeting had also yielded the most comprehensive defence plan since the Cold War. Security would be reinforced in the Baltic Sea and along the entire eastern flank. They could not afford complacency, though, as evidenced by the warning calls from the Baltic Sea region after Russia’s previous wars of aggression went unheeded. To that end, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly had proposed the establishment of a Centre for Democratic Resilience at NATO HQ as a resource in the face of threats to the very democracy. This could help to defend against Russia and China which were using all their tools to export their authoritarian model. Speech by Mr Asaf Hajief, Secretary-General of the PABSEC Secretary-General of the PABSEC Asaf Hajief regretted that neither the Ukrainian president nor vice-president of the organisation could join the conference because of the situation in their home country. He conveyed their best regards. The Black Sea was an important part of the world due to its geographical location as a bridge between Europe and Asia and its energy resources. Yet peace and stability were difficult to establish as there were seven conflicts among the thirteen countries in PABSEC. One of the results was the number of refugees which had reached 100 million worldwide. He called for a quick resolution in the framework of international law, with sovereignty and territorial integrity as the basis. The world was not huge but microscopic; it was their duty to bring peace, security, and prosperity to it. Speech by Mr Grzegorz Poznański, Director General CBSS Ambassador Grzegorz Poznański applauded the multi-level governance between different institutions by their organisations to implement the basic goals of the region’s people: a safe, secure, and prosperous region. He also cherished the youth engagement of the CBSS and the BSPC. Resilience would be the cornerstone of the upcoming Finnish presidency of the CBSS, a crucial topic for all of Europe, as reflected by the organisation’s long-standing efforts concerning climate change as well as educating the public about resilience. An online course for the entire region would be available in the future. In order to respond to the various crises, current and future ones, cooperation was necessary between institutions, states, within states and institutions. But that also required a well-educated, well-informed, and well-involved society. Mr Poznański also highlighted the BSPC resolution on sea-dumped ammunitions which had brought about concerted efforts by the CBSS, HELCOM, and the individual nations and regions. Speech by Mr Jens William Grav, Coordinator Baltic Sea NGO Network, Denmark Coordinator Baltic Sea NGO Network Jens William Grav explained that his network’s goal was to bring together and connect NGOs from various countries in the region. People-to-people contact and human rights issues had always been a focus in their cooperation. Until 2022, that had involved Russian NGOs, yet that was no longer possible. He likened the Ukraine of today to Yugoslavia of the 1990s and wished that one day, a rapprochement in the current crisis could also become possible. He regretted that his network had lost platforms in Germany and Finland, but he offered his remaining network to the BSPC for cooperation. He mentioned the Swedish platform’s work on education and the Polish counterpart’s on tourism issues. In Denmark, they were working on bringing the cultures and societies of other Baltic Sea region countries to the local populace’s attention, in coordination with the respective embassies. Peaceful and reliable neighbourliness and intense cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region on the basis of fundamental values BSPC President Johannes Schraps and Vice-President Staffan Eklöf co-chaired the second part of the first session. Video message by Ms Annalena Baerbock, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs, Germany Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock cited the frequently used phrase “Our unity is our life insurance” as one of the great lessons from the Russian war of aggression. That was why the nations had put their cooperation in the Baltic Sea region on a new level recently, to protect and better use it, in particular in terms of renewable energy. Reducing fossil dependency not only benefited climate but also increased the security of the people in the region. Removing the vast amounts of sea-dumped ammunition was a vital project, and she thanked the BSPC for repeatedly raising this issue. The BSPC was about doing things better, for the unity of the societies around the Baltic Sea. Video message by Ms Elina Valtonen, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Finland Minister for Foreign Affairs Elina Valtonen stated the security ramifications of the Russian war of aggression, leading to Finland joining NATO. Baltic Sea countries had to cooperate ever more closely, in formats such as the CBSS and the BSPC. Finland’s current presidency of the CBSS was headlined by Comprehensive Security, Crisis Preparedness, and Resilience. Comprehensive security reinforced the links between the authorities, the business community, organisations, and citizens. They would look into civil defence and interfacing the roles of various actors. Moreover, they would emphasise the work against human trafficking as well as solutions to underwater ammunitions. Youth would remain a visible key part. She was looking forward to continuing constructive cooperation. Video message by Mr Margus Tsahkna, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Estonia Minister for Foreign Affairs Margus Tsahkna saw this year’s conference’s topic of Strengthening the Resilience of the Baltic Sea Region as of the utmost importance given the present challenges. Reinforced cooperation was required. He praised Ukrainians’ resilience and their strong commitment to fundamental values. Ukraine had to be supported thoroughly, and Russia’s leaders had to be held accountable for the horrors committed in Ukraine. Strengthening the resilience in the Baltic Sea region also meant reinforcing social cohesion, bolstering economic and digital security, fortifying internal security, reinforcing national defence, and fostering efficient cooperation with reliable neighbours. Preparedness for a diverse range of crises was vital. For Estonia, energy independence was crucial, thus they supported cooperation on renewable energy such as wind farms. But digital resilience against conspiracy theories and disinformation was as crucial as defence against cyber threats. BSPC Vice President Staffan Eklöf yielded the floor to the speakers in the open debate segment of the first session. Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle underlined the dreams of prosperity, democracy, and peace shared by the attendees made them stronger. To her, Germany and especially Berlin were symbols of that: Berlin not only was a warning of what must not happen again, it was also a sign of hope as a united city. Freedom from tyranny was possible. However, like in the 1930s, the world was changing once again, in countries once called democracies. Polarisation sadly was working, especially through “internet warriors”, leading to events like Brexit or the January 6 insurrection in Washington. She called on her colleagues to not be naïve about the possibility of fascism returning. Therefore, the BSPC and its cooperation was more crucial than one might think. It was necessary to listen and to respect each other’s differences.