The second day of the BSPC conference began with addresses from international partners, reinforcing their cooperation. The BSPC Working Group’s interim report on Energy Security, Self-sustainability, and Connectivity was presented, along with reports by the BSPC Rapporteurs on Integrated Maritime Policy, Migration and Integration as well as Sea-Dumped Munitions. The fourth session dealt with climate change, assessing once more the situation and charting what had to be implemented. Finally, the presidency was transferred from Denmark to Åland.
Addresses by Representatives of other Parliamentary Assemblies, International Guests, and BSPC Observer Organisations
Benelux Parliaments
Mr Hendrik-Jan Talsma, head of the delegation of the Netherlands Parliament, thanked the BSPC for inviting a delegation from the Benelux parliaments to this extraordinary event. He pointed to the historical ties between their nations, although they had not always been as peaceful, friendly, and cooperative as in the present. What the Baltic Sea meant for the states around its shores, the North Sea did for Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. It was an economic and strategic artery for these countries. Security played an increasingly vital role here as well, with a growing number of Russian military and scientific vessels passing coastlines, data cables, wind farms, and gas pipelines. Of course, the right of free passage – mare liberum – had to be respected. Escorting non-NATO ships had become a regular task for the North Sea states while arrangements to protect wind farms against drone deployment had been made. Yet for the necessary investments in defence, resources were needed: software for better detection and monitoring, camera surveillance, drones, and more stringent public-private security plans. This was only possible through efficient cooperation. On 25 October 2024, the Netherlands parliament would host a conference on this subject. Mr Talsma extended an invitation to a BSPC delegation. He called on his audience to stand together in the face of the increasing tensions.
CBSS, Estonian Presidency
Mr Tõnis Nirk, Ambassador-at-Large for Baltic Sea Cooperation, Chairman of the CBSS Committee of Senior Officials, introduced the main priorities of the Estonian presidency. They built on the achievements of their predecessors, continuing to stress the political dialogue. The recent Ministerial Meeting in Porvoo had reaffirmed support for Ukraine, noting the change in the security landscape after the Russian attack, particularly in hybrid threats from Russia and Belarus. The three long-term priorities of the CBSS remained highly topical: a safe and secure, sustainable and prosperous region, and a regional identity. The main focus of the Estonian presidency would be on strengthening resilience and sustainability. Furthermore, the support for and with Ukraine would be continued and reinforced. Thirdly, well-focused and mutually beneficial cooperation with the other regional formats – highlighting the BSPC – was crucial for the CBSS. Regarding the long-term priorities, he said that, for a safe and secure region, the CBSS would concentrate on civil protection, child protection, and anti-trafficking. For a sustainable and prosperous region, work would continue on the green corridors through the Baltic Sea. In a new Estonian initiative, the CBSS would work on creating a “digital twin” of the Baltic Sea. For regional identity, cultural heritage and several important projects were at the forefront. Youth involvement also continued its vital part in the CBSS, such as the CBSS Summer University in Tallinn in mid-July.
The CBSS had appointed a new director general of the secretariat. Mr Nirk acknowledged the predecessor’s, Ambassador Poznański, tremendous work over the past four years. Dr Lindström would take over the position a few days later.
In Porvoo, ministers had decided on a review of the CBSS to provide recommendations for the future. He expected results to be available by the time Poland would take over the presidency in the coming year.
CBSS, Secretariat
Ambassador Grzegorz Poznański, outgoing director general of the CBSS secretariat, said that Baltic Sea cooperation showed the multi-level governance of the region. Parliamentarians, governments but also regions, cities, and other organisations were playing a vital role in moving all of them forward. A good old tradition of the region was to find solutions for problems they encountered. This went back to the assemblies in the Nordic countries and Germany called thing which were forerunners of the parliaments of the present day. The Slavic precursors led to the modern word sejm and cognates. Russia had experimented with similar ideas in the Novgorod Republic in the late medieval period – but it had been literally butchered by Czar Ivan the Terrible. For the ambassador, this early end of the council concept was a likely explanation why no common ground had been found with Russia since.
He had been proud to represent the Baltic Sea region for four years since it was an example to the world. Other regions seeking to establish similar cooperations were looking to the Baltic Sea as a role model, such as the countries around the Red Sea. In the multi-level governance, they turned to politicians when needed, at other times to cities or regions. Ambassador Poznański was also glad that the Baltic Sea region was doing the most to support Ukraine, on every level. Furthermore, he highlighted the close collaboration with Ukraine – sharing ideas but also learning from the country’s painful experience. Democratic values and pragmatism, awareness of threats and opportunities, cooperation – all of that had allowed the Baltic Sea region to flourish in the past and would continue to do so.
Baltic Sea NGO Network
Mr Jens William Grav, coordinator, reflected that the last time he had been at this venue in 2009, the Nord Stream pipeline as well as nuclear power had been discussed. Some things changed; others stayed the same. He went on to explain that the purpose of the Baltic Sea NGO Network was to bring NGOs from different countries and fields together and influence democratic decision-making in the region as well as raising awareness for the work of NGOs. People-by-people contact and human rights issues had been a focus of their efforts. While the Network had used to have platforms in every country of the region, recently, the ones in Finland and in Iceland had been shut down. Some of the platforms were coordinators for some of the EU macro strategy’s priority areas such as Sweden for education and Poland for tourism. He underlined that civil society was important for the development of the Baltic Sea region. In the Nordic tradition, democracy started in NGOs in which boards were elected. That experience was taken to other democratic institutions, such as political parties. As for the Network’s partnership with the BSPC, Mr Grav said that discussions were ongoing to establish an event like the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum to bring the whole of society into the BSPC’s discussion. He stressed that every part of society was needed in the region’s development.
Status Report from the Working Group and Reports by BSPC Rapporteurs
Session chair Kim Aas noted his pride on the high-level recommendations elaborated by the working group after just one year.
Interim Report of the Working Group on Energy Security, Self-sustainability, and Connectivity
Working group chair Andris Kulbergs believed they had achieved great success after just one year, having gathered practical experience and having learned from each other. In retrospect, Russian gas had been a sedative – so comfortable and easy for citizens and business that there had been no drive to develop renewables. None had wanted to realise that the gas had been a weapon. But since the Russian attack on Ukraine, that had become obvious – especially in the effect on inflation. Latvia had experienced 22 % inflation, forcing government to spend a great deal of money to support citizens and industry. In effect, they were paying for the mistake they had made before. This applied to other European countries as well. Now, industry was looking for alternative energy sources, such as German chemical and manufacturing enterprises. Yet Europe had shown resilience in a way Russia had not anticipated. There was much yet to do, though.
At a meeting in Riga, the working group had visited a Soviet-era hydro plant which allowed Latvia to be among the greenest energy suppliers in Europe. Rail Baltica was a vital project as Soviet infrastructure had been deliberately laid out east-west, and now the north-south dimension was being developed as a project across the Baltic Sea region. Mr Kulbergs noted the military aspect as the Ukrainian railway helped the country sustain its war effort. Furthermore, Rail Baltica also served as energy and digital infrastructure, reinforcing security. In March 2024, the working group had gone to Helsinki. The hybrid threat centre opened their eyes to how poorly they had been dealing with propaganda, how slow information was versus disinformation. Politicians needed to make sure they had the truth rather than fall prey to propaganda themselves. Furthermore, the energy sector would be vulnerable in the coming winter. Mr Kulbergs related an example from January 2024 when the Nordics’ energy grid had been overtaxed when renewables had failed, stressing the need for reliable base energy and better interconnectivity among the countries. He called on his fellow politicians not to let national pride prevent such interconnections.
The working group had also implemented a survey among the Baltic Sea nations on consumption, energy productivity, and connectivity plans. He believed all of them were seriously underestimating the future demand of electricity. Among other aspects, he pointed to vehicle transport and heating moving to electric power driving that increase. There was also the growth of AI: At an extracurricular meeting in Finland, at the LUMI supercomputer data centre, they learned that the centre expended 15 megawatts in the present but expected that number to balloon to 300 megawatts in five years. This made base power even more crucial. Mr Kulbergs remarked that Sweden and Poland were now heavily investing in nuclear power. These approaches had to be synchronised across the region. He called on everybody to work together, to ensure there would be no further vulnerabilities to Russian attacks. That also included protecting the crucial infrastructure in the Baltic Sea as well as digital firewalls and defending from hybrid propaganda threats.
Co-chair Eka von Kalben announced that the reports of the BSPC Rapporteurs were to follow. She informed the conference that all the reports were available for download on the BSPC website, including those not orally represented in this session.
Report by Mr Jörgen Pettersson, BSPC Rapporteur for Integrated Maritime Policy
Mr Pettersson called the men and women at sea the unsung heroes of their time, making sure that people’s basic needs were covered. Everything needed for living was delivered by sea. Aside from unpredictable natural forces, they were facing regulation, competition, policies, and more created by humans. 15 % of global shipping occurred in the Baltic Sea, with 2000 ships constantly present.
He noted that his report covered three large policy areas: The future fuels/engines and the ETS trading system – first in the world – would bring major implications across the board, affecting infrastructure, maritime spatial planning, and technologies. The Russian shadow fleet posed a significant challenge to global maritime authorities and regulators. Some 400 tankers were not registered or mis-registered and operating below the radar with ship-to-ship transfers, AIS manipulation, very complex ownership structures, alternative finance and insurances, disguised routes. They represented economic strategic aggression and geopolitical instability. The integrated maritime policy provided notions on how to tackle such matters.
The goal was a sustainable and competitive future for the maritime sector because of its importance for life. As such, he was looking to further good cooperation to achieve these ambitious goals.
Report by Ms Carola Veit, BSPC Rapporteur for Migration and Integration
Ms Veit noted that migration and integration remained at the top of the political agenda, as evidenced by the recent European elections. Europe was still experiencing the largest refugee movement since the end of World War II. She highlighted the BSPC resolution paragraphs 4, 6, and 8, namely, integrating migrants and vulnerable groups into the labour market with regard to social sustainability and the support for Ukraine. Secondly, the challenges of migration, hybrid warfare, and border control were increasingly intermingled. The UN Refugee Agency had recorded some 6.5 million refugees from Ukraine globally by July 2024, all but half a million in Europe. Yet there had been more than 117 million refugees worldwide in 2023. EuroStat stated that, relative to their size, Chechia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia had accepted the most Ukrainian refugees. But all members of the BSPC were confronted with the task of integration. The German Institute for Employment’s research showed the labour market integration by Ukrainians, with Lithuania showing the highest employment rate at 57 %, followed by Denmark at 53 %, and Poland at 48 %. Below 20 % were Finland, Norway, and Romania. The two different approaches here were language first and work first. To some degree, they explained this variance, trading speed for sustainability. Thus, despite the currently low numbers, the study recommended Norway as a role model, offering a part-time 6-12-month program so that Ukrainians could work at the same time. A Hamburg model for underage migrants combined vocational training with language classes, with 53 % of participants moving on to further education or employment. Two policy decisions in Latvia and Estonia underlined the importance of language skills for integration: Latvia would discontinue Russian as a mandatory second language in its state education from 2026, aiming to provide a wider selection of second languages. From 2029, Estonian would be the only instruction language in that country.
Ms Veit presented four policy decisions also tackling hybrid attacks and border tensions. Finland was seeking to implement pushbacks at its border to Russia, despite legal concerns. Finland and Lithuania had to deal with Russia unilaterally redrawing Baltic Sea borders to sow confusion. Sweden was implementing a “snitch” law so that contacts with undocumented workers would be reported to the authorities, over opposition from municipalities, trade unions, civil society groups. Germany had re-introduced temporary border checks as a reaction to more than 260,000 unauthorised border crossings in 2023. Refugees were increasingly reduced to an instrument of hybrid warfare by Russia.
Parliamentarians had to strike a balance between fighting against hybrid threats and defending democratic values. A strong democracy was the best protection against disinformation. Yet they had to remember that their aging societies needed people. Migration should be seen as one key to the future of the Baltic Sea region and Europe.
Presentation by Ms Anna Kassautzki, BSPC Rapporteur on Sea-Dumped Munitions
Ms Kassautzki cautioned that, amidst the current threats, the mistakes of the past should not be forgotten. After the World Wars, some 400,000 tonnes of conventional and 40,000 tonnes of chemical warheads had been dumped onto the bottom of the Baltic Sea. She noted that the first number was likely vastly underestimated. The ammunition was corroding, its contents polluting the sea water. Since the Baltic Sea waters were more stationary than in other seas, so were the harmful substances. One well-researched example near Kiel showed mussels and 25 % of the caught fish being heavily affected. For too long, the problem beneath the sea was out of sight, out of mind. Not only the BSPC had been seeking to bring it to the surface but also the CBSS, HELCOM, and other organisations. Scientists were using AI to supplement real data so as to find munition dump sites. The EU sought to coordinate scientific action and data sharing with the Commission, the CBSS, and HELCOM. They wanted to develop tools and technologies for a campaign to clear the Baltic Sea from dumped munitions. Combined with the planned German mobile platform, this could be a gamechanger. Finding, retrieving, and destroying the munitions on the spot above the waterline would be the most efficient way without further damaging the ecosystem. Unfortunately, progress was not as fast as it should be. As such, her report from the previous year was still up to date. Yet the process had to be accelerated – Ms Kassautzki underlined that there was not much time left to implement it. She called for the close cooperation between the major entities and the strong support from the parliamentary side. In particular, the governments had to find a funding mechanism so they could clean up the mess of generations before.
Fourth Session:
Climate Initiatives
Session chair Jarosław Wałęsa explained that the BSPC’s previous working group had dealt with Climate Change and Biodiversity, completing its work the previous year. The present session would continue to deepen understanding and discussion of this crucial topic.
Presentation by Ms Eva Jensen, European Environment Agency
Ms Jensen noted that security was the framework around the climate agenda in the coming policy cycle in the EU institutions, much like the BSPC conference. Her agency provided knowledge and data to policymakers. As for climate change specifically, she explained that Earth had already warmed by the 1.5 °C target specified in the Paris Agreement. That this would inevitably be exceeded spoke to the urgency of these efforts. Extrapolating current trends foresaw a rise by 7 °C at the end of the 21st century – it was hard to see how human society could adapt to that. Fortunately, the widespread efforts would likely lower that excess warming.
Her agency had published the first ever comprehensive risk assessment on climate risks in Europe in the spring of 2024. The clear message was that Europe was not ready and required much more resilience. Surprisingly to many, Europe was warming at twice the global average. 1.5 °C for the world did not mean the same number for Europe. Extreme heat, drought, wildfires, flooding were the result. In 2022, these events had cost 52 billion euros in damages. In the report, 32 major climate risks had been identified, in five categories: economy and finance, health, food, infrastructure, and info systems. Of those, 21 risks required urgent action. These included food production in southern Europe – e.g., crop failures, droughts –, houses collapsing in floods, and ocean ecosystems. The report also presented outlooks for individual regions. Baltic Sea warming, for example, accelerated oxygen depletion, creating more dead zones, as well as promoting algae blooms.
Moving on to EU actions, Ms Jensen mentioned the Green Deal, underlining that it was not restricted to the current Commission but would be continued by the incoming team. The goal was to reduce greenhouse gases by 55 % in Europe through the largest policy package in the EU, via carbon pricing etc. Estimates for future emissions based on the currently enacted and planned measures predicted an overshoot of the 2030 target. Yet Ms Jensen saw them going in the right direction, although more effort was needed. The reduction achieved so far had been primarily driven by the energy transition: Renewable energies had doubled since 2005, to 23 %. Without them, there would be 17 % more emissions. However, these efforts would have to be tripled to reach the 2030 goal. Further contributors included less fossil fuel and electric vehicles. The biggest challenges to further reducing emissions were forest sinks, increased harvesting, and negative impacts from climate disturbances. In a warmer climate, more CO2 was being emitted. She cautioned that climate change would not stop in 2030, so that politics would have to continue the process.
Climate change was everywhere in the political guidelines for the coming five years, but it was wrapped up in the questions of how to be secure, competitive, and how to implement a fair and just transition.
Presentation by Prof Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, Vice-Chair for the European Scientific Board on Climate Change
Ms Jacobsen noted that her institute had been launched two years before. They were an independent advisory body, discussing European climate policy and providing guidance on how to reach the climate goals. One area had been the implementation of the Green Deal; the other concerned the 2030 goal as only a stepping stone to the 2050 target of being carbon neutral or even negative. Action was needed right away.
In June 2023, the Board released a report on what Europe could and should contribute to the global efforts of meeting the Paris Agreement’s aim. The maximum reduction that was feasible amounted up to 95 %. The question was what a fair share for Europe amounted to, and by all the criteria they had considered, that number exceeded what was possible. Ms Jacobsen remarked that there was a range of political priorities to enact the various pathways to a 90-95 % reduction by 2040: One was demand-side – e.g., people eating a more climate-friendly diet, less energy-consuming transport patterns –, while another pathway dealt with more renewable energy, and a spread of pathways mixing these approaches. All of them, though, had to be enacted across all sectors and policy areas.
Their second report detailed that all the various efforts had to be accelerated in order to hit these targets. She agreed that climate change was one of several priorities that sometimes collided with each other. The board had gone through each sector along with cross-cutting aspects, ending up with 13 recommendations sorted by urgency to achieve the 2030 targets. At the same time, this was also about preparing the path to 2050. Ms Jacobsen stressed that 2050 was not very far off. The earlier measures were implemented, the less expensive they would be – especially in light of how long it took to put policies into place.
Presentation by Prof Stiig Markager, Aarhus University
Prof Markager opened by saying that he had been working on the science of the Baltic Sea for the past 30 years and was, among others, in various HELCOM expert groups. The ecosystem in the western part of the Baltic Sea had totally collapsed, i.e., several major components had been reduced to such a low level that they no longer functioned. As an example, he juxtaposed two photos of the same fishing boat: In the shot from the 1980s, the deck was overflowing with caught fish, while around 2020, there were only few and small cod in a much smaller catch. The cod population in the western Baltic Sea, he underlined, had collapsed completely. As a result, all fishery – commercial and recreational – had been banned. Recreational also meant a tourist attraction and source of income that had vanished. The same applied to other major fish species, such as herring or flounders.
He showed the image of a healthy sea bottom, with white sand, no mud, vegetation – the habitat for fish food as well as shelter to hide from seals and other predators. In the western Baltic Sea, the sea floor was muddy, covered by filamentous algae. This was no home for a small fish to grow and the primary reason for the population collapse. In deeper regions of the sea, elementary sulphur crystallised from the poison gas H2S meeting oxygen, forming a net-like structure. Below that, only H2S-producing microbes survived. This was caused by artificial fertiliser – a huge boon to mankind, banishing hunger and making the European population on average 30 cm taller. However, spilled into the sea, it caused an immense growth of unicellular organisms. With sufficient nitrogen available, their number could double every day. This showed the impact of nitrogen on marine life – eel grass had vanished, fish species had shrunk, clear water had turned murky. Phosphorus also contributed to that effect.
In 1995, about one million tonnes per year of nitrogen had entered the Baltic Sea. For the next fifteen years, the input had gone down by 15 %. In the present day, about 860,000 tonnes were still coming into the sea each year. HELCOM’s goal was a decrease by 7 %, yet that would not be enough for the Baltic Sea to regain a good status. Much more was needed. At a reduction of 20 %, a good status would be reached after 400 years. At 50 %, the good status could be achieved after 100 years. Prof Markager acknowledged that they would not see a clean Baltic Sea in their lifetime, but that only meant they had to do as much as they could right away.
Industrial agricultural practices were the source of both nitrogen and phosphorus, although the latter also washed out with wastewater. That output needed to be reduced. Presenting a picture of Danish agriculture, he remarked that nothing was left for nature; even a stream that had once meandered through the landscape was now a channel. Nutrients were carried straight into the sea. To change that, a Danish Green Deal had been achieved in June 2024, with the government, agricultural organisations, and NGOs agreeing to return 15 % of the arable land in Denmark to nature, mainly wetlands but also forests. His analysis – and that of the respective Danish advisory body – was that this number had to be at least doubled. Yet it was a good step forward. Prof Markager assumed this was the same for all the countries in the BSPC.
As for sewage, he pointed to a new treatment plant nearby, with a nitrogen output of 2 milligrams/litre – 5 to 8 times less than the standard in Europe. This proved that sewage treatment could be improved significantly. A similar reduction was possible for phosphorus. The technology was there, but politicians were lagging behind. The trick, the professor noted, was having the plant underground, allowing more stable temperatures year-round.
His recommendation to politicians was that in particular the nitrogen but also the phosphorus input into the Baltic Sea had to be reduced. Land in a 2-kilometre range around streams and by the coasts should not be farmed. Aside from the previously mentioned measures, fossil fuels had to be eliminated, and all other pressures – such as overfishing – had to be lessened.
Debate
Ms Anna Kassautzki pointed to the preceding BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity, noting the long involvement of the BSPC in these matters. The advantage of the BSPC was that one learned about best practices in other countries, such as the wetlands established at river estuaries in Åland, slowing down the nutrient flow. She underlined that it was known what should be done, such as ecosystem-based fishery, rewetting peatlands, or planting seagrass. It was the task not just of the Baltic Sea countries but of Europe and humanity to leave the Baltic Sea in a state that the next generation could live with.
Ms Tove Elise Madland said she was the chair of the Nordic Council Committee for a Sustainable Region. She appreciated the work of the presenters.
Mr Staffan Eklöf reflected on climate actions. Efficiency in carbon dioxide per euro and carbon dioxide reduction per consequences for economy and people should be more focused on. They should look for the most efficient actions. In its 2023 report The Changing Landscape of Global Emissions, the International Energy Agency wrote that China’s total output had risen to exceed that of all the advanced economies, India had surpassed the EU to become the third-largest emitter. Countries in developing Asia now accounted for half of global emissions, up from a quarter in 2000. Mr Eklöf stressed that the reality of emissions had changed, but the perception of the role of Europe had not. While this certainly did not absolve the EU from climate actions, measures had to take into account what was happening in Asia, especially China and India. He called for imaginative, outside-the-box ideas. In addition, national reviews of the effectiveness of climate measures had to look at the impact on global emissions. Mr Eklöf said decisions should be based on mathematics to succeed, not just what felt right.
Mr Stanisław Kostulski from the Youth Forum remarked that at this year’s HELCOM anniversary event, it had become clear that they had all the knowledge and tools to combat climate change. Yet governments refused to act. One crisis should not be sacrificed to deal with another crisis. He called on every person, especially youths, to be involved in decision-making processes. If climate measures failed, he was blaming politics.
Ms Pola Zabuska from the Youth Forum said that there was a lot of promotion and awareness raising around climate change. Yet they could not reach a significant share of society who did not see the need for climate measures. She wondered what realistic actions could be taken by the public and private sectors to convey the urgency of the climate situation to the most sceptical people.
Ms Jensen appreciated the support at this conference. As for the global impact, she said that the EU regulations were based on thorough economic impact assessments, seeking an economically efficient approach to their measures. The EU also participated in global negotiations, with a strong focus on the emissions in the rest of the world.
Prof Jacobsen agreed that a just transition could not succeed without public support. A first step was to thoroughly examine the consequences, crucially dispelling myths but also arranging for appropriate compensation measures. Furthermore, she confirmed that the key problem of climate change was that it was a global challenge. What mattered was what was implemented collectively. Yet the EU was an important player on the world stage and could, for one thing, show how to curtail emissions. In addition, EU and US politicians had to engage more actively in international efforts.
Prof Markager struck a more positive tone after his rather dark presentation. The ecosystem in the middle of the Baltic Sea would take a very long time to recover, but the coastal regions – which people frequented heavily – could see improvements much faster, within a few decades of declining nutrient inputs. In small regions, improvements could manifest within a year and spread out from there. These could be witnessed not only within lifetimes but also within political careers. Secondly, there were so many synergies between climate change, biodiversity and eutrophication and the state of the marine environment. All of this came down to managing the landscape. Planting eel grass was no use in an oxygen-free dead zone. Reducing fishery was too late after the fish had gone. So, the landscapes had to include more nature, increasing biodiversity, improving drinking water quality, and adding recreational values. Wetlands acted as filters for nutrients while they and forests served as carbon sinks.
Closing Session
The conference unanimously adopted changes to the Rules of Procedure, regarding new appointments to positions in the BSPC.
President Henrik Møller thanked the Drafting Committee and the delegations for their excellent work in putting together the 33rd resolution of the BSPC to the governments of the Baltic Sea region.
The conference unanimously adopted the resolution.
The president hoped that the governments would implement the BSPC’s calls and contribute to a better future. He also offered his gratitude to the Youth Forum for their contributions to the resolution.
He had been honoured to serve as the BSPC’s president for a year. Now, he passed the baton to Mr Alfons Röblom from Åland as his successors.
New BSPC president Alfons Röblom saw it as an honour and a privilege to embark on the next chapter of the BSPC under Åland’s presidency. He outlined three central themes for the coming year.
The Baltic Sea – Our Lifeline concerned the increasing strain to the region’s economies, traditions, and identities. Åland would prioritise initiatives to protect and restore the health of the Baltic Sea as well as support cross-border efforts on pollution, marine biodiversity, and sustainable fisheries. Cooperation was about strengthening the ever more important collaboration in the region, with the EU, and international bodies. Åland would foster dialogue, share best practices, and promote partnerships for innovation and resilience. In the Baltic Sea region, Security and Sustainability were always linked. Åland would focus on cybersecurity, hybrid threats, and the militarisation of maritime zones while advocating for policies on renewable energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and resilience in the communities against climate change.
President Röblom thanked the Danish parliament and outgoing president Møller for their tireless efforts. He reminded the conference that the Baltic Sea was more than a geographical feature – it was a shared resource, a common heritage, and a symbol of their interconnectedness.
Now, BSPC Vice President Henrik Møller thanked BSPC Secretary General Bodo Bahr and also the secretariat for their hard work in making the conference possible.
The conference applauded with long standing ovations as he honoured Bodo Bahr’s highly committed work as ‘Mr BSPC’ and emphasised that it had been a pleasure to work with him.
He also appreciated the contributions and support of Mr Johannes Schraps, who shared with him his experience as former BSPC President and of now-president Alfons Röblom.
Furthermore, Mr Møller thanked the youths for inspiring the conference.
He was also deeply grateful to the organisers and managers from the Danish Folketinget for their highly dedicated work and support, particularly Peder Pedersen and Joan Ólavsdóttir.
He closed the conference by citing the last words of Hamlet: “And the rest is silence.”