BSPC 20th Anniversary Booklet

20Years of Parliamentary CommitmentA Chronology of the Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConferences 1991–2010Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Secretariatwww.bspc.netc/o Nordic CouncilVed Stranden 18DK-1061 Copenhagen K.Phone (+45) 33 96 04 00www.norden.org.US 2011:41420Years of Parliamentary CommitmentA Chronology of the Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConferences 1991–201020 Years of Parliamentary Commitment The Baltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceUS 2011:414 (BSPC) was established in 1991 as a forum forpolitical dialogue between parliamentarians from© Nordic Council, Copenhagen 2011the Baltic Sea Region. BSPC gathers parliamentar-Print: Rosendahls - Schultz GrafiskTexts: Andrzej Januszewski, Päivikki Lindroos, ians from 11 national parliaments, 11 regionalJan Widberg parliaments and 5 parliamentary organizationsEditing: Jan Widberg around the Baltic Sea. The BSPC thus constitutes aPhotos: Johannes Jansson, NMR Publication Unit unique parliamentary bridge between all the EU-Copies: 300 and non-EU countries of the Baltic Sea Region.BSPC aims at raising awareness and opinion onPrinted on environmentally-friendly paperissues of current political interest and relevancefor the Baltic Sea Region. It promotes and drivesvarious initiatives and efforts to support a sus-tainable environmental, social and economicdevelopment of the Baltic Sea Region. It strives atenhancing the visibility of the Baltic Sea RegionBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference and its issues in a wider European context. Thewww.bspc.net Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference is the annualgeneral assembly in the Baltic Sea Region forJan Widbergbroad political debate on Baltic Sea issues. Thejw@norden.orgConference resolutions are political tools whichHead of BSPC Secretariatenables the BSPC to launch and sustain politicalinitiatives, and to approach the governmentsand regional organizations on issues of commonc/o Nordic Councilinterest. The BSPC has a number of workingVed Stranden 18bodies at its disposal, which serve as resourcesDK-1061 Copenhagen K.for driving and implementing BSPC prioritiesPhone (+45) 33 96 04 00and objectives. A Standing Committee and anwww.norden.org.Enlarged Standing Committee are responsible forthe follow-up of BSPC resolutions, for identifyingand addressing issues within the BSPC field ofresponsibility, and for preparing the annual Con-ferences. The BSPC Working Groups are politicalvehicles with the overall objective of elaboratingjoint political positions and recommendationson issues of common interest in the Baltic SeaRegion. BSPC external interfaces include parlia-mentary, governmental, sub-regional and otherorganizations in the Baltic Sea Region and theNorthern Dimension area, among them CBSS,HELCOM, the Northern Dimension Partnershipin Public Health and Social Well-being (NDPHS),the Baltic Sea States Sub-regional Cooperation(BSSSC) and the Baltic Development Forum.Contents20 Years of Parliamentary Commitment5By Christina Gestrin .................................................9The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conferences 1991–2010 .............The Politics of Baltic Sea Cooperation:The Quest for Further Debate47By Pertti Joenniemi .................................................57The BSPC Standing Committee 1991–2010 .......................520 Years of ParliamentaryCommitmentI am delighted to present this overview of the first twenty years ofthe Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference – BSPC. BSPC was estab-lished in 1991 as a forum for political dialogue between parliamen-tarians from the Baltic Sea Region. It was one of the first structuresfor political cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region in the beginningof the 1990s. During its first two decades of work, it has growninto an organisation with permanent bodies, operational politicalad hoc units, a secretariat and a budget of its own. BSPC now gath-ers parliamentarians from 11 national parliaments, 11 regional par-liaments and 5 parliamentary organisations around the Baltic Sea.This makes BSPC a unique and comprehensive parliamentarybridge between all the EU and non-EU countries of the region.BSPC is first and foremost a political body. Its primary mission isto raise awareness and form opinion on issues of current politicalChristina Gestrin6interest and relevance for the Baltic Sea Region. It promotes anddrives various initiatives and efforts to support a sustainable envi-ronmental, social and economic development of the Baltic SeaRegion. It strives to enhance the visibility of the Baltic Sea Regionand its issues in a wider European context.BSPC’s external interfaces include parliamentary, governmental,sub-regional and other organisations in the Baltic Sea Region andthe Northern Dimension area, such as the Council of the Baltic SeaStates (CBSS), HELCOM, the Northern Dimension Partnership inHealth and Social Well-Being (NDPHS), the Baltic Sea Labour Net-work (BSLN), the Baltic Sea States Sub-regional Cooperation(BSSSC) and the Baltic Development Forum.Undoubtedly, a great deal is being done to help the Baltic Searecover and to promote prosperity and welfare in the Baltic SeaRegion. Many players, both public and private, have taken andimplemented various types of initiative and action, which is prom-ising. But naturally we cannot rest on our laurels and be satisfiedwith the state of things. The environmental problems in the region,not least in terms of the health of the Baltic Sea, are major andongoing. Nor can we blind ourselves to the fact that there are greatinequalities and imbalances in the Baltic Sea Region, resulting insocial and economic anomalies. We should also be on the alert fornew and emerging challenges so that they can be addressed andhopefully resolved at an early stage.As parliamentarians and legislators we have a task and a man-date from our voters to carry out initiatives and measures to pro-tect the Baltic Sea environment and to promote prosperity in theregion. We must listen to the wishes and fears from grass rootslevel, form opinion and increase awareness, drive political issues inour home parliaments, exert political pressure on our governmentsto turn words into action, act as watchdogs to ensure that the gov-ernments keep their promises, and – not least – influence legisla-tion.I have a profound belief in the value of meeting and exchangingviews, and gradually forging joint positions and opinions on issuesof common interest. Since this process includes parliamentariansfrom all parliaments and parliamentary organisations around theBaltic Sea, it forms a powerful instrument for raising opinion andturning the political spotlight on issues of importance for our citi-zens.Regional cooperation in general is becoming increasinglyimportant. Not for the sake of fencing us in and becoming exclu-sive – on the contrary in fact, to strengthen our comparative advan-tages and joint assets and thereby make us better equipped tooperate on a wider international and even global scale. It alsoimproves our capacity to adapt to the consequences of globalisa-7tion and turn them into a benefit. This applies to both the eco-nomic and the political spheres. Just as the Baltic Sea Region hasobvious potential to become one of the most competitive regionsof the world, the parliamentary and governmental cooperation thathas evolved in this region can also be something of a role model orexport commodity when it comes to propagating parliamentarydemocracy and good governance. Globalisation offers an opportu-nity to be influenced by, and to influence, a wider community thanour own immediate region.Many of the challenges in the Baltic Sea Region are complexand have different consequences and repercussions for differentcountries or players. But their complexity and the fact that theyrequire many different approaches is exactly why a forum likeBSPC is so important. We can provide an arena where differencescan be raised and where a candid political debate about them canbe held. This is a necessary prerequisite for finding successful solu-tions and pragmatic compromises, even on sensitive issues.Have we got a response? Obviously, the kind of political activi-ties and recommendations that BSPC produces are not turned intoreality overnight or even in a year. But it is equally obvious that ourvoice has been heard, not least when we collaborate with otherplayers in the region and use our specific parliamentary strengthto influence opinion and develop practical measures. Target-ori-ented, consistent and long-term political action keeps the issues onthe agenda, and gradually develops solutions to them. As we allknow, unity, persistence and patience are necessary qualities inpolitics.Conferences, seminars, programmes and reports are importantcomponents in developing the Baltic Sea Region. But at the end ofthe day, the value and success of an organisation will be judged notby its internal coherence, but by its capacity to improve the wel-fare – in a broad sense – of the citizens of the region. Continueddialogue between citizens, experts and decision-makers is of vitalimportance for our joint capacity to meet the challenges of ourregion.It is my conviction that BSPC will continue to play an importantrole as promoter of democratic, inclusive and constructive politicalprocesses for the benefit of the Baltic Sea Region and its citizens.Christina Gestrin, MP, FinlandChairman of the BSPC2008–20119The Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConferences 1991–20101st BSPCThe 1st Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference was held in Helsinkion 7–9 January 1991, on the initiative of the President of the Finn-ish Parliament, Mr. Kalevi Sorsa. The title was the ParliamentaryConference on Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Area. Six successiveConferences had the English name of the “Parliamentary Confer-ence on Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Area”. The 7th ParliamentaryConference replaced the word “Area” with “Region.” The Confer-ence was re-named by the 8th Conference as the “Baltic Sea Parlia-mentary Conference.The 1st Conference was attended by parliamentary delegationsfrom Denmark, Estonia, Greenland, Hamburg, Iceland, Karelia, Fin-land, Lithuania, Latvia, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Norway,Poland, Schleswig-Holstein, Sweden, the Åland Islands, the FaroeIslands, and the USSR. Observers were sent by the U.N. EuropeanEconomic Conference, EFTA, the Helsinki Committee, the Inter-par-liamentary Union, the Nordic Council, and the Council of Europe.Some of the subjects discussed at the Conference were pro-posed after earlier consultations (a preparatory meeting was heldin Helsinki on 13 September 1990) but a number of other issueswere discussed at the Conference forum. This gave the Conferencethe character of a working meeting that identified problems in theBaltic Sea Region needing swift action.Talks held during the Conference concentrated on four sub-jects: economy, ecology, culture, and politics.The economic discussions were dominated by issues relating tothe transition of former communist bloc countries to market econ-omies and the economic reforms in the Soviet Union. It wasemphasised that the economic development of the Baltic Statesand the Leningrad area was vital to the region’s integration andthat the West should develop an appropriate mechanism for assist-ing those areas. The speakers expressed their hope for a rapidopening of the East to a capitalist economy, e.g. through free eco-nomic zones. However, they also emphasised that political stabilityfree from armed conflicts is a pre-condition of development.During the debate on environmental protection, the invitedexperts presented the situation regarding the contamination of theBaltic Sea waters. This made clear to the Conference participantsthat ecosystems are not divided by political boundaries and thatany measures to improve the natural conditions could be only be10successful though joint action. Consequently, solution of ecologicalproblems requires not only technological solutions but also politi-cal will and broad understanding. The participants called for urgentaction to prevent contamination increasing in the Baltic region.They proposed a number of concrete measures, such as a joint sys-tem of taxes and fines for environmental pollution or signing aconvention on the reduction of harmful substances added to thefuel of ships using the Baltic Sea.The Conference also pointed out the importance of developingcooperation in the fields of education and culture. The participantsvoiced their hope that this cooperation would enable NorthernEurope to be a model for co-existence within and between regionsand ethnic minorities. The Nordic Council reported a number ofinitiatives intended to intensify cooperation with the Baltic States:the Council opened its information centres in the capitals of thosecountries, and the Danish Culture Institute did the same in Riga. Atthe same time, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia opened similar centresin Copenhagen.The political debate was dominated by developments in the Bal-tic States. Their representatives strongly protested against measurestaken by the USSR authorities, and other delegates, especially therepresentatives from Denmark, voiced similar opinions. The discus-sion also concerned the security issue in the region, the proposedNordic nuclear weapon-free zone, and cooperation to combatinternational crime. There was also a proposal to establish a BalticSea Council that would compile plans for cooperation in theregion, initially in the fields of culture and economy, and later inareas such as technology, power industry, and education. This pro-posal was soon implemented. In autumn 1991, Denmark and Ger-many, considering economic and political stabilisation of the BalticSea Region, proposed an initiative to establish a new internationalorganisation at governmental level. The Foreign Ministers of Den-mark, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Germany, Norway, Poland,Russia and Sweden, as well as representatives of the EuropeanCommission met in Copenhagen on 5–6 March 1992. They set upthe Council of Baltic Sea States, an organisation to build up demo-cratic institutions in the region and co-operate on matters of econ-omy, culture, environmental protection, nuclear security, and socialaffairs. The Council is now one of the most important players forinternational cooperation in the region.The Conference did not produce any formal conclusions or aresolution, but it should be considered as extremely importantbecause of its ground-breaking character. The variety of regionaldevelopment concepts presented at the Conference provided abasis for further debate and cooperation between the states andregions concerned.11It should be noted that a symbol identifying the Conferenceappeared as early as the Helsinki meeting in the form of a logo fea-turing a blue rectangular intersected by eight grey-and-black wav-ing stripes. This logo is still in use today.2nd BSPCThe 2nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference was organised bythe Presidium of the Nordic Council and the Parliament of theKingdom of Norway. The Conference was held in Oslo on 22–24April 1992.The expectations of the Conference were high, especially fromthe Baltic States, which were in the process of building their inde-pendence and hoping for support at this forum for their aspira-tions. The breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 created a totallynew situation in the region and opened new perspectives. The del-egates had to develop a plan for cooperation under the new cir-cumstances and they had to find a place for the parliamentarydimension, particularly in the context of establishing the Councilof the Baltic Sea States. These issues were also raised at the 1st and123rd Plenary Sessions – “Baltic Sea Identity – Visions of RegionalCooperation” and “Institutional Frameworks for Inter-parliamentaryCooperation in the Baltic Sea”. The aim of the Conference was alsoto discuss issues relating to infrastructure and communications.These topics were discussed at the 2nd Plenary Session.As the Conference progressed, differences emerged as to thedefinition of the range of subjects for Baltic cooperation. Delega-tions from Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia represented an opinionthat this cooperation should above all include security issues. Inthis context, they all demanded the withdrawal of Russian troopsfrom their territories. The delegation of Russia’s Supreme Councilprotested against the inclusion of these issues and blocked furtherdebate on this subject. On the other hand, the Supreme Council’sdelegates said the Parliamentary Conference was a good forum fordiscussing issues relating to ethnic minorities (the context of Rus-sian minority in the Baltic States was more than apparent here).The Conference eventually agreed that it should seek to turn theBaltic Sea into a conflict-free area and that this problem should beconsidered in the context of general parliamentary security.Respect for the rights of ethnic minorities was a basic feature ofdemocracy, and the Conference did not include any of these issuesin its final Resolution.The debate over the criteria for participation in the Baltic con-ference of parliamentarians took much of the Conference’s time.The participants agreed that cooperation should involve not onlycountries but also autonomous areas, regions, and some cities. Theyalso recognised the right of parliamentary multi-national organisa-tions, such as the Nordic Council and the Baltic Assembly, to takepart in the Conferences. They also concluded that the geographicalcriterion, i.e. the location in the immediate area around the BalticSea, is not an explicit condition for participation in the Conference.A geographic criterion was the reason why Iceland was not a mem-ber of the Council of Baltic Sea States from its very beginning.However, following an intensive campaign, Iceland was acceptedby the Council of Baltic Sea States at the 4th Ministerial Session ofCBSS.As regards positioning the Parliamentary Conference in relationto the Council of Baltic Sea States, the Norwegians made the mostfar-reaching proposals, suggesting that the Conference be heldtogether with the CBSS meetings. The Conference would then fulfilfunctions similar to those of a parliament in relation to executiveauthorities. However, this idea was deemed premature though allparticipants agreed that mutual coordination of measures andproblems discussed would benefit both organisations.The conference adopted three documents: a Resolution (sincethen, each annual Conference has adopted its own Resolution), aDeclaration on Communications, and a Mandate for Parliamentary13Conferences for Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Area which was veryimportant in terms of future activities of the Conference. The Reso-lution proposals included continuing the activities of the Confer-ence as a basis for parliamentary cooperation in the region. It alsodefined areas that would form the focus of the Conference’s work(environmental protection, economy, trade, education, develop-ment of democracy). It called on participating governments to rec-ognise the Conference, to take into consideration its principles andrecommendations as well as cooperate in solving the region’sproblems.The Declaration on Communications addressed the issues dis-cussed by the Conference of Baltic States’ Ministers of Transport inSzczecin (17–18 March 1992) and appealed for programmes todevelop infrastructure in the region and to develop telecommuni-cations and mass media cooperation. It also asked the governmentsto present reports on the progress in these areas at the Conferenceforum.The mandate worked out by the Conference in Oslo to providea formal basis for the Conference activities included the following:• The Conference is a body that initiates and coordinates coopera-tion on the forum of parliamentary debate;• Decisions are adopted by consensus;• Participants of the Conference are representatives of the parlia-ments taking part in the 1st Conference in Helsinki, as well asthe parliaments of Bremen, the Federal Republic of Germany, theRussian Federation (formerly the participant was USSR), the Nor-dic Council and the Baltic Assembly;• The Conference can also invite other regional and internationalorganisations as observers or special guests;• A two-day Parliamentary Conference will be held every year andits host will be responsible for its preparation and running thesecretariat (with the assistance of the Nordic Council, onrequest) and will cover the costs of administration and simulta-neous translation, but the costs of participation (transport,accommodation) will be covered by the delegates themselves.The document listed the Finnish, Scandinavian, Russian, Polish,Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, German and English languages, butthe number of languages was much smaller in practice;• It is recommended that an inter-parliamentary working group beappointed, consisting of one representative from each of the fol-lowing countries: the Nordic countries, the Baltic States, Ger-many, Poland, and the Russian Federation, which would help toorganise the Conference.The Parliamentary Conference in Oslo can be considered the finalphase in setting up the institutional foundations of parliamentary14cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region, in a period when the mainprinciples of the organisation’s activities were crystallising.3rd BSPCThe 3rd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Parliamentary Conference washeld in Warsaw on 5–6 May 1994, at the Polish Sejm and Senate(Lower and Upper House) Buildings. The organisers had to cancelthe meeting previously scheduled for 3–4 June 1993 because of apolitical crisis in Poland and dissolution of the Polish Parliament byPresident Lech Wałe ̧sa. After consultation with the Nordic Council,the conference was postponed until the following year and thedecision was approved by the Sejm Presidium on 21 January 1994.The main objectives were to discuss the effectiveness of theConference, intensification of parliamentary cooperation, and theimpact of parliamentary activity on the transitional process in theBaltic region. The framework for this discussion was the issues dis-cussed by three Plenary Sessions – “Euroregions in the Baltic SeaArea: Different Forms of Trans-border Cooperation, Cultural and15Youth Exchange”, “Environmental Policy in the Baltic Sea Region”,and “Problems of Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region”.The Warsaw Conference continued to develop the decisionstaken in Oslo, and made the final decision to set up the Inter-parlia-mentary Working Group with the membership as proposed theprevious year. This body was known as the “Parliamentary Refer-ence Group”, the “Working Group”, the “Inter-parliamentary Work-ing Group” or the “Planning Group.” As was mentioned in the 5thConference Resolution, although only adopted by the 8th Confer-ence, the group was then usually called the “Standing Committee”.This group would be responsible for preparing the next Confer-ence and representing the Conference in relation to other interna-tional organisations. The Group’s Secretariat was to receive techni-cal support from the Secretariat of the Nordic Council. From thenon, the Group held regular meetings in between Conferences. TheSecretariat met sporadically.The above decisions were included in the Resolution, whichalso appealed for greater political cooperation in the region, sup-port for local activities, participation in these activities by non-gov-ernmental organisations, promotion of programmes for cultural,educational, and scientific exchange, as well as faster ratification ofthe Helsinki Convention on Maritime Environmental Protection inthe Baltic Sea Area. The Resolution also referred to the activities ofthe Council of Baltic Sea States, thereby continuing the strategy ofclose cooperation between the Conference and the Council. Itasked the Council, for example, to submit annual reports on itsactivities to the Conference Forum.4th BSPCThe 4th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference was held in Rønne,Bornholm, on 12–13 September 1995, by invitation from the Nor-dic Council and the Danish Parliament. For the first time, the Con-ference had a motto: “Towards a Baltic Sea Region”. This, however,did not become a rule right away: the 5th and 8th Conferences hadno mottoes.The status of the Conference was certainly improved by Swe-den and Finland officially joining the European Union on January 1,1995. The Baltic Region then became one of the main areas in theEuropean Union as shown by the attendance of and speech by thePresident of the European Parliament, Klaus Hänsch, Ph.D. KlausHänsch said that the new situation moved the EU’s political centreof gravity northwards. He also spoke about the Union using Scandi-navian experience in areas such as the labour market and con-sumer protection, and he announced the Union’s active involve-16ment in solving the ecological problems in the Baltic area, rights ofethnic minorities, and nuclear security.Four Plenary Sessions were held during the Conference: “Parlia-mentary Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Area”, “The Policy of theEuropean Union in the Baltic Sea Area”, “Democracy, Human Rightsand Minorities”, and “New Concepts of Security and Stability in theRegion”.The speakers stressed the importance of cooperation with theEuropean Union, with the associated opportunities and difficultiesthis entailed, and they emphasised the necessity of continuingregional integration and strengthening mutual bonds. Much timewas devoted to questions of security in the region, especially in thecontext of Russia maintaining a large military potential in theKaliningrad District. As part of the implementation of the decisionsincluded in the Resolution of the 3rd Conference, Swedish ForeignMinister Mrs. Lena Hjelm-Wallen presented a report on the pro-ceedings of the Council of Baltic Sea States. From then on, thereport of the CBSS representative (usually the foreign minister ofthe country currently presiding over the Council) has become apermanent feature of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conferences.17Another report, “Democracy, the Human and Minority Rights”,was presented by Mr. Ole Espersen, a CBSS Commissioner for Dem-ocratic Institutions and Human Rights, and “Persons Belonging toEthnic Minorities”. This body was established as part of CBSS struc-tures in May 1994. Commissioner Espersen kept his mandate fortwo terms and was succeeded by Mrs. Helle Degn. CommissionerEspersen discussed the role of a parliamentary ombudsman andthe opportunities such a role would present. He also discussedquestions relating to the granting of citizenship and the continua-tion of the death penalty in some countries of the region. DeputyWłodzimierz Konarski of Poland presented the Polish proposal forconfidence-enhancing measures as a programme of concreteactions to improve security in the region. His proposals includedan intensification of the exchange of military information, militarymonitors, joint exercises and more working contacts.The Conference Resolution spoke about support for coopera-tion at regional level and action by non-governmental organisa-tions, and it encouraged the European Union to cooperate in con-trolling organised crime and to support regional pro-ecology pro-jects. The Resolution devoted a lot of attention to the Standing18Committee. Parliamentarians came out in favour of continuing theCommittee’s activities. They suggested that delegations of the Con-ference should be permanent, and that they should be elected bythe parliaments involved, and they also proposed establishing a per-manent secretariat to support the work of the Committee. TheCBSS was supposed to establish a similar structure, and its Secretar-iat, located in Stockholm, was inaugurated on 20 October 1998.The Resolution reiterated the need for close cooperation withthe CBSS. Its text clearly indicated that the Conference shouldevolve towards a permanent parliamentary assembly that applieddemocratic procedures to support the actions taken by the CBSS.5th BSPCThe 5th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference was held in Riga on10–11 September 1996, following an invitation from the LatvianParliament. The Chairman of the Standing Committee that organ-ised the Conference was Deputy Juris Sinka of Latvia.The Riga Conference could be described as “typical” in terms ofthe subjects discussed. It emphasised environmental protectionissues in the Baltic region and discussed the activities of the Euro-pean Union and its Committee for the Baltic Sea Region. The Con-ference renewed its call for the implementation of the HelsinkiCommittee recommendations. Mr. Joris Declerck, a representativeof the European Committee, presented the main points of the docu-ment “The Initiative of the Baltic Sea Region”, adopted in Visby, onthe Swedish island of Gotland, on 3 May 1996, which defined theUnion’s policy on the region. The main areas of this policy includedstrengthening and stabilising democracy, economic developmentresulting from trade liberalisation, building transport and powerinfrastructure, and support for sub-regional cooperation. The partic-ipants also discussed questions of trans-border cooperation in theregion. The main areas of this cooperation were identified as eco-nomic cooperation to promote sustainable development, ecologyand the sphere of contacts among citizens, and local initiatives. Thespeakers appealed for faster investment in the eastern part of theBaltic. Deputy Andrzej Wielowieyski described Poland’s experiencein cooperating with Central European countries.The Conference ended with a round-table debate that adoptedthe Resolution. The Resolution reflected all the subjects discussedby the Conference. Its participants once again called for an intensi-fication of contacts with the CBSS and close cooperation in fisher-ies, scientific research and other areas. The Resolution also drewattention to the necessity of solving the power problems of theregion by implementing joint power management and utilisation ofrenewable sources at an industrial scale.196th BSPCThe 6th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference was held in Gdan ́skon 15–16 September 1997. During the meeting of the StandingCommittee in Copenhagen on 15 December 1995, Deputy LonginPastusiak put forward an idea of organising a Parliamentary Confer-ence in Gdan ́sk in 1997. The timing would coincide with the cele-brations marking the city’s 1000th anniversary in the same year. Atthe next meeting of the Standing Committee (Riga, 29 March 1996)Deputy Pastusiak officially renewed the invitation. The invitationwas accepted because of the anniversary, although only two yearshad passed since the 3rd Conference in Warsaw. Another candidateto host the Conference in 1997 was the Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein, which eventually agreed to postpone its candidacy byone year.The motto of the Conference was “Mare Balticum – Mare Nos-trum”. It focused on the broad regional cooperation to which itdevoted its first and third Plenary Sessions, and also paid a lot ofattention to cooperation in controlling organised crime in the Bal-tic Sea Region. The subject of the second Session was “Security andConfidence-building in the Region”. The session was held as apanel discussion moderated by Deputy Janusz Onyszkiewicz. Thepanellists tried to find answers to questions about the changingbalance of power in the region resulting from the enlargement ofNATO and the European Union, as well as the role of Russia andthe Nordic Council in maintaining stability in the region. They alsodiscussed the concept of neutrality of the Baltic Sea.Apart from addressing such issues as cooperation with theCouncil of Baltic Sea States and control of organised crime, theResolution also appealed to the governments for political supportfor regional and local projects and drew attention to the need towork for sustained economic and social development in theregion. The Resolution called on the European Union to supportthe Baltic States in their applications for EU membership by pro-viding expertise and by changing its internal structure to allowenlargement.The Resolution confirmed the role of the Standing Committeeas a link between the Conference and the CBSS and it appealed forthe allocation of resources and personnel in the countries involvedto support continuation of the Conference proceedings. The docu-ment also mentioned the tragic floods in Poland and Germany andasked the governments of the region to provide assistance torelieve the consequences of the floods.The Gdan ́sk Conference focused on selected issues whichallowed in-depth discussion of complex subjects and identificationof existing problems. It succeeded in attracting outstanding speak-ers (e.g. CBSS Commissioner Ole Espersen, European Commission20Member Mrs. Ursula Stenzel, and Poland’s National Prosecutor Hen-ryk Pracki). The atmosphere of the Conference was clearly influ-enced by the anniversary celebrations taking place in Gdan ́sk atthe same time.7th BSPCThe 7th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference was held in Lübeckon 7–8 September 1998, on the invitation of the Parliament ofSchleswig-Holstein. This was the first Conference organised by aregional, not a national parliament. The Conference was originallyplanned for Kiel, as mentioned in the Gdan ́sk Resolution. TheChairman of the Standing Committee during the conference prep-aration phase was President of the Schleswig-Holstein Parliament,Mr. Heinz-Werner Arens.The motto of this Conference was “A Follow-up of the Luxem-bourg Summit – Consequences for the Baltic Sea Region”. Themeeting of the European Council in Luxembourg on 12–13December 1997 had decided to start the process of enlarging theEuropean Union eastwards by adding the Baltic countries ofPoland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Implementation of this pro-cess would diametrically change the political and economic rela-tions in the region. Consequently, this important decision was asubject of parliamentary debate.The Conference had three Plenary Sessions. The 1st Session was“Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region”, the 2nd Session referred tothe title of the Conference, and the 3rd Session dealt with “Links inthe Baltic Sea Region – Solidarity and People-to-People Approach”.This means direct contact between people living in the near-bor-der areas and local contacts at the lowest level.The 7th Conference discussed a number of concepts and prin-ciples that offered hope for developing cooperation in the BalticSea Region and improving effectiveness. It should be noted that allthe parliamentarians stressed the need to combine the processesof Baltic integration with European integration. Consequently, theydid not describe the regional cooperation as an alternative butrather a supplement on the road to integration with the EuropeanUnion.The Conference participants focused on developing practicalcooperation and moving the Conference forward into a new phase.This switched the focus from strategic discussions to ways of pro-moting and supporting actual projects. Measures included coordi-nation of the activities of various organisations operating aroundthe Baltic Sea and focusing their efforts on concrete projects; alsoby developing the “people-to-people approach” initiative and fol-22lowing the principle of subsidiarity which is one of the guidelinesof the European Union.A major issue raised by almost every speaker was cooperationwith Russia. Inviting Russia (primarily Kaliningrad and St. Peters-burg) to participate in joint projects and developing an overall pol-icy for that country was described as a major task facing the Con-ference.The Resolution adopted in Lübeck was the longest text everaccepted by the Parliamentary Conference. It included a numberof requests to the European Commission, European Union, andgovernments, asking for facilitation of the EU enlargement process.The Resolution appealed to the candidate countries to quicklyadopt the EU acquis communautaire and continue their politicaland economic reforms.The Resolution mentioned the organisations that, alongside theCBSS, were to become the main partners of the Conference: theUnion of Baltic Towns, the Sub-regional Cooperation of Baltic SeaStates, the Association of Baltic Chambers of Commerce, and theConference of Europe’s Peripheral Sea Regions. The Resolutionexpressly recommended that the Standing Committee implementthe Resolution’s provisions adopted by the Conference.The document also referred to the idea of the Northern Dimen-sion, which became another major influence on the Conference’sactivities. The concept of developing the “Northern Dimension” ofthe European Union was proposed by Finland in 1997. The ideawas that countries and regions around the Baltic Sea including Rus-sia (also Iceland and Britain) would play an important role in thepolitical stabilisation and economic development of the growingEuropean Union. On 25 November 1998, the European Commis-sion adopted a report on the “Northern Dimension of the Euro-pean Union’s Policy” after which the EU summit in Vienna, Decem-ber 1998, decided to incorporate the Finnish initiative in the offi-cial programme of the Union.8th BSPCThe 8th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Parliamentary Conference washeld on 7–8 September 1999 in Mariehamn, Aland Islands, on theinvitation of the regional Parliament. The Chairman of the StandingCommittee that prepared the Conference in Mariehamn was therepresentative of the Nordic States (Denmark), Mr. Svend Erik Hov-mand. Up till that date, Denmark had represented the Nordic Coun-cil on the Standing Committee, Latvia had represented the BalticStates, and Germany had represented the Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein. Poland was also represented and Russia represented bythe Kaliningrad District. The organiser of the next Conference is23always invited to take part in the Committee work, unless alreadyrepresented on the Committee.The Committee also started work on drafting a new Mandatefor the Parliamentary Conference and the Standing Committee forthe next year by implementing the recommendations of the previ-ous Resolutions. Although the Mandate was adopted by the Marie-hamn Conference, it was slightly modified in relation to its originalform. According to the Nordic countries, especially the social-dem-ocratic faction, the proposed version gave too much power to theStanding Committee and the Secretariat. Nevertheless, the generalacceptance of the Mandate paved the way for further consolida-tion of Conference structures and opening up new areas for work.The Conference also launched a number of initiatives to inten-sify cooperation with the Council of Baltic Sea States. It startedpublishing information about its work in the Council’s periodical“Baltinfo,” visited the Council’s Secretariat in Stockholm, andinvited representatives of the Council to its sessions.There were three Plenary Sessions during the Mariehamn Con-ference: “Social Dimension of the Enlargement of the EU as the Fol-low-up of the Lübeck Conference”, “Cooperation in the Baltic SeaRegion, Including the Infrastructure”, and “Sustainable Develop-ment and its Environmental Aspects”.The Conference in Mariehamn tried to refer to the previousConference, so it devoted much time to the enlargement of theEuropean Union. However, this time it focused on the new situa-tion in the labour market and the social consequences of the pro-cess. Delegates of the host country also pointed out the impor-tance of environmental protection in the region (this issue beingextremely important for the tourist-oriented Åland Islands).The Resolution adopted included a number of principlesregarding environmental protection, particularly the eradication ofcontamination sources in the region, and referred to the EuropeanUnion’s policy on the candidate countries.9th BSPCThe 9th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference was held in Malmöon 4–5 September 2000, on the invitation of the Swedish Parlia-ment. The motto of the Conference was “Baltic Sea Cooperation –Bridges towards the Future”. Malmö was chosen for the Confer-ence because of the opening (in July 2000) of the bridge linkingthe city with Copenhagen across the Öresund strait. This transportroute created new opportunities for local and regional coopera-tion and was also important an important link in the Europeantransport system. As a way of illustrating the key importance of thisinternational link, the Swedish hosts inaugurated the Conference24with a dinner in Copenhagen, hosted by the Danish Parliament,after which the participants returned to Malmö via the bridge. Forthe second time, Mr. Svend Erik Hovmand was Chairman of theStanding Committee that prepared the Conference.Topics discussed at this meeting of parliamentarians were moregeneral. Participants discussed further development of cooperationin the region and methods for bridging the economic gapsbetween the Baltic States, in order to establish an integrated eco-nomic area.There were three Plenary Sessions: “Cooperation in the BalticSea Region”, “Northern Dimension – Chances and Challenges forRegional and Sub-regional Cooperation”, and a recap session. Thesecond Session involved two working groups, discussing “Trans-European Networks” and “Cross-border Cooperation”.There was also a meeting of the Standing Committee with rep-resentatives of non-governmental organisations operating in theBaltic region. At this meeting, participants discussed how to inten-sify mutual cooperation (similar meetings were earlier held inLübeck and Mariehamn).The unanimously adopted Resolution called on the parliamentsand governments of countries and regions participating in theConference to continue developing regional and sub-regionalcooperation and to assist cross-border cooperation, particularly bybuilding new trans-European network links (e.g. roads, power,information highways, etc). The Resolution also supported the pro-motion of youth exchange, development of tourism, and coopera-tion in the fight against international crime.The German representative (Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein)Mr. Heinz-Werner Arens was elected Chairman of the StandingCommittee after the Conference in Malmö. The following Confer-ence was scheduled for 3–4 2001 in Greifswald, by invitation fromthe Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.10th BSPCThe 10th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference was held in Greif-swald, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany, on 2–4 September2001 at the invitation of the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Landtag.The theme of the Conference was “Civil Society – A Political Modelbetween Vision and Reality”. Parliamentarians focused on two mainissues – Civil Society and Safety of Ships and Sea Lanes.The ten first years of BSPC had laid the foundation for the anni-versary Greifswald Conference, where yet another step forwardwas taken in terms of establishing the BSPC as a significant parlia-mentary political player in the region. For the first time the Confer-ence agreed not only on a general Resolution, but also on specific25political messages addressed to the governments of CBSS MemberStates. The BSPC was seen as a second pillar of cooperation aroundthe Baltic Sea – a parliamentary sister organisation to the CBSS.The Conference discussed how the concept of civil society waschanging. Cooperation concerning youth issues, democratic andcivil rights in all countries around the Baltic Sea was addressed.The interventions displayed the variety of opinions of the partici-pants regarding the idea of democracy and human rights.The Conference also discussed its own working methods. Therewere deliberations on the experiences of the first ten years of theBSPC, as well as its future tasks, structures and working methods.Constructive proposals were put forward in the discussion, whichwas also an occasion for self-critical stocktaking and for confront-ing some contentious issues.It was noted that in the early years of parliamentary coopera-tion, coming together and getting acquainted were top priorities.After ten years, the personal contacts, or even friendships, repre-sent a value in itself since they embody the continuity of the work.One option suggested for the future development of the Confer-ence was to appoint standing delegations from the participatingparliaments to the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference for oneelectoral term. Another issue was how to combine national andregional parliaments as equal participants at the Conferences.Some of the delegates thought that elected representatives fromthe regional level in other participating countries than only Ger-many and Russia should be invited, as there were other electedassemblies that could be compared to regional parliaments. Otherdelegates thought that there was no perfect balance, since the quo-tas of parliamentarians were not in proportion to the respectivepopulations. During the Conference preparations, a number ofconcrete proposals about representation in the Standing Commit-tee had been tabled. As a result, the Standing Committee wasenlarged by two additional members. Consensus was and hasalways been a guiding principle for the work of the BSPC.The discussion on Kaliningrad that was started at the MalmöConference in 2000 continued. Particular attention was paid to theproblems of the Kaliningrad region, caused by its geographical situ-ation. Many of the participants expressed a wish that the Kalinin-grad region could be the subject of a pilot project for the long-term interregional cooperation between Russia and the EU.The issue of energy cooperation has always been one of the toppriorities on the BSPC agenda. The Baltic Electricity Ring wasdebated as an important strand of cooperation between peopleand countries around the Baltic Sea. Joint action to combat interna-tional crime was also a prominent issue at the Conference.The complex issue of safety of shipping and sea transport laneswas widely discussed. Before the Conference, the host Parliament26had organised a hearing on the topic and drafted a comprehensivereport. The problem of preventing accidents and improving mari-time safety was deemed complicated and difficult to overcome.Prevention of oil spills was another concern for the Conference.A difficult problem was eutrophication caused by excess dischargeof phosphorus and nitrogen. A BSPC Working Group, the Commit-tee on Maritime Safety (COMS) had drafted a couple of paragraphson these issues as an input to the Conference Resolution.This Conference also discussed the situation and participationof young people in decision-making, in NGOs, and in society ingeneral. Representatives from different youth organisationsattended the Conference and gave reports on the situation ofyoung people and their organisations in the region. It was arguedthat involving young people is a basic premise for a healthydemocracy, and that young people must be involved in the deci-sion-making processes. This led to demands that youth issuesshould be a permanent topic at the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Con-ference. It was also agreed that a delegation representing youngpeople should be provided a seat at the annual Baltic Sea Parlia-mentary Conference. This has been the case since then.When discussing civil society, it was observed that democracyin the Baltic Sea Region is based not only on freedom, but also onsolidarity, and that civic participation should be encouraged andcivil society strengthened. Equality between men and women wasreferred to as a guarantor for the development of sustainable, sta-ble and prosperous societies. Issues regarding minorities weretackled. Delegates pointed out the utmost importance of majoritiesallowing forums for minorities, while unsolved minority problemscan cause antagonisms. A strong and shared Baltic Sea identity wasseen as a prerequisite for enhanced cooperation.The Conference also received a political message from the dele-gates from Italy, Greece and Croatia, members of the Adriatic-Ion-ian Initiative (AII), a new parliamentary cooperative structurearound part of the Mediterranean Sea. The AII was interested inestablishing contacts with other parliamentary organisations, andfor them the BSPC was an example of a well-functioning and solidsub-regional parliamentary structure.The Conference celebrated the 10th anniversary of the BSPC bypresenting the booklet “BSPC – 10 Years of Work”, the text ofwhich is included in the first nine chapters of this publication, andby officially opening the BSPC homepage.The Conference Resolution was in two parts. The first part wasdevoted to cooperation issues in the Baltic Sea Region, and the sec-ond part was dedicated to safety at sea, prepared by COMS.2711th BSPCThe 11th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference was organised inSt Petersburg on 30 September-1 October 2002 under the theme“Baltic Sea and Ways of Integration and Cooperation”.This was the first time the Conference had been organised inRussia. Consequently, a major issue was Russia’s position in Europe,its role in the Northern Dimension, and cooperation with othercountries both in and outside the region. Kaliningrad was againhigh on the agenda of the Conference. Many of the participantsexpressed that Kaliningrad is both a joint problem and a jointresponsibility. The Russian parliamentarians wished to see Kalinin-grad as a pilot project for the development of EU-Russia relations.But it was admitted that the exclave also had problems since itwas, even in Russian terms, economically stagnant.As to the upcoming enlargement of the EU, the Russian partici-pants saw the visa issue as a test of Russia-EU relations. There wereconcerns that the visa regime would isolate Kaliningrad. Russiandelegates also pointed out that EU-Russia relations were not only aquestion about Kaliningrad. They stated that Russia will participateactively in the Northern Dimension of the EU, both in economicand environmental spheres. According to them the main objectivewas to prevent the emergence of new dividing lines withinEurope. A reduction of military resources in the region, as well asdeveloping cooperation between armed forces, was also discussed.At its launch five years earlier, Russia had high expectations ofthe Northern Dimension but now felt it was a disappointment. Themessage was that it should have embraced cooperation, not onlyassistance, and dedicated funds should have been allocated. TheNorthern Dimension was, however, seen as an instrument for envi-ronmental cooperation that ought to be developed more actively.An unusual input from the environmental angle was a report onthe harbour porpoise, one of the smallest marine mammals, and itsability to survive in the Baltic Sea. This was an example of howenthusiastic projects can be transformed into political standpoints,as the porpoise issue was incorporated in the Conference Resolu-tion.The Conference also discussed the health issue which was, andstill is, a vital concern to the Baltic Sea Region. Public health wasseen as a part of soft security.The Resolution was again divided in two parts. In the generalpolicy part, the parliamentarians asked the CBSS and the govern-ments in the region to undertake joint efforts to strengthen theNorthern Dimension, and to contribute to a structured implemen-tation and follow-up of the Northern Dimension Action Plan.At the earlier meetings, the Conference had already expressedconcern about the large number of players in the region. Conse-28quently, the parliamentarians now expressed wishes that the coop-eration within the Baltic Sea Region would be streamlined by aneffective division of labour and responsibilities, that coordinationwould be improved between the numerous regional bodies andWorking Groups and that duplication of projects would be mini-mised.The second part of the Resolution included pleas to the govern-ments and the CBSS regarding safety and security at sea. The Con-ference was unanimous in its view of IMO an important player insafeguarding the Baltic Sea. In this part of the Resolution, the BalticSea Parliamentary Conference called upon the Council of BalticSea States (CBSS) and the governments of the region to adopt anumber of measures aimed at preventing and controlling shippingaccidents, to continue to fundamentally improve the safety of shipsand navigation, and to cooperate internationally in this field. TheConference also expressed its satisfaction that it had been grantedobserver status with HELCOM.Eutrophication was mentioned as the most pressing problem inthe Baltic Sea. Run-off from agriculture and air emissions from theuse of fossil fuel was mentioned as the largest contributors to thenitrogen load. Urban and industrial sewage was the largest phos-phorus source.Some participants tabled a HELCOM report from 1992/93which stated that after World War II, some 300,000 tons of Germanchemical munitions were dumped in the Baltic Sea, includingabout 65,000 tons of poisonous gases. This was not known for along time, since military documents were classified. In the Resolu-tion, one of the recommendations was that the governments of theHELCOM parties should carry out further investigations to localiseand identify dumped chemical munitions.The Resolution also noted that the COMS Working Group hadproved to be a useful instrument for developing political opinionand recommendations, and for improving the dialogue with institu-tions in the Baltic Sea Region and beyond. It was stated that Work-ing Groups should remain one of BSPC’s instruments in futurework.The Conference amended the BSPC Rules of Procedure so thattwo more members, one from Russia and one from the Nordiccountries, were added to the Standing Committee.2912th BSPCThe 12th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference was organised inOulu, Finland, 8–9 September 2003. The theme of the Conferencewas “The Baltic Sea Region – An Area of Knowledge”, which was anappropriate topic to be discussed in Oulu, being an IT and knowl-edge centre in the Gulf of Bothnia, Northern Finland. The upcom-ing enlargement of the European Union was mentioned in almostevery intervention at the Conference. It was seen as creating a newchallenge for the whole region and many of the participantsassumed and hoped that it would further underline the impor-tance of EU-Russia relations and of the Northern Dimension. Oneof the fundamental objectives of the Northern Dimension wouldbe to enhance the welfare, health and security of citizens.At the time of the Conference, the construction of the south-west wastewater treatment plant in St. Petersburg had begun. Thiswas the largest single investment during the decade to improvethe condition of the Baltic Sea. The project was warmly welcomedby the parliamentarians. The establishment of the Northern Dimen-sion Environmental Partnership was another breakthrough.30It was stated that greater efficiency in agriculture should notlead to increased runoff of nutrients. Support from the EuropeanUnion would be vital especially for environmental protection inRussia, and the Northern Dimension Partnership Fund in the EBRDshould be a vital instrument in improving the state of the BalticSea.The situation of the NGOs was once again discussed. A rappor-teur was nominated to review legislation in the countries of theBaltic Sea Region and to monitor the situation of the NGOs.The nature of parliamentary cooperation was once again tack-led at the Conference. It was noted that the Standing Committeehad two main tasks: firstly, to follow-up the final Resolution fromthe annual Conference and, secondly, to prepare the next Confer-ence. The mandate of the Standing Committee had proved to beefficient but still restricted, so a broadening of the role of theStanding Committee needed to be considered.The Standing Committee was already an acknowledged partnerin the political landscape of the region. However, according to thestatutes, the committee could not fully participate in discussionsbetween the Conferences and take a position on a single issue ifthis issue had not been mentioned in the Resolutions. The EUenlargement and its impact on the region, as well as an increasingrole of the CBSS concerning the development of the NorthernDimension, made it necessary to discuss the role of the BSPC andorganisation of parliamentary cooperation in the future. The BSPChad been given the status of one of the regional organisationscooperating with the CBSS, thereby allowing it to monitor thework of the CBSS. The parliamentarians wished to strengthen anddevelop the structures and organisation of the cooperationtowards a parliamentary dimension of the CBSS.Since the Conference in Malmö in 2000, the topic of maritimesafety had been a substantial component of the Resolutions of2001 and 2002. The results of the BSPC Working Group COMS,which had been appointed in 2000, had also included the BSPCapplying for observer status with HELCOM.Developing Baltic Sea cooperation in the field of civil securitywas deemed vital. Organised cross-border crime, a growing drugproblem, trafficking of women and children, smuggling of personsand goods, and brutal violence were emerging and worrying mani-festations on the criminal scene.The topic of maritime safety was again high on the agenda. Themost important demands were the designation of the Baltic Sea asa Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA), and the introduction ofcompulsory use of pilots in particularly sensitive areas. The Confer-ence noted that by undertaking joint actions with the InternationalMaritime Organisation (IMO), the Baltic Sea states have obtained31recognition by the international community of the sensitivity ofthe Baltic Sea and its heavy sea traffic. All ships, regardless of flag,are now required to comply with more stringent discharge regula-tions when in the Baltic Sea area.In terms of the knowledge society in the Baltic Sea Region, thedevelopment of basic skills as a basis for future learning was con-sidered important. The need for a comprehensive strategy to dealwith key competencies was recognised, where basic educationand lifelong learning will complement each other. The idea offounding a “Baltic Sea University” was once again raised. The BalticSea Region could emerge as a model knowledge society, whereeducation, training and academic life are treated as key assets insustainable development. This would require mutual recognition ofdiplomas and the creation of multi-institutional degrees in the Bal-tic Sea Region based on harmonised educational standards andprogrammes.In analysing the labour market of the Baltic Sea Region, the Con-ference was concerned about the phenomenon of social marginali-sation. The Conference called for the setting up of a database of jobvacancies in the Baltic Sea Region in order to facilitate cross-bordermobility of labour resources. Existing national databases of jobvacancies should be developed in a way that would benefit theentire Baltic Sea Region labour market. The Conference alsostressed that the Baltic Sea Region can only flourish if there arewell-functioning labour market structures and a skilled labourforce.For the first time, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black SeaEconomic Cooperation (PABSEC) attended the Conference.13th BSPCThe 13th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference was convened inBergen, Norway, 29–31 August 2004. Under the theme “SustainableDevelopment – Shared Concerns and Responsibilities in the BalticSea Region”, the Conference showed two superficially contradic-tory trends in the cooperation: continuity and change. Continuitybecause the parliamentarians had been meeting since 1991, andthe regional parliamentary cooperation was well established.Change because this was the first Conference after the enlarge-ment of the European Union in May 2004. The fact that the BalticSea was now almost an EU-Russian internal water was expected tochange the form and to some extent the content of Baltic Seacooperation. The impact of EU enlargement was not scheduled forseparate discussion but became a constant thread in the debateson the present and future of Baltic Sea cooperation. The following32points were repeatedly mentioned as the most important aspectsof the enlarged Union for regional cooperation in NorthernEurope: the possibility of obtaining additional EU funds for pro-jects in the Baltic Sea Region; the importance of the region as acommon EU-Russia geographical area; the necessity of a parliamen-tary aspect to the Northern Dimension; and the need for futureparticipation of the European Parliament in the BSPC.The theme of change and continuity ran vertically through allthe discussions at the Conference, but was most clearly visible inthe discussion about the future of the Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConference itself. There was a clear consensus among the partici-pants that parliamentary cooperation would also be needed in thefuture, not only at European level, but also at a regional level. Every-body agreed that, under the new geopolitical circumstances, theBSPC should be strengthened and turned into a true parliamentarydimension of the CBSS, though there were diverging views as tohow this should be accomplished. A Parliamentarian Partnershipfor Northern Europe, as an overarching structure for the geographi-cal area and a driving force in relations with the governments andthe EU Commission, was proposed as food for thought and inspira-tion. The idea received support but did not lead to any majorchanges in the parliamentary structures in Northern Europe.33The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference has no mandate tomake binding decisions. Its strength lies in bringing together differ-ent voices from the Baltic Sea States. Parliamentarians fromnational and regional parliaments around the Baltic Sea attend theConference, many of them also representing regional organisationslike the Baltic Assembly or the Nordic Council. The Conferencewas again joined by representatives from the Adriatic Ionian Initia-tive and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea EconomicCooperation, reminding the Baltic Sea parliamentarians again ofthe BSPC’s function as a model for other regional initiatives inEurope.Another, though less obvious, theme of the Conference was thatof consensus and dissent. In the past years it had become quiteclear where the common interests lay and the areas in which jointmeasures were possible. A number of successful initiatives werementioned by the parliamentarians, such as measures for reducingthe load of heavy metals discharged into the sea. But bones of con-tention had also become something of a tradition, hampering pro-gress in areas such as maritime safety.At the end of the Conference, the Resolution was passed unani-mously despite the often heated discussions. The non-binding Res-olutions of the Conference and the broad extent of the topics of34Baltic Sea cooperation mean that most of the issues discussed arelong-term projects.During the past year, the Standing Committee, whose task is torepresent the BSPC outside the annual meetings, had concentratedon concrete political activities, such as the Northern Dimension,EU enlargement and the European Neighbourhood policy. TheStanding Committee had also made its first visit to Brussels inNovember 2003 to discuss these issues. The outcome was positiveand the committee would therefore continue this practice.The success of the joint application to the IMO to grant the Bal-tic Sea status of a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) was seen bymany participants as the biggest success of Baltic Sea cooperationsince the Conference in 2003. At the same time, the applicationwas a joint effort by a majority of Baltic Sea States. Russian parlia-mentarians, while supporting the idea in the final Resolution of the12th BSPC in Oulu, remained strictly opposed to the idea.For the final Resolution, a compromise had to be found, as theoriginal text calling for the governments, the CBSS and HELCOM to“Continue to work for designation of the whole Baltic Sea as aPSSA” was not supported by all participants. Instead, the wording“Support effective associated protective measures with respect torelevant provisions in all the Resolutions of the BSPC on the pro-tection of marine environment” was chosen. By formulating thetext in this way, the 13th BSPC declared that it stood behind all itsprevious Resolutions, thereby including its support for the PSSAdesignation.Before the Conference, a new function had been established bythe Standing Committee, through nomination of a rapporteur forKaliningrad. Kaliningrad had grown considerably, but around180,000 inhabitants of the region still lived below the povertylevel.Since the previous Conference, another parliamentarian hadbeen acting as BSPC Rapporteur on the legislation regarding NGOsin the Baltic Sea Region. A statement was made that effective coop-eration between people’s elected representatives and the civilsociety is vital for the democratic development of the region andthe wellbeing of its citizens. According to the report, the status ofthe non-profit sector varied greatly between the Baltic Sea coun-tries. Reforms were needed in all countries in order to facilitate theactive participation of the civil society sector in all stages of gov-ernance: local, regional, national and international. Several politicalrecommendations regarding the status of NGOs in the region wereput forward.The discussion tackled the issues of weapons dumped afterWorld War II, and chemical and other toxic weapons stored by Bal-tic Sea countries.35Already at the 12th BSPC in Oulu in 2003, the need for reformand the desire to strengthen the BSPC had surfaced. This wasbrought to a head at the 13th BSPC, where the BSPC StandingCommittee was given the task of making concrete proposals onthe restructuring of the parliamentary Conference. It was asked toelaborate a proposal for how to develop the parliamentary dimen-sion in cooperation with the CBSS and the participating parlia-ments and relevant inter-parliamentary bodies. The discussionsshowed clearly that the goal of strengthening the BSPC was sharedby all members of the Standing Committee and the BSPC, althoughthere were disagreements on how to achieve it.14th BSPCThe 14th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference convened in Vilnius28–30 August 2005. The theme of the Conference was “Shared Con-cerns & Responsibilities for Stability and Democracy”, and it wasaimed at strengthening the parliamentary dimension of the BalticSea Region and debating the shared concerns and responsibilitiesof the region. The broad participation, with over 90 parliamentari-ans and 150 observers and guests from all of the Baltic Sea coun-tries, testified to the importance of parliamentary cooperation inthe region.Even though more than a year had passed since the enlarge-ment of the European Union in May 2004, the impact of this pro-cess remained a fundamental issue during the Conference. Theaccession of the three Baltic Countries and Poland to the EU hadbrokered new possibilities for regional cooperation in NorthernEurope, especially with regard to the new options of additional EUfunds for the various projects in the Baltic Sea Region. An impor-tant step was the participation of the European Parliament in thework of the BSPC Standing Committee. It was also obvious that therole of the CBSS had grown in view of the recent enlargement ofthe European Union.A strong link to the previous BSPC in Bergen was apparentthroughout the Conference. Not only was the important issue ofthe environmental situation in the Baltic Sea Region resumed, butthe impact of EU enlargement and the reform of the BSPC wereagain crucial topics. In addition to enhanced cooperation with theCBSS, the main emphasis of future cooperation and developmentwould be placed on the Northern Dimension framework and theEuropean Neighbourhood Policy.The future of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference and thereform of the Rules of Procedure for both the Standing Committeeand the Conference itself were some of the main issues of the Con-36ference. The theme ran vertically through all the discussions andaccompanied the debate on the joint responsibility for stability anddemocracy in the Baltic Sea Region. One of the main issues in theResolutions of 2003 and 2004 was the request for the StandingCommittee to elaborate proposals on how to develop the parlia-mentary dimension in cooperation with the CBSS. The StandingCommittee therefore had a task and mandate from the Conferenceto reform the BSPC Rules of Procedure. Through the participationof the parliamentarians and the strong cooperation with the CBSS,the new rules could contribute to the efficiency of the BSPC.Environmental challenges in the Baltic Sea Region were on theagenda. The urgency of this topic was raised by most speakerswhilst several proposals and comments accompanied the debate.The Conference noted that, in July 2005, the Marine Environ-ment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the IMO had agreed uponthe designation of the Baltic Sea as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area(PSSA). After the joint application to the IMO to grant the Baltic SeaPSSA status in 2003, this status is now regarded as a success for theentire Baltic Sea Region. When an area is approved as a particularlysensitive area, special protection is granted due to its ecologicalsignificance, and specific measures can be used to restrict traffic inthat area. The decision of the IMO was described as a great break-through for the Baltic Sea countries in their efforts to protect theBaltic Sea.The role and status of civil society and especially NGOs wasregarded as both a resource and a precondition for stability anddemocracy in the Baltic Sea Region. One of the main challengesconcerns the differences between the countries in the Baltic SeaRegion in respect to NGO legislation, which creates barriers toenhanced regional cooperation. As the role of civil society andNGOs in the Baltic Sea Region was again a main issue, the Confer-ence was attended by representatives of many civil society organi-sations in the region.After an intensive two-day debate, the Resolution and the newdraft Rules of Procedure for the BSPC were adopted unanimouslyby all participating parliamentarians at the end of the Conference.The biggest change concerned the Standing Committee, whosemandate was expanded to work between the Conferences, andwhose membership now included representatives of the EuropeanParliament and the German Bundestag. Moreover, an ExtendedStanding Committee acts as Drafting Committee during the Confer-ence in order to strengthen continuity in the parliamentary work.The amended Rules and Conference Resolution, including theestablishment of a BSPC Working Group on Eutrophication, wereadopted unanimously.3715th BSPCThe 15th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Reykjavik, Ice-land, 3–5 September 2006 addressed the “Northern Dimension andthe Oceans and Seas”. The Conference was held in the northern-most European capital in the Baltic Sea Region. The Conferencetook up issues such as the environment, with particular focus onthe Baltic Sea, the Northern Dimension and how to furtherstrengthen cooperation in the Region. The City of Reykjavik doesnot lie by the Baltic Sea, but this does not prevent the IcelandicParliament participating in the work of the BSPC.There was a lively debate throughout the two-day event in Rey-kjavik, with a wide variety of views and opinions exchanged. TheExtended Standing Committee, convening for the first time asDrafting Committee in accordance with the new Rules of Proce-dure, had prepared the Conference Resolution.The themes of the Conference were central to the discussionsin the region, but this time special emphasis was put on how tomake the work of the Conference more effective, i.e. how to movefrom the discussion of issues to their implementation. The underly-ing concept of the Rules of Procedure for the Standing Committee,as the permanent political body of the Conference, was to make38the presence of parliamentary cooperation in the Baltic Sea Regionfelt beyond the annual Conference.According to the new Rules adopted in Vilnius in 2005, repre-sentatives from both Bundestag in Germany and the European Par-liament now had assumed their tasks in the Standing Committee.This was seen as a positive development that would hopefullysecure continuity in the representation of the national and regionalparliaments. Another important issue had been to implement theConference Resolution and also to work according to the guide-lines in a written Work Programme that had been developed dur-ing the previous year.A lively discussion broke out regarding Belarus and its possiblestatus as an observer at the Conference. Some of the participantsthought that isolating an entire country, its parliament and peoplefrom any dialogue with its surrounding region was unacceptable.Others felt that due to the political events taking place in Belarus,granting it either membership or even observer status at the BSPCcould be difficult for some of the members of the BSPC.The Integrated Maritime Policy of the EU was felt to offer prom-ising opportunities for the Region, not least in financial terms.Greater cooperation and coordination in order to boost the healthof the Baltic Sea could lead to prosperity and higher standards ofliving for the people in the Region. Several speakers expressedwishes that the BSPC could participate actively in the deliberationson the policy.The Nord Stream gas pipeline prompted lively discussion. TheRussian participants assured that Russia would ensure that noharmful substances would leak out. Others expressed doubtsabout the project, emphasising the number of mines as well aschemical weapons on the seabed, and so the project was raisingissues relating to ecology, economy, energy supply and security. Theoutcome of the discussion was put in the Resolution as a plea tothe governments and HELCOM to ensure that the feasibility assess-ment for the pipeline is carried out with a high level of transpar-ency and in compliance with all applicable international obliga-tions.The BSPC Working Group on Eutrophication had been activesince the previous Conference. It had drafted input to the Confer-ence Resolution regarding the serious situation of abnormal algaeblooming and lifeless areas of the Baltic Sea seabed, with a plea tothe governments to strongly support all kinds of measures andinstruments designed to reduce pollutant and nutrient inputs fromagriculture, municipalities, shipping and industries. It expressed itsfull support to the HELCOM activities in the whole catchment areain order to fight eutrophication in the Baltic Sea.3916th BSPCThe 16th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference was held on 27–28August 2007 in Berlin under the theme “Social Welfare, MaritimePolicy, Energy Security”. It was the first time that the Bundestaghad organised the Conference. It had been held in Germany twicebefore, having been hosted by the Schleswig-Holstein Landtag in1998 and the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Landtag in 2001. TheConference was the biggest so far in BSPC’s history, gathering over200 participants. The Conference acknowledged the collaborativespirit of the BSPC and confirmed its pivotal political role in the Bal-tic Sea Region.The BSPC was seen as a part of a larger formula of parliamen-tary cooperation in the Northern Europe. Establishing a recurrentNorthern Dimension Parliamentary Forum was a move supportedby many participants as an important function for monitoring gov-ernmental actions in Northern Europe.The BSPC’s observer status in HELCOM was mentioned as oneof the main avenues for parliamentarians to drive and follow upthe discussion on maritime policies. It was also said that morefocus should be put on labour market cooperation, the develop-ment of civil society, and the fight against organised crime. Coordi-nation with other organisations was also deemed important. TheConference felt satisfaction that there now was clear evidence ofprogress on the issues mentioned in earlier BSPC Resolutions. Thisshowed that the opinions of parliamentarians and their work werebeing taken seriously.The Nord Stream pipeline was discussed although it was notexplicitly included in the programme. The Conference continuedto discuss the munitions on the sea bed in the Baltic Sea. It wassuggested that one possible, specific and realistic project could bethe lifting of these munitions. Then they would not pose any dan-ger to the gas pipeline which will be an important line for supply-ing energy to Europe. Many parliamentarians however expressedtheir concerns about the pipeline, which was described by someas an unfriendly action towards some of the countries. There werealso concerns about the possible grave ecological consequences.The risk of terrorist attacks against the pipeline was another of thearguments against building it.Those in favour of the pipeline, in their turn, reminded the Con-ference that the environmental risks of the Nord Stream pipelinehad already been evaluated during the planning phase. The processhas been open and transparent and anyone could submit com-ments on the pipeline. As for the risk of terrorist attacks, it wasargued that the same threat applies to land-based pipelines.40Concerning labour market issues, the Conference discussedsocial welfare and living conditions from a regional as well as aglobal perspective. Economic, ecological and social concerns arebecoming increasingly intertwined in the globalised world. Stableand peaceful labour market conditions are central prerequisites fora prosperous and fair social and economic development. It isimportant to take measures to promote a closer exchange of infor-mation and initiatives between social partners.One question was how to regulate flexicurity, which is sup-posed to combine social security with openness to flexibility andmobility. The term “decent work” was applied, underlining thatwork as such is central for human dignity and individual self-appre-ciation. New issues facing societies, such as immigrant workers,cross-border workers, young and elderly people and work-relateddiseases were listed by the participants. Major priorities in theyears to come will include providing decent jobs, skills enhance-ment and life-long learning. The problem is not so much a deficit ofwork but rather adapting the labour market to new conditions.After the thorough discussion on labour market issues the Confer-ence decided to ask the Standing Committee to set up a WorkingGroup on Labour Market Issues.The BSPC Working Group on Eutrophication presented its finalreport, highlighting some of the suggestions of the Group, such asmore environmentally sound agricultural production regimes;more efficient cleaning of municipal and industrial waste waterand waste water from ships; a ban on phosphorus in washingdetergents; international initiatives to reduce the airborne nitrogenload in the Baltic Sea; and ongoing regional cooperation. The reportand its recommendations were unanimously adopted by the Con-ference.17th BSPCThe 17th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference was held in Visby,Sweden, 31 August-2 September 2008 under the theme “EnergyEfficiency and Climate Change”.Right from the start, speakers and participants expressed con-cern about the situation in the Baltic Sea – one of the most pol-luted seas in the world, with excessive concentrations of phospho-rus and nitrogen due to discharge from sources such as agriculture,traffic and flush toilets. The biggest problem is eutrophication,causing algae blooming and fish death. The Conference expressedsupport for HELCOM’s Baltic Sea Action Plan, which was adoptedby the environment ministers of the countries around the BalticSea in November 2007.41One way to tackle the discharge of pollutants into the Baltic Seawould be for everyone around the Baltic Sea to use phosphate-freedetergents for washing-up and washing. Discharge of phosphoruswould then be reduced by 20%. Agriculture must also reduce its dis-charges, and this applies to all countries surrounding the Baltic Sea.Climate change, with temperature increases, warmer periods, andflooding, was seen as one of the worst crises that politicians have totackle. The costs of avoiding these are quite reasonable, but Europecannot act alone in coming to terms with climate change. On energysupply and energy security issues, it was said that the most crucialsecurity issue is climate change. Other factors significant to securityare nuclear power, energy provision, energy efficiency and invest-ments in energy savings. Development of new, ecologically-pureenergy technologies was desirable. The discussion cannot just con-cern how to produce more energy – reduction in energy consump-tion and energy efficiency must also be discussed. Concern was alsoexpressed over the dependence on nuclear power in the future.The relationship between CBSS and BSPC was addressed, and itwas noted with satisfaction that BSPC is one of the most active play-ers in the Baltic Sea Region and is a strategic partner to CBSS.In one of the discussions ̧ it was emphasised that Belarus mustbe included when considering the environment in the Baltic Sea. Itwas also emphasised that chemical weapons stored on the bed ofthe Baltic Sea might pose an important ecological problem thatshould be solved at European level, especially in view of the fact thatthe routing of the Nord Stream pipeline must bypass the areas con-taining old munitions. All countries around the Baltic Sea must ratifythe Espoo Convention on transnational environmental impact assess-ments before the project is given the green light to continue.The BSPC Working Group on Energy and Climate Change pre-sented a progress report, noting that NGOs can comprise an impor-tant element in future work.Certain dissatisfaction was expressed in the debate on maritimesafety. Much remains to be done in the area of safety, particularly inview of the large increase in the number of maritime transportmovements. The situation has actually been improved as a result ofthe reinstatement of the requirement for double hulls, but the big-gest danger is small vessels that ignore the regulations and vesselsthat sail under flags of convenience.The BSPC Working Group on Labour Market and Social Welfarealso presented a progress report, noting that cross-border movementcan be hampered by different labour market regulations, differentinsurance terms and conditions, different views on trade unionmovements, different tax systems, etc.The Conference ended with an extensive debate arising out of astatement about inclusion of an addendum. It was recognised the42Rules of Procedure of the BSPC state unequivocally that decisionsduring the plenary session are to be taken in consensus betweenthe participating delegations. Following the debate, the Confer-ence decided to adopt the Resolution by consensus.18th BSPCThe 18th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference was held inNyborg, on the Island of Fyn, Denmark, 30 August-1 September2009. The theme of the Conference was “New Security Challenges”,and it attracted some 200 government representatives, parliamen-tarians and experts from the Baltic Sea Region. Once again, theConference continued to bolster the spirit of optimism in theregion.The Conference reaffirmed the mutually beneficial contacts andexchange between BSPC and CBSS, and recognised the importantrole of the CBSS in initiating and coordinating actions to meet thechallenges of the Baltic Sea Region. It also reiterated its support tothe HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) as a central tool forrestoring a good environmental status of the Baltic Sea by 2021,and underlining that governments must fulfil their pledges to43implement the plan according to its agreed timetable. The partici-pants were careful to stress that the present economic downturnmust not be taken as an excuse for lowering environmental goals,cutting environmental resources or delaying timetables for envi-ronmental plans and projects.On Maritime Safety and Security in the Region, the Conferencecalled for active cooperation within the International MaritimeOrganisation (IMO) on the development of relevant measures toreduce the environmental impact of shipping in the Baltic Sea, andconcrete projects to implement maritime spatial planning in theBaltic Sea Region. The Black Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the North-East Atlantic and the Irish Sea, should be designated as SulphurEmission Control Areas (SECA), as is already the case with the Eng-lish Channel, the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. Vessel Traffic Ser-vices (VTS) and Ship Reporting Systems (SRS) should be harmo-nised and integrated to enhance safe navigation of ships.The Conference agreed that cooperation and coordination oncivil security issues in general should be strengthened in order tofoster a joint and comprehensive understanding of the risks andthreats facing the Baltic Sea Region. The fight against trafficking inhuman beings must be stepped up, with emphasis on preventivemeasures, protection and support for victims and people at risk.44Participants debated energy issues, noting the need to developa coherent energy strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, in order toenhance security of energy supply, increase the use of renewableenergy, and strengthen interconnection between countries.The BSPC Working Group on Labour Market and Social Affairspresented its final report, calling for more systematic and coordi-nated efforts to identify barriers to the development of cross-bor-der labour markets and mobility. It also wanted a more regular dia-logue between associations representing cross-border workers,trade unions, employers and political decision-makers.Again, the Rules of Procedure were discussed and amended. Itwas agreed that the Enlarged Standing Committee should convenetwice a year and the Standing Committee convene twice a year,with the Standing Committee open for observers from nationaland regional parliaments that are not represented in the StandingCommittee. The Conference also decided to establish a WorkingGroup on Integrated Maritime Policy, especially infrastructure andlogistics, and a Working Group on Civil Security, especially traffick-ing in human beings. It was noted with satisfaction that all memberparliaments had paid their contribution to the joint budget.The Drafting Committee for the Conference Resolution (com-prising the Enlarged Standing Committee) had three extensive dis-cussions during the Conference, after which the Resolution couldbe adopted by consensus.19th BSPCThe 19th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference was convened inMariehamn, Åland Islands, on 29–31 August 2010. The theme of the19th BSPC was “Cooperation on Environment and Security”, and itdrew some 200 politicians, experts and officials. Once again theConference could observe that, although a lot has been done tohelp the Baltic Sea to recover, the environmental problems in theregion are still major and ongoing.The Conference reaffirmed the close, constructive and mutuallybeneficial exchange between BSPC and CBSS, as shown, for exam-ple, in the interaction between BSPC and CBSS, and the workinggroups on trafficking in human beings and on integrated maritimepolicy. The usefulness of this interaction as a joint resource in fol-lowing and addressing the economic, social and political chal-lenges of the Baltic Sea Region was also recognised. Contacts withother organisations and players in the region have also beenstrengthened.The participants underlined the important role parliamentari-ans can play for a sustainable development of the Baltic SeaRegion, by raising awareness, building opinion, driving issues,45exerting political pressure on governments, and initiating andadopting legislation.The Conference urged governments of the region to fulfil theiralready agreed obligations under the HELCOM Baltic Sea ActionPlan, in particular by producing concrete National Implementa-tion Plans by early 2011 at the latest. It also reiterated its call for acoordination of the EU Baltic Sea Strategy with the NorthernDimension policy, as well as with the Council of the Baltic SeaStates (a core regional cooperation body) and other Northern andBaltic cooperation bodies.The participants expressed a wish for an ecosystem approachto be applied to the environmental work in the Baltic Sea Region,including investments, research and development to protect eco-system services and to integrate their values in economic systems,national budgets and strategies for sustainable development.Stronger measures were seen as necessary to protect and restorebiodiversity.The BSPC Working Group on Integrated Maritime Policy pre-sented a progress report, noting the need to investigate the extentto which the reduction of sulphur content in ship fuels may resultin competitive disadvantages to the economy in the Baltic SeaRegion and requested proposals on how to avoid such disadvan-tages while maintaining high environmental standards in the mari-time sector. It also called for obligatory use of pilots in risk areasof the Baltic Sea and a strict implementation of the ban on trans-porting oil in single-hulled tankers. Moreover, the joint regional aswell as national preparedness and capacity to tackle major spillsof oil and hazardous substances must be strengthened.The debate on Peace and Security in the Baltic Sea Regionemphasised the need to foster a joint perception of the threatsagainst public safety and civil security in the region, covering nat-ural as well as technological and other man-made threats andrisks. In this context, it was also considered important toexchange available information on the location and state of sea-dumped chemical weapons, to inform the public about thethreats caused by these weapons, and to prepare guidelines forhow to handle accidents involving sea-dumped chemical weap-ons.The BSPC Working Group on Trafficking in Human Beingsdelivered an interim report. The report called for sufficient, per-manent and dedicated funds and resources to, for instance, publicauthorities, specialised agencies, NGOs, and inter-governmentalorganisations and projects, such as the CBSS Task Force on Traf-ficking in Human Beings, in order to maintain persistent and sus-tained initiatives against trafficking in human beings. It also under-lined that a victim-centred approach must be adopted in all meas-ures and actions against trafficking in human beings, and that46development of the operational capacity to fight trafficking in thefield must be promoted.The joint financing of the BSPC by all participating parliamentswas seen as a positive step towards a more organised and inde-pendent Baltic Sea Parliamentary cooperation. BSPC has maturedinto a stable structure, with permanent bodies and recurrent work-ing groups, and with established external cooperation and informa-tion channels. The new BSPC homepage (www.bspc.net) functionsas a platform for dissemination of information and documentation.The Conference decided to ask the Standing Committee to evalu-ate the functioning of the BSPC Joint Financing Mechanism, includ-ing consideration of a possible revision of the procedures forfinancing the Secretariat function.In the spring of 2010, the BSPC Enlarged Standing Committeehad formulated a draft version of the Conference Resolution. TheConference Drafting Committee (comprising the Enlarged Stand-ing Committee) considered the draft in two sittings, and then theConference adopted the Resolution by consensus. The Resolutionis the main political tool for directing joint political standpointsand recommendations to the governments of the Baltic Sea Region,the CBSS and the European Union.47Pertti Joenniemi, Senior Research Fellow, Danish Institute forInternational StudiesThe Politics of Baltic SeaCooperation:The Quest for Further DebateThe growth of a regionThe Baltic Sea area is not what it used to be. The turmoil that sweptacross the region entailed, for example, that the maps outlining keyaspects of its geography have been profoundly re-drawn. There canbe no doubt that the geopolitical landscape has changed drasti-cally, yet it must also be noted that the changes are by no meansover. The progress has not been straightforward, and so issues relat-ing to policies pursued are always current. Some of the issues atstake are potentially important subjects of discursive influence, i.e.the type of power exercised by bodies such as the Baltic Sea Parlia-mentary Conference.In order to pinpoint various options, three distinct formativeperiods can be identified. The initial period is characterised byintra-regional cooperation. The second period consists of greaterambitions to include the impact of the exterior through participa-tion in the building-up of Europe. The third, most recent, period ischaracterised by intensified competition as well as cooperationbetween different European regional formations, in particular thechallenges posed by the growing significance of the various issuespertaining to the North Sea as well as the Arctic region.Arguably, these different phases and initiatives call for policiesof their own to a certain extent. Some of the policies initiated andimplemented immediately after the end of the Cold War may stillbe of relevance. They have retained their value, although there areclearly new challenges that call for fresh approaches, new visions,new ways of thinking, and fresh debate. There should be greateremphasis on addressing the more recent type of issues relating tothe Baltic Sea Region.A record to be defendedThis undoubtedly implies that the dialogue conducted by BalticSea parliamentarians is profoundly impacted by the new chal-lenges. There is, in fact, a record to be defended, as the first parlia-mentary conference on cooperation in the Baltic Sea area, held inHelsinki in January 1991, was early in exerting an influence on the49region’s agenda at a crucial juncture. The conference was part andparcel of establishing a dialogue during a sensitive period of tur-moil and change. Some aspects of the conference involved coun-tries and regions learning about each other after decades of divi-sion and enforced separation. It was also a matter of taking stock ofthe opportunities opened up by the disappearance of the previousbipolar setting.In general, the conference was very much in tune with the newmood of cooperation prevailing in the region. “The ice on the Bal-tic Sea has melted; the waves go free,” said Kalevi Sorsa, chairmanof the conference, in his closing remarks. Yet he also saw the needfor caution, and made the reservation that “the summer is not yethere”. Naturally, the profound changes could also generate strainsand tensions. They could even promote rather severe conflicts, andso there were good reasons to refrain from overly optimistic state-ments and to watch for possible backlashes. One of the reasons forserious concern was that the borders opening up across the previ-ous divides also represented rather stark differences in standardsof living. The neighbours that now had increasing contact witheach other were not equal. Instead, they differed sometimes radi-cally in their potential for and interest in greater cooperation.However, these reservations notwithstanding, “summer” hasremained the prevailing mood. The waves do indeed “go free”.Over time, the fragile progress discernible even in the first parlia-mentary conference has turned into a dominant and stable trend.Initially, the cooperation was very much about laying foundationsand knitting the region together. It was about establishing contactsacross the previous divides. The aim was to remedy the damagecaused by the bipolar division that had previously preventedalmost all region-specific integration except for some initial effortsregarding environmental cooperation and the regulation of fishing.In short, the Baltic Sea area has changed fundamentally. Theregion has actually transformed itself, in two decades, from one ofthe least regionalised parts of Europe into one of the most region-alised ones. It has done this quite spontaneously for the most part,and without any master plan to promote regionalisation. Naturally,it cannot be denied that there have also been various issues of con-tention, and security has remained a central concern, but the tran-sition to a rather peaceful and cooperative region has nonethelessbeen quite impressive. The area has become deeply institutional-ised through a rather dense web of interlocking institutions. Theplurality has been formidable, implying for example that the driv-ing forces are not just the countries of the region. They alsoinclude a broad spectrum of other players such as cities, enter-prises, churches and non-governmental organisations. Overall,there is myriad of inter-governmental, trans-governmental and non-50governmental arrangements with a substantial variation in thestrength and orientation of the various players.Current dynamicsThe intra-regional integration still continues, although it remainspredominantly driven more by administrative and project-orientedinitiatives rather than any explicit political aspirations. The buildingof the Öresund Bridge is a case in point. The region around thebridge recently celebrated achievements made and experiencesgained during the first ten years of the link. Cooperation within thearea has grown at such a pace that infrastructure must be devel-oped further, so another bridge or tunnel across the strait is underdiscussion.In discussions of a permanent link between Denmark and Ger-many across the Fehmarn Belt, the planning is now focusing on atunnel to be lowered to the sea bed. Crucial decisions are still to betaken before construction can get underway, but the progressalready made indicates there are good chances of a permanent linkbetween northern Germany and the Nordic area within ten years.Similarly, Kaliningrad’s prospects of becoming a transport hub areimproving as preparations are underway – with some input andfinancing from Danish companies – for the construction of a major51container terminal outside the city of Kaliningrad in the vicinity ofBaltisk.The northeast part of the Baltic Sea area is displaying similardynamism. An example is the new fast train connection (Allegro)between Helsinki and St. Petersburg. It may also be noted that theidea of a tunnel – initially viewed as interesting but no more thanvisionary in essence – has recently attracted rather more seriousattention. Another integrative factor relates to new nuclear plants.A considerable number of plants have been planned (althoughthere may be less interest in implementation in view of recentdevelopments regarding the risks involved), implying that theregion may actually become a major exporter of electricity toother parts of Europe.Another cooperative initiative is the Nord Stream gas pipelinefrom Russia to Germany and other countries in central Europe. Thefirst pipeline has been lowered into the sea and work has startedon a second one. In general, the Baltic Sea has turned into such anintense energy-related transit route that issues of safety and envi-ronmental cooperation have become priorities. These issues neces-sitate cooperation between the countries and regions around theBaltic basin.52Regionalisation as a way of building EuropeAnother aspect of Baltic Sea development consists of the regionlooking outwards and becoming part of broader developments inEurope. In fact, the aim of remedying the region’s marginal posi-tion at the edge of Europe was there from an early stage, but theissue has become far more pronounced in recent years. Theincreasing regionalisation of the European area, exemplified by theEU’s macro-regional strategies, provides a highly significant incen-tive as well as an outlet for such policies.The preparation and adoption of the EU’s Baltic Sea Strategy(BSS) in 2009 is an important initiative for incorporating the regionin the wider Europe. It does so by inviting and encouraging theBaltic Sea area to spearhead the development of European macro-regions. It has become a model for other macro-regions to follow.The Danube region has already heeded the call and developed astrategy of its own and two other regions – the Alps-Adriatica andthe North Sea – are gradually following suit. In addition to the fourmain pillars of the strategy – environment, prosperity, accessibilityand safety and security – it contains 15 priority areas involvingsome 80 concrete “flagship” projects.Importantly, the policy-making relating to implementation ofthe EU strategy is expected to be primarily regional rather thanbeing concentrated in Brussels. This was evident to some extentalready in the preparatory phase, because it involved new andregion-specific forms of engagement as well as public consultation.The EU Baltic Sea Strategy seems to encourage the region to pur-sue policies of integration in line with the EU’s own philosophy,thereby strengthening its plurality by allowing “all flowers tobloom”. The region is not asked to comply with, emulate and dupli-cate something that is already there and dictated by Brussels. TheBaltic Sea area is given great scope and is cast in the role of a crea-tive and pro-active force, one that drives the process.In other words, the tasks allotted to the region are highly politi-cal in nature, although they have – within the region – been seenas largely administrative rather than political in nature. The playersof the region do not seem to have a sufficiently common perspec-tive to fully utilise the window of opportunity opened by the BSS.It may also be that the nomination as a forerunner and a modelamong European macro-regions comes as something of a surpriseto many of the players in the region as they are not accustomed toa central role. They still tend to perceive themselves as peripheralin nature and so the invitation of the EU to take the lead, at least inthe sphere of Europe’s regionalisation, lacks credibility. They tendto abstain from re-framing the policies pursued. In any case, the EUBaltic Sea Strategy clearly offers opportunities, not just to pursuefurther intra-regional developments but also to exert an influence53on Europe as a whole. Consequently, it is very important that thepolicies pursued by the region are aligned with the options onoffer.Focused dialogue is needed within the region itself so that itcan live up to expectations. The region must define its own priori-ties far more clearly, broaden its perspectives and redefine the poli-cies for the currently somewhat inappropriate and rather diffuseinstitutional architecture, instead of re-structuring itself to alignwith the targets.Links to the North Sea and Arctic regionsAnother development calling for new approaches and broaderstrategies is the growing importance of the North Sea and Arcticareas. In recent years, many major players in the sphere of interna-tional relations, including many of the littoral states around the Bal-tic Sea, have had cause to develop an Arctic strategy of their own.In comparison, the Baltic Sea area might suffer in terms of politicalattention. The resources available for regional initiatives may bededicated for use in the Arctic, but the Baltic Sea area may also gainfrom the links if practical policies are developed and pursued.Visions and strategies should therefore be developed so that theBaltic Sea Region benefits rather than suffers.This implies that, while the relationship between the Baltic Seaarea and the more northern areas may be slightly competitive,there are also potential synergies from which both areas couldbenefit. It seems that the underlying philosophy and ways of organ-ising cooperation and relevant players run sufficiently parallel toeach other to allow the development of complementaryapproaches.In this context it is crucial to note that the developments in theNorth Sea and Arctic areas may further augment the importance ofnorthern Europe. This will boost the standing of the Baltic SeaRegion, not just in a European context but also in a far broaderinternational context. The various geopolitical and geo-economicshifts taking place in northern Europe contrast with the somewhatEU-centric conceptualisations normally applying to the Baltic Seaarea. Such trends may at least potentially allow the region to shakeoff its previous peripherality, and so the tapping of this potential isone of the key issues to be addressed in the sphere of the currentBaltic Sea policies.In a broader context and in view of its proximity to the Arcticregion, the Baltic Sea area may be perceived as a transport hubconnecting Europe and much of Asia. Already the opening of theNorth-East Passage supports this idea and makes it realistic. TheTrans-Siberian railways, intensified connections by air or the water-ways and river systems linking the Baltic Sea with the Barents Sea54and the Arctic also provide credence to such thinking. In short,there are rather good reasons to deviate from traditional percep-tions of peripherality and re-think the very basis on which the Bal-tic Sea strategies rest.Breaking a tabooThe dismantling of the previous confrontational pattern hasprompted the emergence of a much more cooperative constella-tion, but traditional security has not lost its position in the dis-course about the Baltic Sea area. Obviously, the region is no longera zone of confrontation but security still has a high profile. It actu-ally constitutes a significant obstacle to the devising of a commonand more integrative Baltic Sea agenda.It may also be noted that the emphasis on traditional securityby no means unifies the region. Instead it appears that the differentplayers within the region have different views on security. Theinterests and agendas vary considerably, creating occasional mis-matches of mutual expectations. Some of the players in the regionhave adopted cooperative forms of security, and prioritised varioushuman, environmental as well as energy-related concerns. Othershave largely chosen to stay with the more traditional and military-related issues. A crude division is that the Nordic countriestogether with Germany largely belong to the former group, whilethe Baltic States, Poland and Russia mainly align with the latterstance.The lack of unity on the security issue has no doubt had crucialconsequences for the development of the Baltic Sea Region. It hasderailed any joint and explicitly agreed desecuritisation activities.The region remains void of any common platform for the wagingof a security-related discourse, and no region-specific agreement inthe spheres of arms control and disarmament has seen the light ofday. The Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) has implementedvarious measures relating to civil security, including cooperationon initiatives to counteract cross-border crime. Joint naval exer-cises (Baltops) are held annually, led by the US Navy and involvingall the navies in the Baltic Sea area. However, in spite of theseexamples of cooperation, cooperation on security appears to bethe least developed aspect of Baltic Sea unity. The region is indeedlagging behind many other parts of Europe.Consequently, security stands out as a sphere that providesplenty of space for the exercise of discursive power. To date, theBaltic Sea parliamentarians have chosen – with few exceptions –not to intrude into that space. Issues relating to traditional securityand desecuritization have either remained taboo, or the tone of thedialogue has been rather traditional, not to say offensive. Thisclearly represents the “ice” to which Kalevi Sorsa referred some55twenty years ago, and which remains unbroken, but it is also anarea where parliamentarians could once again position themselvesas forerunners. The chance to move the discourse in a new direc-tion is there. Practical developments, such as the revision of andfurther talks on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) as well asissues relating to the regional impact of the strategic missiledefence systems debated among the major powers, offer openingsthat could be utilised if there was a common political will.In conclusion, there are considerable opportunities for discur-sive influence and further opportunities will undoubtedly ariseover time. Many of the policies adopted a couple of decades agostill apply, but there is also an increased need for new themes, con-cepts and initiatives. The considerable interdependence of the Bal-tic Sea Region implies that the task of developing policies to meetcurrent challenges requires joint efforts more than ever.57The BSPC Standing Committee1991–2011In 1991, 1992 and 1994 (Helsinki, Oslo and Warsaw) the Confer-ences were planned and carried out mainly by the hosting parlia-ment with support by the Nordic Council Presidium and Secretar-iat. A dedicated reference group was set up for the 1995 Confer-ence. The function and name of Standing Committee was estab-lished in 1996.1994Mr Heinz-Werner Arens, MP, Speaker of the Schleswig-HolsteinLandtag;Ms Dorte Bennedsen, MP, Denmark, Member of the NordicCouncil Presidium;Mr Vladimir Stepanov, MP, Speaker of the Karelian Parliament.1995Ms Dorte Bennedsen, MP, Denmark, Member of the NordicCouncil Presidium, representing the Nordic Council (Chair ofthe Reference Group);Mr Heinz-Werner Arens, MP, Speaker of the Schleswig-HolsteinLandtag, representing Germany;Mr Longin Pastusiak, MP, Senate, Poland;Mr Juris Sinka, MP, Latvia, Member of the Baltic AssemblyPresidium, representing the Baltic Assembly;Mr Vladimir Stepanov, MP, Speaker of the Karelian Parliament,representing Russia.1996Ms Dorte Bennedsen, MP, Denmark, Member of the NordicCouncil Presidium, representing the Nordic Council (Chair);Mr Heinz-Werner Arens, MP, Speaker of the Schleswig-HolsteinLandtag, representing Germany;Mr Longin Pastusiak, MP, Senate, Poland;Mr Juris Sinka, MP, Latvia, Member of the Baltic AssemblyPresidium, representing the Baltic Assembly;Mr Vladimir Stepanov, MP, Speaker of the Karelian Parliament,representing Russia.581997Mr Longin Pastusiak, MP, Senate, Poland (Chair);Ms Dorte Bennedsen, MP, Denmark, Member of the NordicCouncil Presidium, representing the Nordic Council;Mr Heinz-Werner Arens, MP, Speaker of the Schleswig-HolsteinLandtag, representing Germany;Mr Juris Sinka, MP, Latvia, Member of the Baltic AssemblyPresidium, representing the Baltic Assembly;Mr Vladimir Stepanov, MP, Speaker of the Karelian Parliament,representing Russia.1998Mr Heinz-Werner Arens, MP, Speaker of the Schleswig-HolsteinLandtag (Chair);Ms Dorte Bennedsen, MP, Denmark, Member of the NordicCouncil Presidium, representing the Nordic Council;Mr Longin Pastusiak, MP, Senate, Poland;Mr Juris Sinka, MP, Latvia, Member of the Baltic AssemblyPresidium, representing the Baltic Assembly;Mr Vladimir Stepanov, MP, Speaker of the Karelian Parliament,representing Russia.1999Mr Svend Erik Hovmand, MP, Denmark, Member of the NordicCouncil Presidium, representing the Nordic Council (Chair);Mr Heinz-Werner Arens, MP, Speaker of the Schleswig-HolsteinLandtag, representing Germany;Mr Ragnar Erlandsson, Ragnar, MP, Speaker, Parliament of theÅland Islands, representing the host parliament;Mr Juris Sinka, MP, Latvia, Member of the Baltic AssemblyPresidium, representing the Baltic Assembly;Mr Valery N Ustyugov, MP, Speaker of the Kaliningrad Duma,representing Russia;Mr Edmund Wiibrodt, MP, Senate, Poland.2000Mr Svend Erik Hovmand, MP, Denmark, Member of the NordicCouncil Presidium, representing the Nordic Council (Chair);Mr Heinz-Werner Arens, MP, Speaker, Schleswig-HolsteinLandtag, representing Germany;Mr Longin Pastusiak, MP, Senate, Poland;Mr Juris Sinka, MP, Latvia, Member of the Baltic AssemblyPresidium, representing the Baltic Assembly;Mr Vladimir Stepanov, MP, Speaker of the Karelian Parliament,representing Russia.592001Mr Heinz-Werner Arens, MP, Speaker, Schleswig-HolsteinLandtag, representing Germany (Chair);Mr Svend Erik Hovmand, MP, Denmark, Member of the NordicCouncil Presidium, representing the Nordic Council;Mr Hinrich Kuessner, MP, Speaker, Mecklenburg-VorpommernLandtag, representing the host parliament;Mr Romualds Razuks, MP, Latvia, Member of the Baltic AssemblyPresidium, representing the Baltic Assembly;Mr Valery N Ustyugov, MP, Speaker of the Kaliningrad Duma,representing Russia;Mr Edmund Wiibrodt, MP, Senate, Poland.2002Mr Nikolay Tyulayev, MP, Speaker, Kaliningrad Regional Duma(Chairman from 1 September);Mr Valery N Ustyugov, MP, Speaker of the Kaliningrad Duma(Chairman until 31 August);Mr Heinz-Werner Arens; MP, Speaker, Schleswig-HolsteinLandtag, representing Germany;Mr Gerard Czaja, MP, Senate, Poland;Ms Outi Ojala, Outi, MP, Finland, Member of the Nordic CouncilPresidium, representing the Nordic Council;Mr Romualds Razuks, MP, Latvia, Member of the Baltic AssemblyPresidium, representing the Baltic Assembly;Mr Konstantin Kosachev, MP, State Duma, Russia.2003Ms Outi Ojala, Outi, MP, Finland, Member of the Nordic CouncilPresidium, representing the Nordic Council (Chair);Mr Heinz-Werner Arens, MP, Speaker, Schleswig-HolsteinLandtag, representing Germany;Mr Gerard Czaja, MP, Senate, Poland;Mr Konstantin Kosachev, MP, State Duma, Russia;Mr Gennady Khripel, MP, Council of Federation, Russia;Mr Kent Olsson, MP, Sweden, Member of the Nordic CouncilPresidium, representing the Nordic Council;Ms Giedre Purvaneckiene, MP, Lithuania, representing the BalticAssembly.2004Mr Kent Olsson, MP, Sweden, Member of the Nordic CouncilPresidium, representing the Nordic Council (Chair);Ms Arja Alho, MP, Finland, representing the Nordic Council;Mr Heinz-Werner Arens; MP, Speaker, Schleswig-HolsteinLandtag, representing Germany;60Mr Gerard Czaja, MP, Senate, Poland;Mr Gennady Khripel, MP, Council of Federation, Russia;Mr Inge Lønning, MP, Norway, representing the host country;Mr Alexandr Orgolaynen, MP, State Duma, Russia;Mr Ja ̄nis Reirs, MP, Latvia, representing the Baltic Assembly.2005Mr Trivimi Velliste, MP, Estonia, representing the Baltic Assembly(Chair);Ms Arja Alho, MP, Finland, representing the Nordic Council;Mr Heinz-Werner Arens; MP, Speaker, Schleswig-HolsteinLandtag, representing Germany;Mr Gerard Czaja, MP, Senate, Poland;Mr Gennady Khripel, MP, Council of Federation, Russia;Mr Kent Olsson, MP, Sweden, Member of the Nordic CouncilPresidium, representing the Nordic Council;Mr Alexandr Orgolaynen, MP, State Duma, Russia.2006Ms Arja Alho, MP, Finland, representing the Nordic Council(Chair);Ms Dorota Arciszewska-Mielenczyk, MP, Senate, Poland;Ms Drifa Hjartardóttir, MP, Iceland, representing the hostcountry;Mr Martin Kayenburg, MP, Speaker, Schleswig-Holstein Landtag;Mr Gennady Khripel, MP, Council of Federation, Russia;Mr Valentinas Mazuronis, MP, Lithuania, representing the BalticAssembly;Mr Alexandr Orgolaynen, MP, State Duma, Russia;Mr Franz Thönnes, MP, Germany.2007Mr Franz Thönnes, MP, Germany (Chair);Ms Dorota Arciszewska-Mielenczyk, MP, Senate, Poland;Ms Christina Gestrin, MP, Finland, representing Nordic Council;Mr Martin Kayenburg, MP, Speaker, Schleswig-Holstein Landtag;Mr Gennady Khripel, MP, Council of Federation, Russia;Mr Valentinas Mazuronis, MP, Lithuania, representing the BalticAssembly;Mr Alexandr Orgolaynen, MP, State Duma, Russia;Mr Erkki Tuomioja, MP, Finland, representing the Nordic Council;Ms Diana Wallis, MEP.2008Ms Sinikka Bohlin, MP, Sweden, representing the host parliament(Chair);61Ms Dorota Arciszewska-Mielenczyk, MP, Senate, Poland (until30 September);Ms Christina Gestrin, MP, Finland, representing Nordic Council;Mr Martin Kayenburg, MP, Speaker, Schleswig-Holstein Landtag;Mr Bogdan Lis, MP, Poland (from 01 October);Mr Anatoly Lyskov, MP, Council of Federation, Russia;Mr Valentinas Mazuronis, MP, Lithuania, representing the BalticAssembly;Mr Vladimir Nikitin, MP, State Duma, Russia (from 1 October);Mr Alexandr Orgolaynen, MP, State Duma, Russia (until 30September);Mr Franz Thönnes, MP, Germany;Mr Erkki Tuomioja, MP, Finland, representing the Nordic Council;Ms Diana Wallis, MEP.2009Ms Christina Gestrin, MP, Finland, representing Nordic Council(Chair);Mr Mantas Adomenas, MP, Lithuania, representing the BalticAssembly;Mr Paavo Arhinmäki, MP, Finland, representing the NordicCouncil;Mr Nikolay Churkin, MP, Council of Federation, Russia;Mr Ryszard Górecki, MP, Senate, Poland;Mr Martin Kayenburg, MP, Speaker, Schleswig-Holstein Landtag;Ms Valentina Pivnenko, MP, State Duma, Russia;Ms Bilyana Raeva, MEP;Mr Niels Sindal, MP, Denmark, representing the host parliament;Mr Franz Thönnes, MP, Germany.2010Ms Christina Gestrin, MP, Finland, representing Nordic Council(Chair);Mr Mantas Adomenas, MP, Lithuania, representing the BalticAssembly;Mr Paavo Arhinmäki, MP, Finland, representing the NordicCouncil;Mr Nikolay Churkin, MP, Council of Federation, Russia;Mr Pat the Cope Gallagher, MEP;Mr Ryszard Górecki, MP, Senate, Poland;Mr Harry Jansson, MP, Parliament of Åland Islands, representingthe host parliament;Mr Martin Kayenburg, MP, Speaker, Schleswig-Holstein Landtag;Ms Valentina Pivnenko, MP, State Duma, Russia;Mr Franz Thönnes, MP, Germany.622011Ms Christina Gestrin, MP, Finland, representing Nordic Council(Chair);Mr Nikolay Churkin, MP, Council of Federation, Russia;Mr Pat the Cope Gallagher, MEP;Mr Torsten Geerdts, MP, Speaker, Schleswig-Holstein Landtag,Germany;Mr Ryszard Górecki, MP, Senate, Poland;Mr Torfinn Opheim, MP, Norway, representing the Nordic Council;Ms Valentina Pivnenko, MP, State Duma, Russia;Mr Ja ̄nis Reirs, MP, Latvia, representing the Baltic Assembly;Mr Franz Thönnes, MP, Germany.The BSPC Enlarged Standing CommitteeThe BSPC Enlarged (up till 2011: Extended) Standing Committeewas established and held its first meeting in 2006. The EnlargedStanding Committee is composed of one representative from eachBSPC member parliament and parliamentary organization. TheChairman of the Standing Committee also serves as Chairman of theEnlarged Standing Committee.The BSPC Working GroupsCommittee on Maritime Safety 2001 – 2003Chair: Ms Sylvia Bretschneider, MP, Speaker, Mecklenburg-VorpommernWorking Group on Eutrophication 2006–2007Chair: Mr Asmund Kristoffersson, MP, NorwayVice Chair: Mr Indulis Emsis, MP, LatviaVice Chair: Mr Reinhardt Dankert, MP, Mecklenburg-VorpommernWorking Group on Energy and Climate Change 2007–2009Chair: Mr Mart Jüssi, MP, EstoniaVice Chair: Ms Anne Grete Holmsgaard, MP, DenmarkVice Chair: Mr Kurt Bodewig, MP, GermanyWorking Group on Labour Market and Social Welfare 2007 – 2009Chair: Mr Franz Thönnes, MP, GermanyVice Chair: Ms Anna König Jerlmyr, MP, SwedenWorking Group on Integrated Maritime Policy 2009–2011Chair: Mr Jochen Schulte, MP, Meckenburg-VorpommernVice Chair: Mr Roger Jansson, MP, Åland Islands (from September2010)63Vice Chair: Ms Lisbeth Grönfeldt Bergman, MP, Sweden (untilSeptember 2010)Working Group on Civil Security, especially Trafficking in HumanBeings 2009–2011Chair: Ms Line Barfod, MP, DenmarkVice Chair: Mr André Oktay Dahl, MP, NorwayVice Chair: Mr Johan Linander, MP, SwedenBSPC Rapporteurs and ObserversKaliningrad 2003–2004Mr Kent Olsson, MP, SwedenNGO legislation 2003–2004Ms Outi Ojala, MP, FinlandEutrophication 2007–2009Ms Christina Gestrin, MP, FinlandEnergy and Climate Change 2009–2010Mr Mart Jüssi, MP, EstoniaLabour Market and Social Welfare 2009–Mr Franz Thönnes, MP, GermanyBSPC Observers in HELCOM since 2007Ms Sylvia Bretschneider, MP, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 2007–Ms Christina Gestrin, MP, Finland 2010–Mr Kent Olsson, MP, Sweden, 2007–2010Ms Veronica Thörnroos, MP, Åland Islands 2007–2009BSPC Observer in HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan ImplementationGroupMs Christina Gestrin, MP, Finland, 2008–201020Years of Parliamentary CommitmentA Chronology of the Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConferences 1991–2010Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Secretariatwww.bspc.netc/o Nordic CouncilVed Stranden 18DK-1061 Copenhagen K.Phone (+45) 33 96 04 00www.norden.org.US 2011:414