The 34^th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference, Mariehamn, Åland Islands – 24-26 August 2025

The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) is pleased to present the seventh Report on Sustainable Tourism in the Baltic Sea Region, authored by the BSPC Rapporteur on Sustainable Tourism, Birgit Hesse , President of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Highlights and Focuses The 2024–2025 edition provides a comprehensive update on the latest political, strategic and practical developments in sustainable tourism across the Baltic Sea region. It highlights progress made in cross-border cooperation, innovation and climate-friendly travel – while underlining the challenges posed by climate change, overtourism and social inequality. A strong focus is placed on the Interreg Baltic Sea Region and South Baltic Programmes , which have seen more than 20 innovative projects launched or continued in this period – from the development of green hydrogen infrastructure in aviation (BSR HyAirport) and regenerative food tourism (BASCIL), to initiatives in cycling tourism such as Bike Across the Baltic and Baltic Biking Upgrade . The report also reflects current EU developments, including the European Declaration on Cycling , the strengthening of the Policy Area Tourism under the revised EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, and the new EU Commissioner’s mandate for Sustainable Transport and Tourism . It examines current scientific research and offers a broad literature review on key issues such as heritage tourism, resource management, climate impacts, and critical reflections on growth models in tourism. Particular attention is given to social inclusion, the perspectives of young people and children , and the need for better indicators to measure progress. Through this work, the BSPC continues to promote a just transition towards a climate-neutral tourism sector , in line with the climate goals enshrined in the Paris Agreement and reaffirmed by the Glasgow Climate Pact. The BSPC expresses its sincere gratitude to Ms Birgit Hesse for her dedicated work and commitment to sustainable development in the region . 📘 You can access the full report here: We encourage all stakeholders to engage with the findings and join the ongoing dialogue on sustainable tourism in the Baltic Sea Region. For more background information on the BSPC’s work on sustainable tourism, visit the Rapporteur on Sustainable Tourism page.

On 17 June 2025, the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) Standing Committee convened in Mariehamn to prepare the 34 th BSPC. A presentation from the Åland Peace Institute provided deep information about how the islands achieved and maintained their autonomous status, with lessons on how to achieve such stability even in periods of transformation. The same was reflected in the Standing Committee continuing its preparations for the Annual Conference, the end of one working group and the start of another as well as further ties to regions in Poland. About 30 participants, representatives and delegations of the BSPC members from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, Finland, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden participated in the meeting. Introduction BSPC President Alfons Röblom welcomed the Standing Committee to the Åland parliament. Only a week after celebrating the self-governing region’s Autonomy Day, he underlined that this autonomy had always been about creating and safeguarding a framework for peace, identity, dialogue, and cooperation. This spirit reflected the very foundation of the BSPC’s values. Presentation by Ms Susann Simolin, Director of the Åland Peace Institute Director Simolin acknowledged that she had only assumed her position the previous year but had been working at the Institute for a long time before. During the current period of uncertainty, she considered it fruitful to consider long-standing institutions born in their own phase of transition. Speaking about Åland and its history thus would allow broader reflections to challenges prevalent worldwide in the present day. She noted that the early 1990s had been a time of transformation after the end of the Cold War, with the Baltic Sea region re-imagining itself as a space of cooperation. One element of that was the birth of the BSPC, as was the Åland Peace Institute a year later, in 1992. Rooted in the Nordic peace movement of the 1980s, the Institute had focused on research into democratisation, minorities issues, and territorial autonomy as well as practical conflict management, all of that based on the Åland situation. Small in geography and population, places like Åland could still be influential. Today, it was demilitarised, neutral, autonomous, and had special protections for the Swedish language and culture. This development had begun 169 years earlier, accommodating the needs of many different actors. Throughout much geopolitical change, Åland’s condition had remained stable, making it an example of how complex situations could be stabilised through legal innovation. Ms Simolin presented a timeline of the region’s history, first as part of Sweden, then held by Russia along with Sweden and Finland. After the Crimean war ended in 1856, Åland became demilitarised. The revolution in Russia and Finland’s independence in 1917 brought about a popular movement to shift Åland over to Sweden. The tense issue had been brought to the League of Nations which decided in 1921 on a new demilitarisation treaty, guarantees for the Swedish culture and language as well as neutrality. Further treaties were signed, cementing the region’s conditions, among them with the EU and NATO. Ms Simolin depicted the three core components of the Åland solution, noting that each dispute had its own list of problems. One was the self-determination movement of the islands, resolved through power-sharing within Finland and democratic participation. Security had been addressed through demilitarisation and neutralisation. Minority protection provisions tackled the issues of identity and local culture, such as Swedish being the school language. Broadening the view to the international arena, the status of minorities was relevant across the globe. While hardly inevitable, there were often tensions alongside calls for self-determination or autonomy. Out of 50 ongoing conflicts around the world, nearly half of them were at least partially caused by such territorial issues. Power sharing was often part of the resolution, whether through political resolution or geographical decisions. Ms Simolin cited a study finding 236 territorial autonomy cases in 66 different peace processes from 1990 – 2019. The case of Åland had at least been considered in conflicts such as Aceh in Indonesia, the Falkland Islands, Okinawa in Japan, Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka, averaging out to 10 contacts per year. She understood territorial autonomy to deal with a specific geographic area within a state, transferring political powers to local populations, and to be characterised by asymmetry. As for Finland, Åland’s autonomy was stipulated in the constitution through the Autonomy Act which regulated the powers of the islands as well as those of the Finnish state in the territory. Ms Simolin noted that this act could only be changed jointly by the Åland and Finnish parliament. To her understanding, the combination of demilitarisation, autonomy, and minority protection devices was unique to Åland while further characteristics could also be found in other arrangements, such as international guarantees, regional “citizenship”, and a long evolving process. She described demilitarisation as a process of reducing weapons. In the case of Åland, there was a legal obligation not to station military troops or facilities there. There were ten similar arrangements in Europe. Neutralisation was an even more complicated issue, which generally meant that parties in conflict were legally prevented from undertaking military activities within the territory. Various similar terms were used here. Ms Simolin noted that, due to customary law, even parties not bound by any of the various treaties were obligated to respect both the neutralisation and demilitarisation. She noted that the reason for demilitarisation was to prevent a given physical area from becoming either the source or the site of armed conflict. In summary, she underlined that innovations and frameworks born out of turbulent times could be long-lasting, adjusted and reshaped over time, not least in further transitional periods. Complex challenges required multi-dimensional solutions. Mr Enn Eesmaa wondered if the example of Åland could also be applied to other regions, such as Georgia, Moldova or even Ukraine. Director Simolin found any questions about the future difficult but noted connections to Moldova, in particular with regard to the Gagauz population in that state and implementing institutional relief. Here, it was important to remember that the intention behind institutions mattered rather than the institutions themselves. Autonomy required a delicate balance, giving satisfying independence while maintaining the state’s overall cohesion. Catalonia was an example of an autonomous region with a strong independence claim. There had also been the hope of the EU interposing a new layer, raising the profile of regions at the expense of states. Mr Himanshu Gulati commented on the fast-changing geopolitics of the present day. He asked if any of these had impacted the sentiments of the Åland people. Ms Simolin replied that the islands had been very much affected, pointing to daily demonstrations in front of the Russian consulate. Åland these days was embedded in the ongoing events of Europe, such as the pandemic or the migration discussion. In particular, the issues of demilitarisation and neutralisation had become more prevalent in political discussions. Mr Henrik Møller referred to the Danish ongoing discussion regarding the Faroe Islands and Greenland as autonomous regions and their desire for independence. These were very different situations to what suited the people of Åland. Ms Simolin commented that the autonomy arrangement in Åland had only been fully accepted in the 1950s, after some 30 years. Mr Staffan Eklöf pointed out that Sweden was re-establishing garrisons on Gotland. As a result, Russia was claiming that Sweden was no longer respecting a demilitarisation zone on Gotland, comparing it to Åland. He wondered if the speaker could clarify the matter. Ms Simolin conceded that she was no expert on Gotland and could not determine what status applied there. She further commented that even international law could be used to make one or the other argument. Often, disinformation contained a small kernel of truth that was used for the misleading argument. Prof Jānis Vucāns wondered if discussions about how to deal with certain territories after a war could begin while the conflict was still ongoing. Regarding Finland, he asked about the thinking of autonomous regions for the Sami people. Director Simolin acknowledged that discussions did often crop up about the aftermath of a war and how to manage that, both among politicians and researchers in their distinct approaches. All wars came to an end eventually, and some kind of plan or a prepared position was needed. Moving on to the Sami people, she noted that their historical treatment had not been as consistent as that of Åland but had been improving. Furthermore, there were different perspectives on the issue among the Finnish population. Mr Girts Kristovski saw more of a militarisation process in the present day at work. Ms Simolin replied that the Peace Institute was not an association for peace but rather a research institution. Åland was a demilitarised region within a militarising environment. This raised research questions of e.g., how Finland’s NATO membership would affect that demilitarisation. Understanding the island’s status was her task rather than promoting it. Mr Bodo Bahr asked how interparliamentary bodies like the BSPC could aid autonomous regions. Referring to the various treaties governing and securing Åland’s status, he wondered how much these mattered when aggressor countries ignored laws. Director Simolin assigned an important role to parliamentary diplomacy as parliamentarians were free to go beyond the state’s agenda and develop other contacts. The BSPC was part of this multi-level governance structure, in her view. Moving to the second question, she believed that small states benefitted from rules and regulations, making the world a bit more predictable and allowing these some say. Even though international law might be flawed, she considered it vital to keep that web as intact as possible. She went on to note that the perception of security mattered as well; for the people of Åland, demilitarisation was a part of their customary, perceived safety. Moreover, she said the world did not become safer the more weapons there were. However, specific situations demanded difficult decisions how to move in the continuum between demilitarisation and militarisation. It was necessary to work at all levels to find solutions. Follow-up to the 33 rd BSPC President Röblom noted that statements on implementing the adopted resolution had arrived from the governments of Åland, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein, and Sweden. This provided a detailed and far-reaching compendium of governmental actions and developments in the Baltic Sea Region, in other words a unique resource for parliamentary deliberation, scientific research, and cross-border coordination among our governments. The statements of the governments had been made available to the public. Furthermore, he pointed out that three parliaments had held plenary debates on the resolution. He hoped that more parliaments would pick up on this. Working Group on Energy Security, Self-sustainability, Resilience, and Connectivity (ESSRC) The President noted that comprehensive reports on the most recent meetings of the Working Group had been published on the BSPC website. The survey conducted by the Group had received responses from Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein, and Sweden. The Åland Islands and Hamburg did not participate, as the issues raised fell primarily outside their constitutional remit. A summary of key findings and policy considerations will be included in the final report. Moreover, a Fact Sheet summarising the group’s achievements would also be published. The recommendations had already been integrated into the 2025 BSPC Resolution. The complete final report would be published on the BSPC website over the summer. Prof Jānis Vucāns praised the working group’s efforts to investigate issues of sustainability and cooperation in energy networks in many BSPC member countries. What was most important, he stressed, was to take lessons from the gathered information. Accordingly, he urged his colleagues to study these materials and provide feedback to the working group chair. New BSPC Working Group after the 34 th Annual Conference President Röblom explained that a proposal from the Presidium of the Baltic Assembly to establish a new BSPC Working Group on Strengthening Cyber and Information Resilience had been unanimously decided to be forwarded to the Annual Conference for formal consideration. Mr Henrik Møller reiterated his approval of the proposal. Yet he found the threat of democracy, not least through cyber approaches, to be a topic that he hoped could be integrated into the new working group. Prof Jānis Vucāns believed that strengthening cyber and information resilience, as per the title, already included the defence of democracy. It might be suitable, though, to adjust the title. President Röblom agreed that such a change would be a good idea, given how democracy was under threat in all of their regions. Mr Bodo Bahr said that this change could be implemented via the draft resolution. That found the agreement of the Standing Committee. Rapporteurs Mr Röblom stated that the BSPC Rapporteur on Integrated Maritime Policy, Mr Jörgen Pettersson , had filed his annual report for the conference, entitled “Shipping in the Baltic Sea: Where We Stand and What Comes Next.” It would be published on the BSPC website shortly. The meeting was informed that further reports were considered in the preparation of the conference. Finances The president confirmed that all contributions to the Joint Financial Mechanism for 2025 had been received. BSPC Presidencies after 2026/Rotation Principle After the proposal for a rotation principle for the BSPC presidencies had been endorsed by all delegations, the presidencies and executive committees of both the Parliament of Iceland and the Parliament of the Free Hanseatic City of Bremen had officially confirmed their readiness to assume the BSPC presidency as per the envisaged rotation. The 34 th BSPC and the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum (BSPYF) in Mariehamn, 24–26 August 2025 The Standing Committee reviewed the latest developments in the preparation of the upcoming 34 th BSPC Annual Conference and the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum (BSPYF) , to be held in Mariehamn from 24 to 26 August 2025 . President Röblom reported that the invitations had already been sent out and the draft programme reflected the outcome of the Secretariat meeting held in April. The first conference session would highlight Intergenerational Dialogue , designed as the culmination of the BSPYF. Fifty young participants from across the Baltic Sea Region will attend the entire conference and present their own recommendations in a dedicated session. The Committee exchanged views on various aspects of the conference preparation. Suggestions were made to ensure flexibility in the agenda and to accommodate high-level contributions. The Standing Committee was also briefed on the status of the draft Resolution , which continues to evolve based on ongoing BSPC debates. Topics under consideration include geopolitical challenges, energy security, maritime demilitarisation and the protection of critical infrastructure. Observer Status of the West Pomeranian, Warmia-Masurian, and Pomeranian Regional Parliaments The president noted that three regional parliaments in Poland had applied for observer status within the BSPC: West Pomerania, Warmia and Mazury as well as Pomerania. All three met the formal criteria for observer status. The Standing Committee expressively welcome and unanimously accepted the applications. Mr Röblom noted that the three parliaments would already be invited to attend the upcoming conference. Events, Reports, and Invitations The meeting also considered the outcome of conferences with participation of BSPC members particularly the conference o n “Borders of Diplomacy and Diplomacy Beyond Borders” in Riga. Prof Jānis Vucāns pointed out that Ithe conference had successfully explored how far diplomatic solutions could be taken and when other means had to be employed. Indeed, the borders of diplomacy were much wider than e.g., 30 years earlier, and the tools now available had to be exploited much better. President Röblom concurred, adding that parliamentarians were freer in representing the opinions of the people than government officials. Address by the Speaker of the Lagting In his address to the Standing Committee, the Speaker of the Åland Lagting, Mr Jörgen Pettersson, emphasised that it was with great joy and appreciation that Åland welcomed so many parliamentary friends back to the islands. He underlined that true cooperation was always built over time, through trust and repeated dialogue, and that the BSPC itself embodied this spirit. He stated that only among genuine friends could difficult discussions take place in a constructive atmosphere, even when views diverged – and that this ability to “agree to disagree” was, in fact, the true definition of friendship and diplomacy. Mr Pettersson reflected that while in calm waters no one noticed the lifeboats, in turbulent times their presence became vital. He described the BSPC as such a lifeboat: reliable, prepared, and called upon not in triumph but in turmoil. He stressed that, especially in today’s unsettled geopolitical climate, the role of the BSPC was more essential than ever. He further reminded the Standing Committee that the BSPC had been founded in the aftermath of the Cold War, a moment filled both with hope and uncertainty. Referring to Finland’s then-Speaker Kalevi Sorsa, who had played a key role in its establishment, he argued that the duty now lay with current generations to continue in the same spirit of openness and dialogue. Turning to Åland, Mr Pettersson underlined that the islands knew what neutrality meant and what it required to maintain peace. For over a century, Åland had been a symbol of demilitarisation and peaceful conflict resolution. This, he said, made Åland a particularly fitting place to reaffirm the Baltic Sea region’s commitment to dialogue, even when discussions were challenging. Finally, the Speaker expressed his heartfelt thanks and profound appreciation towards outgoing BSPC Secretary General Bodo Bahr for his many years of dedicated service. He highlighted that Mr Bahr had consistently reminded the Conference that dialogue must never fall silent, and that real progress often began with the courage to open closed doors. According to Mr Pettersson, Mr Bahr had been the one to open many of these doors over the years, demonstrating that inter-parliamentary cooperation depended not only on structures but also on individuals willing to take initiative. He stressed that Mr Bahr’s insistence on in-person meetings, regardless of the topic, had been instrumental in creating mutual trust, and he thanked him warmly on behalf of the entire Åland Parliament for these achievements. At the same time, the Speaker noted with confidence that the appointment of Mr Jan Diedrichsen as the new Secretary General would ensure continuity and renewal in equal measure. He said that the strong foundation laid by Mr Bahr would provide a firm basis for Mr Diedrichsen to build upon, and he assured him of the Lagting’s full support. In conclusion, Mr Pettersson encouraged all members of the Standing Committee to continue on this path of friendship, dialogue and commitment, adding that although the road ahead might not always be smooth, the shared values of peace and cooperation would guide the way forward. Visit to the Lagting and Museums In addition to the formal meeting, the Standing Committee members also visited a plenary session of the Åland Lagting, gaining first-hand impressions of parliamentary life on the islands. During a subsequent visit to the Åland Cultural History Museum and the Åland Art Museum, the participants received a profound insight into the history, heritage, and identity of the Åland Islands.