Conference Report (English)

26 BSPCYEARSBaltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceInnovative Science,Sustainable Tourism –Participation andCooperation in theBaltic Sea Region26th Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConference26Innovative Science,Sustainable Tourism –Participation andCooperation in theBaltic Sea Region26th Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConferenceHamburg, 3 – 5 September 20172Innovative Science, Sustainable Tourism – The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC)Participation and Cooperation in the was established in 1991 as a forum for politicalBaltic Sea Regione dialogue between parliamentarians from the26th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Baltic Sea Region. BSPC aims at raising aware-ness and opinion on issues of current politicalinterest and relevance for the Baltic Sea Region.It promotes and drives various initiatives andText: Malgorzata Ludwiczek efforts to support a sustainable environmental,Editing: Bodo Bahr social and economic development of the BalticSea Region. It strives at enhancing the visibilityLayout: Produktionsbüro TINUS of the Baltic Sea Region and its issues in a widerEuropean context.Photos: Susanne Ahrens, BSPC gathers parliamentarians from 11Hamburgische Bürgerschaft national parliaments, 11 regional parliamentsand 5 parliamentary organizations around theBaltic Sea. The BSPC thus constitutes aunique parliamentary bridge between all theEU- and non-EU countries of the Baltic SeaRegion.BSPC external interfaces include parlia-mentary, governmental, sub-regional andother organizations in the Baltic Sea Regionand the Northern Dimension area, amongthem CBSS, HELCOM, the NorthernDimension Partnership in Health and SocialWell-Being (NDPHS), the Baltic Sea LabourForum (BSLF), the Baltic Sea States Sub-re-gional Cooperation (BSSSC) and the BalticDevelopment Forum.BSPC shall initiate and guide politicalactivities in the region; support andstrengthen democratic institutions in the par-ticipating states; improve dialogue betweengovernments, parliaments and civil society;strengthen the common identity of the BalticSea Region by means of close co-operationbetween national and regional parliaments onthe basis of equality; and initiate and guidepolitical activities in the Baltic Sea Region,Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference endowing them with additional democraticBodo Bahr legitimacy and parliamentary authority.Secretary General The political recommendations of the+49 171 5512557 annual Parliamentary Conferences arebodo.bahr@bspcmail.net expressed in a Conference Resolutionwww.bspc.net adopted by consensus by the Conference. Theadopted Resolution shall be submitted to thegovernments of the Baltic Sea Region, theBSPC Secretariat CBSS and the EU, and disseminated to otherc/o Schlossgartenallee 15 relevant national, regional and local stake-19061 Schwerin holders in the Baltic Sea Region and itsGermany neighbourhood.3INTRODUCTIONLadies and Gentlemen,the Town Hall of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg set the scene for our26th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference. Hamburg Port – the largest sea portin Germany – is well connected with the Baltic Sea Region. The good hinterlandconnections closely link trade, culture and policy. Therefore, it was indeed a fit-ting location for the BSPC. Over 180 parliamentarians, government represent-atives and esteemed experts from the Baltic Sea Region and beyond gathered forthree days of political deliberations, pertinent presentations, educating excur-sions and, not least, stimulating social interaction. I am convinced that throughdialogue and debate, we can gradually forge joint political positions and requestsand convey them to our governments for action. By working together, our com-bined impact gains strength and influence. The reports and political recommen-dations of our Working Groups are a convincing case in point. Our role as par-liamentarians is to assume responsibility for, and do our best to promote democ-racy, peace, freedom, environmental sustainability and social welfare for our cit-izens. Therefore, I believe that with the conference topics “Democracy”, “Sci-ence” and “Sustainability”, we chose forward-looking themes, which will deter-mine the strength of our societies in the future. In times of globalisation, rapidsocial changes, migration challenges and the influence of social media, we needto reconsider the ways to present and communicate policies and engage with thevoters. Only an engaged citizenry with a stake in the political process will ensurea stable democracy. Therefore, I am grateful that we managed to agree on a res-olution full of concrete demands, relevant ideas and recommendations. Withthis year’s resolution, we have addressed a number of current issues, including4Democratic Participation and the Digital Age, Innovative Science, SustainableTourism as well as Participation and Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region, andby launching the new BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration themigration challenges.Let me thank all the speakers and participants who attended the Conferenceand contributed to its success – the First Mayor of the Free and Hanseatic Cityof Hamburg, Mr Olaf Scholz, for the warm welcome given to the conferenceparticipants.I also would like to express my gratitude to my superb staff – the administrationof the Hamburgische Bürgerschaft – for the perfect preparation and executionof the conference, Johannes Düwel, Florian Lipowski and Friederike Lünzmannfor their distinguished support during my presidency, and last but not least theBSPC Secretary General, Bodo Bahr, for his profound expertise and engage-ment as well as for his close and excellent cooperation.I have had the privilege of presiding over the BSPC for one year. The supportand cooperative spirit of my colleagues in the Standing Committee has beenindispensable, and I warmly thank them all. Entrusting the BSPC Presidency toMr Jörgen Pettersson, I wish him all the success in steering the BSPC all the wayup to the 27th BSPC in Mariehamn in August 2018.Carola VeitBSPC President 2016 – 2017 and President of the Hamburg Parliament5ContentsOpening of the Conference ............................ 7Session oneCooperation in the Baltic Sea Region .................... 11Session twoDemocratic Participation and the Digital Age ............. 29Session threeScience and Research ................................ 41Session fourSustainable Tourism ................................. 53Session fiveMigration and Integration ............................ 67Closing session ...................................... 75AnnexConference Resolution ................................ 81List of Participants ................................... 89Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Impressions ....................................... 1086 Opening of the ConferenceOpening of the Conference 7Opening of the ConferenceCarola Veit,President of the Hamburg Parliament and Presidentof the BSPC 2016-2017Ms Veit welcomed the participants of the conference, extendinga particularly warm welcome to the BSPC Vice Presidents, ProfJānis Vucāns, MP from Latvia and the BSPC President of 2015-2016, and to Jörgen Petterson, the incoming BSPC President.She drew the attention of those present to the grand and elabo-rate architecture of the Town Hall of the City of Hamburg which,during the Wilhelmine German Empire, had served to demon-strate a functioning and viable state as well as the state’s power.Ms Veit highlighted that the thematic range of the conferencehad been attached to the challenges facing citizen’s participationin the political processes. Dwindling numbers at the polls,decreasing trust in politics, and weakened involvement in publicdebate might affect the basis of a stable democracy. Ms Veit men-tioned a number of possible causes of those worrisome trends, forinstance uneven distribution of wealth, competition of labour onglobal market, pressure on pension systems and influence ofsocial media. Therefore, all those issues needed debate on ways tostrengthen democratic participation in the digital age. She con-cluded by wishing the participants a very successful conferenceand by yielding the floor to the First Mayor of the Free and Han-seatic City of Hamburg, Mr Olaf Scholz.8 Opening of the ConferenceWords of welcomeMr Scholz extended his welcome to the conference and under-lined that Hamburg, as a Hanseatic City, had been closely linkedwith the Baltic coastal states for many centuries. The Baltic SeaPolicy had been highly significant for the Hamburg Senate, withthe importance of regional and transnational coordination alwaysone of the key priorities, and great value assigned to the dialoguebetween the Baltic regions on all levels. Mr Scholz pointed outthat the Hamburg Port was Germany’s biggest sea port, one ofthe three leading container ports in Europe, ranked at number 17on the global scale, with many feeder ships connecting the portwith the Baltic Sea Region. The good hinterland connections,and especially the Kiel Canal, closely linked trade, culture andpolicy. Therefore, even though Hamburg was a tidal port of theElbe, it seemed to be directly located on the Baltic Sea shore.The Mayor mentioned a number of transnational projects closelylinking Hamburg to the Baltic Sea Region, e.g. project EMMA- “Enhancing freight Mobility and logistics in the Baltic Sea Re-gion by strengthening inland waterway and river sea transportand proMoting new internAtional shipping services”. Anotherproject, TENTacle, which stands for “Capitalising on TEN-Tcore network corridors for growth and cohesion”, concerned theregions situated next to the core network corridors or beyond.Many of the EU projects in the Baltic Sea Region, he noted, werecounting on Hamburg’s involvement. In this regard, improvedconnectedness within the Baltic Sea Region was also represent-ed by the Fehmarnbelt Link. That major project would not onlyturn Hamburg and Copenhagen into neighbours but connect farlarger parts of the Baltic Sea area as well. Stronger links throughimproved infrastructure were mirrored in increasing cooperationin the field of research infrastructures. At this point, Mr Scholtzmentioned the visit of conference participants to the GermanElectron Synchrotron the day before, emphasising the impor-tance of the scientific collaboration between the recently officiallyopened European X-ray Free Electron Laser, European XFEL inHamburg, and the European Spallation Source, ESS, in Lund,which is currently being constructed. The usage of these and oth-er research infrastructures by companies, in particular small andmedium-sized enterprises, were pushed by the EUSBSR flagshipproject Baltic TRAM directed by DESY. With regard to boostingprosperity through education, the speaker mentioned that Ham-burg has been proud to coordinate the policy area “Education,Research, Employability” of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea,and highlighted in regard to the 25th BSPC resolution the estab-Opening of the Conference 9Olaf Scholz,First Mayor of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburglishment of the Jugendberufsagentur – the youth employmentagency – and the project “School to Work” with respect to theEU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. He stated that includ-ing the young generation into Interreg projects strengthened thecommonalities and supported the identification with the BalticSea area.The Mayor concluded by underlining that the Baltic Sea Parlia-mentary Conference was highly important for the bond through-out the Baltic Sea Region. That was reflected in many fields – ineconomy and infrastructure, but also in education and research.The experiences were enriching, the perspectives often differedand even when the objectives were not the same, the coopera-tion had been of utmost importance. On behalf of the city ofHamburg, he wished all Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conferenceparticipants fruitful discussions which were a very positive andimportant contribution for cohesion, peace and prosperity in theBaltic Sea Region.10 Session oneSession one 11Session oneCooperation in theBaltic Sea RegionThe Chair of the session, Jörgen Pettersson, Vice President of theBSPC, introduced his Co- Chair, Valentina Pivnenko, Member ofthe State Duma of the Russian Federation and long-time delegatein the BSPC Standing Committee. He emphasised that the Councilof the Baltic Sea States was the natural counterpart of the BSPC onthe executive level. Therefore, he extended his special welcome toGuðmundur Árni Stefánsson, Ambassador of Iceland and outgo-ing CBSS Chair of the Committee of Senior Officials, and to HansOlsson, Chairman of the Committee of the CBSS of Senior Of-ficials, Ambassador of Sweden. Mr Pettersson also welcomed ProfJānis Vucāns, BSPC Vice-President and the Vice-President of theBaltic Assembly, who, as the host of the previous BSPC Conference,gave an overview of the implementation of the 25th BSPC Resolu-tion. During the session, BSPC Rapporteurs presented their recentreports: Jörgen Pettersson – Report on Integrated Maritime Pol-icy –, Ms Sonja Mandt – Report on Cultural Affairs – and FranzThönnes – Report on the Labour Market and Social Welfare.Guðmundur Árni Stefánsson, Am-bassador of Iceland and outgoingCBSS Chair of the Committee ofSenior Officials, reported that thecross-cutting priorities of the Icelan-dic Presidency, „Democracy, Equalityand Children”, had embraced the dif-ferent projects implemented throughthe year, underlining the importanceof a free, fair and open Baltic Sea Re-gion. The Icelandic Presidency hadorganised various events with diverse participation. One mentionedby the Ambassador was the symposium entitled „A Future Out-look on Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region”, organised by theIcelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs, in Reykjavík on 6 March2017, on the actual birthdate of the CBSS, marking 25 years sincethe foundation of the Council of the Baltic Sea States. The panel12 Session onediscussions had focused on the potential future of regional devel-opment in the Baltic Sea Region and the strengths of the currentcooperation. Active dialogue, openness and mutual understandinghad been mentioned as some of the essentials for successful futurecooperation. The participants in the panel had represented variousstakeholders within the Baltic Sea Region, among them Jörgen Pet-tersson, Vice Chair of the BSPC, and other high-level speakers: theForeign Minister of Iceland, Guðlaugur Þór Þórðarson, and UffeElleman Jensen, former Foreign Minister of Denmark and one ofthe founding fathers of the CBSS.Ambassador Stefánsson highlighted that Iceland had managed torestart the high level political dialogue in the region by organising ameeting of the CBSS Foreign Ministers, high representatives and ahigh representative of the EU on 20 June 2017 in Reykjavík, at theinvitation of Guðlaugur Þór Þórðarson, Minister of Foreign Affairsof Iceland. The meeting had been considered a success and had giv-en hope that the Reykjavík Ministerial Meeting 2017 was the firststep towards open and honest dialogues on a political level, contrib-uting to increased regional and international cooperation. Further-more, the Reykjavík Declaration, adopted at the meeting, symbol-ised that the member states were invested in the Baltic Sea Regionand shared a sense of responsibility to work towards the goals of theAgenda 2030 within the adopted action plan and to fight commonchallenges that the region is facing. In the ministers’ declaration,a number of priorities were mentioned – among them sustainabledevelopment, youth cooperation, human trafficking, child protec-tion and civil security. Ambassador Stefánsson mentioned that inall those fields, the CBSS and the BSPC were in close cooperation,a fact of the utmost importance to the CBSS. The speaker also re-ferred to challenges the region had been facing. An increased threatof terrorism was a reality in the BSR, while Europe was also con-fronted with a steady stream of refugees seeking a new life, fleeingwar and insecurity back in their home countries. The result was agrowing number of displaced people, not least children. He add-ed that the governments had not been prepared for that situationand that the instability and challenges had led to extremism gain-ing power and populistic parties getting stronger. Those challengeswould have to be faced and reacted to. Mr Stefánsson concludedby stressing that regional cooperation had proven its worth, andthe last 25 years, both for the CBSS and the BSPC, had shown thenecessity for a strong and vibrant regional cooperation. He wishedthe CBSS and BSPC another 25 years of a dynamic and successfulcooperation in the Baltic Region.Session one 13Hans Olsson, Chairman of the Com-mittee of the CBSS of Senior Officialsand Ambassador of Sweden, gave anoutline of the CBSS Swedish Presi-dency until 1 July 2018, when Latviawould take over the CBSS presidency.The main catchwords of the upcom-ing Swedish CBSS Presidency 2017-2018 were “sustainability”, “continui-ty” and “adaptability”. Mr Olsson rec-ognised that most important amongthem would be sustainability because the adoption of the ParisAgreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development hadprovided tools for dealing with the challenges the world was facing.On the regional level, the CBSS had managed, during the IcelandicPresidency, to develop the CBSS Action Plan, realising the VisionBaltic 2030 Action Plan. This plan would serve as a good tool fora more systematic implementation of the sustainable developmentgoals. He admitted that the goals were wide and far reaching andinvolved not only work related directly to the environment but ap-plied, if not to all, then to most aspects of the work going on in theCBSS. A more systematic approach to these problem clusters wouldbe applied, and wherever possible, gender equality in the course ofthis work would be adopted. Furthermore, the Ambassador referredto the second catchword – continuity. He reported that over theyears, the CBSS had achieved considerable results in regional co-operation, and in some issues, such as the fight against human traf-ficking or actions to represent the rights and interests of children,the results had also found an echo outside the Baltic Sea Region. Inthose cases, the work in subsequent groups would be intensified.Mr Olsson added that it was also the intention of the presidency,together with the member states and the international secretariat,to give constant support to ongoing activities and work. However,he pointed out, continuity did not mean a static approach. Togetherwith member states, the Presidency would look into possibilities ofentering new fields of cooperation in light of new challenges andproblems. One of the examples stated by Mr Olsson was the ques-tion of migration which was on the agenda of many member states.Another topic of interest could be integration, the changing de-mographic situation etc. Mr Olsson further informed his audienceabout the scope of the third catchword – adaptability. For the up-coming CBSS presidency, adaptability meant being able to adapt tochange and new challenges. The speaker emphasized that in 1992,when the CBSS had been established, the political landscape in theBaltic Sea Region had been very different, and 25 years of CBSSexistence had seen a number of significant changes take place. New14 Session onefora for regional cooperation, for instance Northern Dimension aswell as the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, hadbeen established. New topics had become more prominent for theagenda of regional cooperation. Against this background, the Presi-dency welcomed the decision taken in Reykjavik in June to establisha group of independent wise men and women and give them thetask to look into the future role of the CBSS as a forum for politicaldialogue and regional cooperation beyond 2030. The idea was thatat the end of the Swedish presidency, the group would come upSession one 15with ideas and food for thought. Then, during the subsequent Lat-vian Presidency, more structural debate among member states couldtake place with the aim of reaching the decision in summer 2019.In addition, the speaker listed a number of ideas to be elaboratedduring the Presidency: implementation of the Baltic 2030 ActionPlan with the emphasis on goals 12 – sustainable consumption andproduction –, 13 – climate – and 17 – good governance –, followedby the implementation of the joint position on enhancing cooper-ation in the civil protection area, increasing the cooperation with16 Session onethe United Nations Sendain Framework for disaster risk reduction,exploring the possibility of creating a Baltic Sea Region search andrescue area as well as reactivating the expert group on Maritime Pol-icy. He assured the Conference that efforts to improve science- andresearch-related cooperation to strengthen the Baltic Science Net-work, develop the Baltic Sea NGO Network and maintain dialoguewith the youth would be continued. In his closing remarks, theAmbassador advocated for parliamentarian support to pursue theambitious plan of the CBSS Swedish Presidency 2017-2018.Prof Jānis Vucāns, BSPC Vice-Pres-ident and Vice-President of the Bal-tic Assembly, emphasised that it hadbeen a pleasure and an honour forhim and the Latvian Parliament tohost the 25th Baltic Sea Parliamen-tary Conference in Riga. The 25thBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conferencehad underlined the necessity for highquality education and equal access tothe labour market as its main priori-ties and also the integration of research, higher education and in-dustry. Recommendations with regard to those topics were includedin the 25th BSPC Resolution. The BSPC resolutions were the maintool for announcing the BSPC’s calls for action to the governmentsof the region; therefore, the report on governments’ responses to the25th BSPC Resolution implementation survey served as a valuablesource of information on developments in the areas pointed out bythe resolution.Mr Vucāns reported that the results had been sub-divided intofour major thematic chapters: “Competitiveness in the Baltic SeaRegion by linking the Education and Labour Markets”, “Employ-ment Opportunities, Labour Mobility and Youth Unemployment”,“Sustainable Tourism” and “The environmental status of the BalticSea”. The speaker noted that the submitted statements in reactionto the 25th BSPC Resolution had varied considerably concerningthematic depth and structure, nonetheless the governments hadtreated the request seriously and had been doing so more and morecomprehensively in the last two years. They had generally signalleda noteworthy effort to provide a satisfying account of how the gov-ernments had tried to implement the resolution’s calls for action.However, the speaker remarked that there was still space for im-Session one 17provement in the future. The main area for improvement wasthat national activities should be more strongly complemented bytransnational initiatives. Secondly, the statements should featureintentions and plans for future activities. Thirdly, the statementsalmost exclusively emphasised successful projects and programmes.Instead, it would be very helpful if the governmental statementswould include the failures as well. Often, these negative experienc-es were more informative about prevailing challenges, pointing toareas where improvement is needed the most. Fourthly, the analysisof the governmental answers recognised a lack of references to thecurrent fraught political climate around the Baltic Sea Region. Thestatements could be more explicit regarding the implications of thechanged environment and the resulting challenges, and they couldelaborate on how to overcome the existing differences. Finally, theresponses could be more explicit regarding the thick interconnect-edness of the various levels – local, regional and national. The gov-ernmental statements would become more informative, providingthe necessary impetus for further action if they factored in theseinterlinkages and interdependencies more systematically.At this point, Prof Vucāns thanked each government of the BalticSea region and everyone who had contributed to the statementsof the governments. He much appreciated the work that had beendone and underlined that this was the strengthening the parlia-mentary dimension in the whole Baltic Sea Region. The report wasintended to improve the common approach, to intensify the effi-cient cooperation even more and thus improve the prosperity of thewhole Baltic Sea Region.Jörgen Pettersson, Vice President ofthe Baltic Sea Parliamentary Confer-ence and Rapporteur on IntegratedMaritime Policy, began his report bypointing out that there were roughly85 million people living by the BalticSea who depended on ships to tradeand communicate. Therefore, whenit came to formulating a core themefor a common future, shipping hadalways been a vital part of that. Henoted that generally, there was more optimism with regard to ship-ping today than for many years before. Ship-owners had investedheavily and worked very hard to find sustainable solutions to meetnew regulations and requirements. One example given by Mr Pet-18 Session onetersson was that of SECA regulations which had banned the use ofhigh sulphur fuel starting in 2015. The result was less pollution,less sulphur and less particles, i.e. a healthier world. Also, the EUmaritime integrated policy launched by the EU ten years earlierhad grown to encompass a number of policies for the benefit of theBaltic Sea and beyond. From maritime spatial planning to the fightagainst illegal fishing, from ocean mapping to marine science, fromhabitat conservation to regional strategies, a number of initiativeshad transformed the way Europe was collectively going about itsmaritime business. The next step, a new strategy on plastics and thecircular economy that would act against marine litter, was anoth-er good example mentioned by the speaker, showing how marineissues were at present mainstreamed into EU policy-making. Allthat had been discussed in depth at the European Maritime Dayin Poole attended by the Rapporteur. Furthermore, Mr Petters-son referred to the reduction of carbon dioxide. The Internation-al Chamber of Shipping (ICS) had proposed to the InternationalMaritime Organization (IMO) three concrete recommendations:1) to maintain international shipping’s annual total CO emissions2below 2008 levels; 2) to reduce CO emissions per ton/km by at2least 50 % by 2050, as an average across international shipping,compared to 2008, and 3) to reduce international shipping’s totalannual CO emissions by an agreed percentage by 2050, compared2to 2008, as a point on a continuing trajectory of CO emissions2reduction. All the proposals had been bold and the message hadbeen clear – the amount of CO had to decrease. The reasons be-2hind such proposals stemmed from the belief that in order to dogood business, the companies needed to act environmentally. Thenext step would be to form laws and regulations which would en-sure that demands be realised. The speaker remarked that on global,European and national levels, it was vital to have a competitive andstable framework, which would also support green shipping andinnovations. No additional or tighter regulations on European/na-tional levels should be established, as all regulations should be in theIMO. Strong and competitive shipping would result in benefits forthe whole maritime cluster.In addition, the speaker mentioned the modal shift as one of thefuture goals for freight transportation. He shared his view that itwas environmentally wiser to transport goods on sea rather thanroads but whether that modal shift had already happened or wouldhappen was still too early to say. The speaker emphasised that inthe Baltic Sea Region, there was a huge potential for the develop-ment of the maritime economy. Growth rates were above averagegrowth in the EU; offshore wind energy had increased, as well ascruise tourism and marine agriculture. Those three sectors, alongSession one 19with short-sea shipping, shipbuilding and blue technologies, wereamong the most promising sectors of the Baltic Sea maritime econ-omy. Finally, Mr Pettersson extended his thanks to Messrs JochenSchulte, Georg Strätker, Bodo Bahr and Ms Carmen Hohlfeld fortheir support in completing the report.Sonja Mandt, Member of the Norwe-gian Parliament and BSPC Rappor-teur on Cultural Affairs, presented herReport on Cultural Heritage 2017, ex-pressing the view that cultural heritagewas a valuable asset which had con-tributed to economic development,built social cohesion and mobilizedcommunities around its care and man-agement. To establish a clear picture ofthe protection system throughout theentire Baltic Sea area, an exchange of information was needed with re-gard to existing protection systems, legal and register-building princi-ples, planning documents and the methods of work among the Balticcountries. Ms Mandt stated that the analysis on heritage protectioncould be found in the Report, and the conclusion was that policiesand procedures differed profoundly from one country to the other,implying different attitudes towards the problem and the use of dif-ferent methods. Furthermore, the speaker underlined an importantissue mentioned in the Report referring to the protection of culturallandscapes, as defined by the World Heritage Committee, “culturalproperties that represent the combined works of nature and of man.”She pointed out that like historic buildings and districts, they revealedaspects of the Baltic Sea countries’ origins and development throughtheir form, features, and the ways they were used. Cultural landscapesalso revealed much about the evolving relationship with the natu-ral world. There was always a risk that development could transformlandscapes and public spaces into more or less uniform areas, withmore or less identical shopping centres, office blocks, restaurants andlargescale multiplex cinemas and theatres. Urban development in his-toric cities had too often been a threat to existing culture-historicvalues. The Rapporteur also shared her remarks on Viking heritage asa potential for the development of cultural tourism in the BSR anda topic of common interest for all the BSPC participating countries.She noted that while many of the Viking settlements in NorthernEurope had already been established as heritage sites, less was knownabout the Viking Route heritage sites located in the eastern part of theBaltics and Russia. Ms Mandt reported that the Northern Dimension20 Session onePartnership on Culture (NDPC) had identified Viking heritage as atopic of common interest and had decided to pursue a study on theViking heritage sites in Russia. The main objectives of the NDPCproject had been to map and give an account of the Viking Routeheritage sites located there. The NDPC assignment had been con-cluded in November 2011, and the associated report could serve asthe base for a short guidebook on Viking history in the eastern part ofthe Baltic Sea area. The idea behind this guidebook was to open up tothe public the deep interactions between the Scandinavian countriesand the states on the eastern side of the Baltic Sea in the Viking Age,pointing out the common history of Baltic Sea Region.In her closing remarks, Ms Mandt advocated for further researchon cultural heritage protection in the BSR and for continuing theBSPC Rapporteur on Cultural Heritage’s work.Session one 21Franz Thönnes, Member of the Bun-destag and Rapporteur on Labour, So-cial Welfare and the Baltic Sea LabourForum, noted the history of the BalticSea Labour Forum which began in2007 with the decision of the BSPCStanding Committee to set up – fora two-year period – a working groupdealing with labour markets and socialwelfare. Then the BSPC had decidedto launch the project Baltic Sea LabourNetwork aiming at organizing a dialogue between labour and employ-ers’ organisations. With strong support from the German employerassociation Nordmetall and the DGB Nord trade union confedera-tion along with the European Union, the forum achieved a grant of22 Session one1.8m euros and subsequently became an EU flagship project as partof the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, working for two yearson topics regarding the labour market, border commuters as well asyouth employment and training. At present, administrative work hadbeen transferred to the CBSS Secretariat, and the BSLF had grownto 30 member organisations – 17 trade unions, 11 employer associa-tions, two international organisations and several organisations withobserver status. Mr Thönnes emphasised that it was a unique coali-tion within Europe. Furthermore, the speaker listed the three biggestsuccesses of the Working Group. Firstly, the BSLF had been invitedto take part in the Meeting of Labour Ministers of the CBSS coun-tries which had been held in Berlin on 15 June 2017. Secondly, theMinisters had approved all BSLF recommendations on labour andemployment in their declaration and also highlighted the significanceof the BSLF. The recommendations had been accepted in the follow-ing individual sectors: promotion of closer cooperation in labour andemployment to improve the competitiveness of the Baltic Sea region,labour mobility, youth employment, labour market research and de-velopment prognosis, demographic challenges and the integrationof those born abroad. And finally, the CBSS intended to establishan Expert Group on Labour and Employment in the framework ofthe CBSS Secretariat linked to the BSLF as well as to the Baltic SeaParliamentary Conference. The final decision would be taken at thenext CSO CBSS meeting, led by the new Swedish CBSS presidencyand Ambassador Hans Olsson as the Chairman. The first workinggroup meeting should take place at the end of October or the start ofNovember at the latest. Mr Thönnes stressed that such a developmenthad been a profound success of the BSPC and the BSLF, support-ed by a perfect preparation carried out by the CBSS Secretariat staffwhom the speaker thanked warmheartedly. Mr Thönnes pointed outthat long-term work by the BSPC had yielded great results and couldbe a best practice example of how parliamentarians could play animportant role in shaping policy through international cooperation.He announced that, after eight years of having been a BSPC Rap-porteur for Labour and Social Welfare and the BSL, he had just de-livered his last report as he would not stand for the next Bundestagelections. He concluded with heartfelt thanks to the BSPC and toall those who had worked in the BSLF all those years for their trustand support over that period and wished the best of success to MrPyry Niemi from the Swedish Riksdag – his successor as the Rappor-teur on Labour and Social Welfare.Valentina Pivnenko expressed her special appreciation for the workof Mr Thönnes in the BSPC and wished him all the best for thefuture.Session one 23DebateThe first speaker in the debate, Prof Kurt Bodewig, former federalminister for traffic and President of the Baltic Sea Forum, a networkof persons and economies as well as political institutions – the cityof Hamburg is also one of the members – noted that the BSF hadenjoyed the ECOSOC Consultative status to the United Nationsreporting to the ECOSOC Committee as well as on North-EastEuropean issues. Prof Bodewig shared the opinion that the BalticSea region with its 25 years of very strong cooperation was the mostsuccessful macroeconomic region of the European Union. CBSS,HELCOM, BSSSC, UBC and BDF – all those and many moreorganisations had contributed to that success. The speaker referredat this point to Ambassador Olson’s speech and to sustainabilityas one of the goals of the CBSS Swedish presidency mentioned byAmbassador Olson and agreed that sustainability in the process oftransitioning the Baltic Sea region into a Blue Region was utterlyimportant. Furthermore, the speaker mentioned two examples ofcooperation in the field of sustainability. One of them was EMMA,the Interreg project aiming at tackling the challenges and oppor-tunities focusing on inland- and river-sea shipping. Of particularinterest here was increasing the modal share of inland- and river-seashipping to, from and between Baltic Sea Region countries. Theproject led by Port of Hamburg Marketing Regional Assoc. andexecuted together with twenty project partners from Poland, Lithu-ania, Finland, Sweden and Germany should result in a higher flowof transport from roads to the rivers. In turn, the TENTacle projectmentioned by Prof Bodewig, by working across borders and sectors,would improve the stakeholder capacity to reap benefits of the corenetwork corridors’ implementation for the prosperity, sustainablegrowth and territorial cohesion in the BSR. Both projects provedthat due to intense cooperation, the region would indeed becomea Blue Region in the future. However, concluded the speaker, toachieve that goal, more political action was required.The next speaker, Jan Bobek, President of the Sejmik of Warm-ia-Masuria and current President of the Southern Baltic Sea Parlia-mentary Forum, praised the BSPC for enhancing a common Balticidentity and expressed his full support for activities holding a dia-logue between parliamentarians, governments and civil society inthe BSR. He found it very optimistic that so many networks hadworked for developments in the BSR. One of them was the South-ern Baltic Sea Parliamentary Forum gathering seven parliaments ofthe southern Baltic. The speaker informed his audience that theForum regularly dealt with subjects that specifically affected the re-gion and frequently addressed demands about certain issues of eco-24 Session onenomic and structural politics as well as the topics of energy supply,scientific research, tourism and culture to the relevant actors in thesouthern Baltic region. He invited the BSPC representatives and thehosts of the 26th BSPC to the 16th Southern Baltic Sea Parliamenta-ry Forum which would discuss the topic of smart specialisations forthe South Baltic Reigns in Olsztyn, the capital of Warmia- Masuria,in May 2018.Session one 25Sonja Steffen, representing the Bundestag, expressed her supportfor establishing the new BSPC working group on migration andintegration. She remarked that the topic should be tackled from across-border region perspective. This was because she came froma Mecklenburg-Vorpommern constituency situated directly on theborder with Poland and believed that only joint efforts on bothsides of the border would bring good results in creating a good lifefor people who had migrated and wanted to build new lives in thatpart of the Baltic Sea region.26 Session oneVeera Ruoho, the chair of the Finish delegation to the BSPC, notedthat Finland had launched its national strategy for the Baltic Searegion which set out a vison for Finland’s objectives to develop theBaltic Sea region. According to that vision, a clean Baltic Sea andviable marine biodiversity would be secured, constituting a sustain-ably utilised resource. The strategy also outlined Finland’s nationalkey actions stemming from these priorities, in order to promotethe Baltic Sea’s good environmental status, safety and security andsustainable development, improve the Baltic Sea Region’s competi-tiveness and ensure Finland’s prosperity. Moreover, the strategy alsopresented changes and challenges in the region as well as the oppor-tunities they could provide.In her second appearance at that session, Ms Ruoho announced theopening of the “Finland 100th Anniversary Exhibition” in the CityHall building. In her introductory address on that occasion, she em-phasised that the history of Finland’s independence was 100 yearsold, but its history of democracy had begun much earlier. When thefounders of Finland signed the declaration of independence on 6December 1917, the first parliament also featuring female deputieshad already been elected. Ms Ruoho underlined that the Finnishsuccess in building the nation was possible because the nation hadSession one 27been built by everyone together, involving all parts of society andinternational cooperation. Women had played an important role inbuilding a democratic, open and stable society. The speaker admit-ted that the road to building such a society had not been withoutdifficulties or suffering. In the course of Finnish history, the nationhad gone through a devastating civil war, occupation of its territoryas well as several national and international crises, but the Finns hadnever given up their values, goals or democracy. She continued bysaying that their society was focused on human potential, respectingone another and protecting the environment. Furthermore, successin technology, innovation and education would not have been pos-sible without a common consensus on free and quality educationfor all, equal access to social and health care services and facilitatingwomen’s access to the labour market. In her closing remarks, MsRuoho invited all those present to take part in the celebrations ofthe Centenary of Finland’s independence which would continuethroughout the whole year 2017.Session One was closed by the Chairman Jörgen Pettersson.28 Session oneSession two 29SECOND SESSIONDemocratic Participation and theDigital AgeThe session was chaired by Carola Veit, President of the BSPC, inthe form of a round table discussion. Ms Veit, in her introductoryremarks, raised a number of questions regarding democratic partic-ipation. She pointed out that apparently people had been losingfaith in the way the societies were arranged. Even though participa-tion in the polls had been on the rise recently, and greater engage-ment by an active civil society could be perceived, the participationand engagement had shifted towards very local and very personalissues. Therefore, Ms Veit had come up with the following ques-tions: “But what about political ideas for our nations, for our con-tinent at large? Have we really lost faith? Do we no longer see thebenefits of participating in the democratic process as much as weused to anymore? How to restore/rebuild trust through participa-tion?” Answers to these questions were sought during the session,and the discussion began with key speeches by Prof Jobst Fiedler,the Professor of Public and Financial Management at the HertieSchool of Governance, and by Mr Alexander Shishlov, the HumanRights Ombudsman of Saint Petersburg.Prof Fiedler, in his address Democracyat a Cross-Road – Rebuilding Trustthrough Participation, outlined a widerange of problems contributing to thecurrent crisis of trust and confidencein liberal democracy. Among themwere rising inequalities and unequalopportunities. Growing segments ofsociety had become estranged fromthe representatives and institutionsgoverning them. These individualsincreasingly feel that ordinary people have lost control of the politicsshaping their lives. Another factor affecting confidence and trust, asmentioned by the speaker, was governance deficiencies, legal as well30 Session twoas regulatory, i.e. a corroding rule of law, the exclusion of key constit-uencies, insufficient public sector performance, corruption and insti-tutional voids in the party system. Last but not least, Prof Fiedlercontinued, the rise of new digital communication technologies hadhelped to mobilise voters against ‘those at the top’ and enabled newpolitical populist entrepreneurs to fill the representational void.In the next part of his speech, Prof Fiedler put forth a number ofproposals that could make democracies more resilient. Firstly, thesocial inequalities and anxieties, the job losses and social alienationcaused by immigration as well as a more pluralist and fragmentedsocial fabric must be strongly addressed. More equitable policiesand programmes to withstand the disruptions caused by the glo-balisation of competition should be implemented. Secondly, moreparticipation through referenda, new forms of deliberative democ-racy, digital mobilisation and the increasing amount of politicalcommunication on the social media platforms could be a way tocomplement and revitalise representative democracy by extendingpeople’s interest and involvement in political decisions.Then Prof Fiedler referred to the advantages and downsides of refer-enda as additional opportunities for political participation. Heacknowledged that on the one hand, specific issues put to popularvote certainly offered further occasions for political participationcompared to periodic elections only. Combined with the increaseduse of digital communication and mobilisation, they improved theidentification of citizens with politics and the acceptance of result-ing political decisions. On the other hand, referenda on the wholedid not contribute to solving the problem of inequality in politicalparticipation. Their participation numbers were usually lower andshowed higher levels of social selectivity than general parliamentaryelections. The speaker also mentioned recent approaches to deliber-ative democracy such as mini-publics of small, representativelyselected groups which could function as an alternative, avoiding thepopulist pitfalls of referenda. According to Prof Fiedler, thoseapproaches had the advantage of bringing forth a more reasonedcommon-good-oriented politics through deliberative procedures;however, such randomly selected deliberative mini-publics werehard to organise and mostly remained an elite enterprise that wouldwork best with more egalitarian middleclass communities.The last part of the speaker’s address was devoted to the influence ofsocial media on democracy. He began this part by quoting the head-line of a recent article, ‘Are social media destroying democracy?’, andmentioned some alarming data: people who had long entertainedpopulist ideas, but were never confident enough to voice them openly,Session two 31now found themselves in a position to connect to like-minded othersonline and adopt new group identities; instead of creating a digitallymediated agora encouraging broad discussion, the internet hadincreased ideological segregation. Digital communication activitiessuch as internet debate forums, online petitions, digital letter-writingcampaigns and online-offline mobilisation had not contributed toincreasing voter participation in general elections. Prof Fiedler con-cluded his speech by noting the following proposals for debate in thefollow-up panel: social media, i.e. the giant internet companies own-ing them, should be regulated, and they should be treated as mediaorganisations accountable for the information from which they profit.Mr Alexander Shishlov, the HumanRights Ombudsman of Saint Peters-burg, expressed his appreciation forthe fact that he could speak at the par-liamentarian conference right whenHamburg and St Petersburg were cel-ebrating 60 years of partnershipbetween both cities. This was alsoimportant to him because of his longexperience as a member of both theregional and the national parliament.The Ombudsman of Human Rights, explained Mr Shishlov, hadbeen an institution present in many countries of the Baltic SeaRegion, with the first such office having been founded in Sweden200 years ago. For Russia, the human rights institution was ratheryoung – only 20 years old for the nation, functional in St Petersburgfor the past 10 years. The speaker mentioned that he had held theposition since 2012, and that he had been elected by the St Peters-burg Assembly for a second 5-year period. The Human RightsOmbudsman, he noted, was independent from the Federal Consti-tutional Law and not accountable to any state authorities and offi-cials in exercising his mandate. The aim of the Ombudsman insti-tution was to guarantee that the rights and freedoms of humanbeings were protected. Mr Shishlov underlined that in St Peters-burg, the legislation of the Ombudsman was a very good practicalexample for other regions in the Russian Federation, providing agood basis for the work of his Institute.Referring to the topic of the debate, the Ombudsman confirmedthat there was an increasing role played by information technologiesin modern societies. Human beings must be aware of their interests,as far as the rights of information were concerned. In order to pro-32 Session twotect his or her own rights, an individual must be primarily well-in-formed about these. Mr Shishlov noted that this applied both to theinformation about rights guaranteed by the constitution but also tothe information about other rights and normative acts; a citizenmust be able to obtain all legal information and have easy and freeaccess to this information. The speaker pointed out that in Russia,there was a high level of guaranteed access to all draft laws andalready enacted laws. Exercising that right was the task of Ombuds-men. Another important aspect of that work was the access toinformation about the work of the election committee. For MrShishlov, information published on the internet was the prerequi-site for carrying out democratic elections; therefore, he had to makesure that the human rights of taking part in democratic electionswere protected. Internet technologies had created completely newopportunities for the monitoring of elections. He gave the exampleof St Petersburg where an informal organisation called “Observersof St Petersburg” had been active during elections to ensure thatthere were no manipulations in the voting procedure.Mr Shishlov confirmed that trust in the state institutions haddeclined – parliamentary elections in 2016 had seen a low turnout(32%) in St Petersburg. The reasons for that, according to thespeaker, were: distrust and disappointment in the efficacy of democ-racy, a lack of real political opposition, a lack of real debate in TVprogrammes, an unstable electoral system and the use of adminis-trative resources to influence the results of the elections.Session two 33Nonetheless, Mr Shishlov praised the mechanism of democraticparticipation in St Petersburg, As an example, he noted a socialmedia initiative shaping public spaces in St Petersburg, known asthe ‘Let’s protect Isaac’s Cathedral’ initiative. On the other hand, heacknowledged the abusive impact of information technologies –hacker attacks, alienation and distrust in the state. The reason forthat might stem from the so-called Realpolitik applied not only onthe national but also the international level.In conclusion, the speaker strongly underlined positive aspects of infor-mation technologies. IT could be applied to hasten the communica-tion between civil society initiatives, to enable the dialogue betweenthe state and the society and to ensure democratic participation.After two key note speeches, Ms Veit invited the other experts to theround table discussion. Thus, the speakers were: Mr Veiko Spolītis,Member of the Latvian Parliament, Ms Valentina Pivnenko, Mem-ber of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, Mr Espen Krogh,Nordic Council Youth President, as well as the previously men-tioned Mr Alexander Shishlov, Human Rights Ombudsman forSaint Petersburg, and Prof Jobst Fiedler, Hertie School of Govern-ance, Berlin.Ms Carola Veit opened the discussion by asking the panellists fortheir opinion on the reasons for the decline in people’s trust in thedemocratic processes.34 Session twoMr Espen Krogh admitted that Europe had faced a lot of economicproblems and instability culminating in the Brexit decision anddescribed those as the real causes of declining trust, rather than theimpact of the social media and digital technology. Fortunately,some progress had been observed - in many countries, there was lowunemployment and significant growth. Mr Krogh noted that stableeconomic systems as well as stable democratic systems would helpcombat populism even though social media caused polarisation insocieties. He added that when young people felt safe, populismwould find no hold among them. His advice was to strengthen theexisting system instead of combating populism and fake news; i.e. areturn to the basic democratic values, showing more transparencyin politics and applying suitable solutions to complex questionsrather than implementing restrictions.Ms Valentina Pivnenko emphasised that election turnout could notbe treated as a decisive indicator of trust in politicians; furthermore,comparisons between regions could be misleading. In Karelia, theregion she represents, the turnout had been lower than in otherregions of the Russian Federation but this had not indicated anydistrust of voters towards politicians. For Ms Pivnenko, this rathermeant that the people were interested in what a particular politicianor candidate for political office had actually done for the popula-tion. Ms Pivnenko gave the example of several initiatives carried outwith the use of digital technologies: in cities and neighbouringareas, people used digital technologies to shape their surroundingsby taking decisions, for example on what they would like to seebuilt first. The discussions prior to the decision making had beenorganised both online and in public meeting places. The panellistadded that it was the federal government which had opened a spec-ified financial line to improve the places the citizens live in. Thanksto that and on the basis of local initiatives and with the use of inter-net resources, support could be obtained for municipal theatres andother public institutions. With regard to environmental issues,many school classes and large parts of the elderly population hadbeen active in improving the environmental safety in their areas. MsPivnenko emphasized that their knowledge and will to improvetheir environment had been impressive. She admitted that thesehad been individual steps, but they showed that people were inter-ested in their surroundings and a standard of living, and they weremaking demands to the politicians forcing them to carry out actionsnecessary to keeping the environment clean and healthy. Ms Piv-nenko agreed with Mr Shishlov that the access to legal resources isof utmost importance. This is the foundation for social initiatives.Not all of them were successful in the Russian Federation, though,because of strict legislative procedures. However, great progress hadSession two 35been accomplished, and all Duma meetings in Russia were availableto the public so the people could see how the legislative assemblyworked. Closing her input, Ms Pivnenko underlined that the turn-out in elections was, to a certain extent, an indicator for how activeor inactive the citizens were but it was disputable to her to whatextent that indicated the people’s disappointment. For that view,the population’s activity should be taken into account. As to thereferendum issue, the speaker recommended caution when organiz-ing those, offering the example of a referendum concerning oil pro-duction facilities to be built in her region. The referendum had beenlost, most likely due to insufficient dialog with the people, insuffi-cient demonstration of how the environment would be protected, apoor assessment of all pros and cons of the investment.Prof Fiedler agreed that a referendum or a so-called deliberativedemocracy did not necessarily increase the participation in elec-tions. This might be due to most people only being interested incertain issues and not in general questions. People, he noted,engaged in family, work, without any spare time to follow politicaldebates. Therefore, more and more people were engaged in thoseareas with direct influence on their everyday life. To them, somequestions couldn’t have been solved by politicians. Prof Fiedlerremarked that a deliberative democracy had been very healthy forlocal issues but as far as the national level was concerned, it was dif-ficult to apply and easy to be misused.Carola Veit turned to Mr Shishlov with the question of whether par-liamentarians should accept low participation numbers in elections;being the representatives of the country’s population, their mandatewould be weakened when only a comparatively small part of thepopulation had voted for them.Mr Shishlov agreed with previous speakers that only accounting forthe election participation numbers did not provide much informa-tion about the people’s political activity. Nor did a high turnoutnecessarily indicate tremendous trust in the election system as someregions in Russia, such as the Caucasian republics, had turnouts ashigh as 98%, with everyone voting for a single candidate. A closerview of tendencies was a better indicator - the turnout continuingto shrink should be a cause for reflection by politicians. He contin-ued by saying that people did not attend elections for a variety ofreasons. For instance, they might be too involved in their everydaylife and might not want to answer detailed political questions. Tomake responsible decisions during elections, the people should haveinformation and use relevant channels. In the case of Russia, themain source of information still remained television. Therefore, it36 Session twowas very important to provide the opportunity to watch politicalarguments, different points of view, and real debates on politicalissues. According to Mr Shishlov, the process of declining trust wasnot a new phenomenon and had gone on for many decades. Toenhance people’s trust, a return to basic values, moral beliefs andhigh standards in politics was necessary.Mr Veiko Spolītis began his statement by clarifying the topic of thedebate. He pointed out that liberal democracy was the form of gov-ernance which ensured major liberties with open and transparentelections, free press and protecting minority rights. Only with thosecriteria in place could a debate be held on democratic rights, dem-ocratic participation and influence digital technology has on thisparticipation. After his introductory remark, Mr Spolītis confirmedthat legal measures undertaken by the Baltic States and recently byGermany aiming to bar hate speech were a step in the right direc-tion. He reminded his listeners of efforts proving that, for at least 27years, the international community had understood that the cyberarea couldn’t be left completely free. He mentioned some of theseefforts: the Budapest Declaration to fight against cyber-crime whichhad been signed by most of the Council of Europe countries plusCanada, Japan and the United States; establishing the Council ofEurope’s Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-MoneyLaundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism (MONEY-VAL); the work of the cyber defence unit in Estonia. The latter dealsSession two 37with creating a legal definition of cybercrime and cyber threats. MrSpolītis considered establishing a common language for analysingthe issue to be the most important task, and he appreciated thework that had been done by the EU, NATO and Baltic States in thisprocess.At this point, Carola Veit asked Espen Krogh if it was appropriate toview social media only as platforms and not regulate them like otherinformation providers.Espen Krogh agreed with the definition of democracy and remarkedthat such a definition extended to the freedom of expression whichalso had to envelop negative phenomena such as hate speech, intol-erant views etc. The panellist was in favour of combating those neg-ative aspects through confrontation rather than removing or hidingthem. As Twitter and Facebook were private business enterprises,people were using them to have their own views acknowledged, andthis should not be limited. Other measures must be applied withregard to cyberattacks or disinformation campaigns. The best wayfor Mr Krogh to deal with social media influence was engaging peo-ple in dialog and confronting them with arguments and differentpoints of views.Mr Wladimir Bortko, Member of the Duma of the Russian Federa-tion, argued that sometimes giving labels to certain movements or38 Session twoopinions was unjustified. He pointed out that the party he repre-sented – the Communist Party of the Russian Federation – wasoften defined as populist, but it represented the views of 20 millionpeople living in poverty. Therefore, his question to Mr Fiedler washow populism should be understood. Referring to previous parts ofthe debate, he supported the wide application of referenda becausein his mind, the people should have the opportunity to express theirviews and decide on each issue. Finally, Mr Bortko expressed hiswish to include more of the host country’s native language in theconference programme. The reason for that was his appreciation ofthe culture and language of Goethe, Schiller and Bach and his desireto preserve the unique national heritage of countries in the BalticSea Region.Prof Jobst Fiedler answered that he would not call the basic mandateand the way the communist party works a populist approach. Asthere were a lot of social issues to be solved in Russia, it was goodthat there was a party representing the people’s needs and desires.Referring to the conference language, he emphasised that Englishserved well as the lingua franca, enabling the participants to com-municate mainly without translation.Atis Lejnis, Member of the Parliament of Latvia, picked up on thereferendum issue. He recalled the referendum on privatisation ofthe state energy company Latvenergo in 1990 and the referendumon Russian as the second language in 2012. In both cases, the turn-out had been very high, and both proposals had been rejected. Hefurther noted the case of Brexit which had been preceded by a greatdeal of discussion. Regarding Crimea, he pointed out that the ref-erendum had been very much fast-tracked. Therefore, Mr Lejnisconcluded, there were different kinds of referenda – some whichwere legitimate, some which were not.Ms Valentina Pivnenko voiced her opposition to the previousspeaker, stating that the referendum in Crimea had been announcedto the people of Crimea, and the majority of the population hadvoted for realigning their home as a part of the Russian Federation.They had wanted to avoid the bloodshed that had happened in theUkraine. Moreover, the Russian-speaking population had had to beprotected and had to be given the opportunity to express theirdesire. Ms Pivnenko assured the panel that discussions had beencarried out and that the referendum procedure had been properlyapplied; afterwards, the decision had been passed through parlia-ment. This decision in fact, she noted, represented Crimea’s returnto Russia as Crimea had historically always been Russian soil. Thespeaker stressed that Crimea being a part of the Russian FederationSession two 39was the result of fulfilling all the requirements the Russian Federa-tion had set out for the people of Crimea in the referendum.Mr Veiko Spolītis picked up on the emotional remark by Ms Piv-nenko and admitted that politicians should always look forward,trying to find solutions even in difficult situations. At the sametime, they should follow the rule of law. He reminded the audiencethat during the referendum in Crimea in 2012, the Russian armyhad been present, in breach of the Helsinki Final Act, the Councilof Europe Paris Declaration, the Budapest Referendum Act as wellas both the Russian and Ukrainian constitution.Mr Daniel Riazat, Member of the Swedish Parliament, acknowledgedthat racism and xenophobia had existed long before social mediaand long before populist parties were elected to parliaments. Evenmore dangerous was the fact that democratic parties had beenembracing and normalizing the politics and ideology of the extremepart of the political spectrum. Simplifying the debates had contrib-uted to that trend as well. Mr Riazat pointed out that, when talkingabout participation and representation, the parties should have crit-ically analysed how many representatives of minorities, women andLGBT persons were numbered among them. The speaker claimedthat those issues should be taken into account when discussing rac-ism, xenophobia and democratic participation.Mr Veiko Spolītis in his final remark proposed that social mediashould be regulated similar to the EU regulation on Google, Micro-soft and Gazprom. He backed his demand by statistics: 84 % ofRussian language posts in social media in Poland and the BalticStates regarding NATO were produced by robots; for the Englishlanguage, the respective number was 45 %. Thus, it could be saidthat currently robots form public opinion; therefore, regulationwould have to be imposed, Mr Spolītis concluded.Prof Jobst Fiedler agreed that social media had amplified certainopinions which had always been present in the societies. He admit-ted that artificial, hostile programmes enhancing and streamliningthose tendencies posed a real danger.Ms Carola Veit thanked all the panellists and declared that the dis-cussion would be continued in the framework of the new BSPCWorking Group on Migration and Integration and during otherdiscussions in the BSPC.40 Session threeSession three 41Third SessionScience and ResearchThe session, chaired by Prof Jānis Vucāns, MP of Latvia, Vice-Pres-ident of the BSPC and Vice-President of the Baltic Assembly, andco-chaired by Prof Aadu Must, MP of Estonia, President of theBaltic Assembly, was an attempt to discuss the links between sci-ence, research and political decision making processes and to showthe importance of evidence-based research and the societal role ofscience. Prof Jānis Vucāns in his introductory remark emphasizedthat science had become a critical tool to defend democracy and ithad an important role to reverse the worrying trend towards a fact-free, post-truth world. Therefore, politicians needed support fromscientists to take decisions based on sound knowledge and research.Ms Monika Stankiewicz, HELCOMExecutive Secretary, presented the mainfindings of the ‘State of the Baltic Sea’Report 2017 – to be updated in 2018 –monitoring the implementation of theBaltic Sea Action Plan. This holistic as-sessment, covering and linking togetherwithin one conceptual framework allimportant ecosystem components andpressures from human activities as wellas social and economic analysis, wasbased on over 30 core indicators. Various ecosystem components –pelagic and benthic habitats, fish, seals, birds which have been subject-ed to various pressures, such as eutrophication, hazardous substances,alien species, extraction of fish through commercial fishing, marinelitter, underwater sound and seabed disturbance – were analysed. Re-grettably, the graph shown by Ms Stankiewicz mainly indicated a poorstate of the Baltic Sea. For instance, the Baltic Sea was still highly af-fected by eutrophication, even though phosphorous and nitrogen in-puts – causing eutrophication – were reduced significantly, by 19% forP and by 13% for N, between the years 1997–2003 and 2012–2014.There were some positive signs regarding the status, though, such asa decrease in nutrient concentrations and improved water clarity inparts of the Baltic Sea. That would indicate that several measures toimprove the status of the Baltic Sea were operating, but might not42 Session threebe comprehensive enough or have not been in place long enough tohave an effect. Furthermore, she noted that the Baltic Sea Action Planhad not yet been fully implemented. About 60% of the agreed jointregional actions in the Plan had been carried out. Regarding actions tobe implemented on a national level, the corresponding number wasbetween 30 and 65%, depending on the country. If all agreed actionsof the Baltic Sea Action Plan were to be taken, this would bring aboutincreased human welfare and economic benefits to citizens in thecoastal countries, as evidenced in the State of the Baltic Sea report. MsStankiewicz emphasized that total losses due to eutrophication wereestimated at 3.8–4.4 billion euros annually for the Baltic Sea region. Inother words, citizens’ welfare would increase by this much each year ifa good eutrophication status was achieved. Similarly, recreation valueswould increase by 1–2 billion euros each year if the state of the envi-ronment were good. The speaker noted that HELCOM had been con-sidering the results of the assessment in order to plan further steps. TheMinisterial Meeting under the EU Chairmanship in HELCOM inMarch next year would be an opportunity to strengthen existing com-mitments and determine new important areas of action. HELCOMwork was contributing to the Agenda 2030, she went on, but there hadbeen some gaps identified by the Contracting Parties such as related toclimate change and enhanced partnerships with sectorial bodies.Ms Stankiewicz announced that HELCOM was about to launch aregional consultation on the “State of the Baltic Sea” and ensuredthat the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference would be approachedwith the respective invitation and HELCOM would like to hearthe BSPC views in order to improve the report. She expressed thehope that the State of the Baltic Sea report could be used as widelyas possible, and that the BSPC politicians could also find it usefulfor their work.Ambassador Maira Mora, DirectorGeneral of the Permanent Interna-tional Secretariat of the Council ofthe Baltic Sea States, recalled that di-alogue on science and research coop-eration in the CBSS had been startedduring the Latvian CBSS Presidencyin 2007-2008 and reconfirmed in theVilnius Declaration “A Vision for theBaltic Sea Region by 2020” adoptedin 2010. Thanks to the dedication ofthe CBSS Polish Chairmanship in 2015-2016, the first CBSS Sci-ence Ministerial Meeting took place last summer in Kraków. It putSession three 43into action the two working groups via the Baltic Science Networkand Baltic TRAM (Transnational Research Access in the Macrore-gion), both funded by the Interreg Baltic Sea Region Programme.During the Icelandic Presidency, the Baltic Science Network ex-plored the existing researcher mobility patterns of the macro-regionin order to reflect in depth what transnationally coordinated stepsshould be taken in order to enhance the research potential. The cur-rent CBSS Swedish Chairmanship, in turn, would benefit from thefirst results delivered by the Baltic TRAM partnership. Namely, shespecified, the Baltic TRAM had processed the first business enqui-ries during the open call offering free access to the state-of-the-artanalytical research facilities across the Baltic Sea Region.Ms Mora underlined the fact that the future success of the on-go-ing transnationally coordinated joint work pursued by the executivebranches across the macro-region was also dependent on a continu-ous support of the legislative bodies of the Baltic Sea Region coun-tries. Therefore, she encouraged the BSPC to support the work ofthe Baltic Science Network in delivering transnational added-val-ue through the jointly defined thematic focus areas. The resultsof the project would be translated practically in the Baltic ScienceNetwork’s national action plans drafted and implemented in eachparticipating country. In order to ensure that appropriate resourceswere allocated for the implementation of these action plans in eachcountry, the political support was vital.In closing, the speaker hoped for further advancement of the trans-national debate through the BSPC’s engagement in the upcomingCBSS Baltic Sea Science Days which would take place in Turku inJanuary 2018 and subsequently in Riga in 2019. The parliamen-tarian perspective on the research and cooperation would serve asan important legislative component of transnational discussion inthat field.Prof Ulrich Bathmann from theLeibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Re-search in his speech mentioned anumber of factors affecting the en-vironment of the Baltic Sea and ex-pressed his regret over the fact thata year ago most of those factors hadseemed obvious to a majority of citi-zens while these days, the long-estab-lished facts must be repeated and ex-plained to the public again. The first44 Session threeone referred to carbon dioxide (CO Prof Bathmann confirmed2).that the CO2 in the atmosphere was increasing. Accordingly, oceanswould become more acidic as the pH of the oceans decreased dueto the uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere. The second fact wasthat the temperature of the Earth was rising and would continueto do so. Aside from many other aspects, this meant that sea waterwould expand and the sea level would rise. And the people aroundthe Baltic Sea, i.e. 9 nations, 85 million inhabitants, 1/10 the areaof Europe, would have to face that situation. Next, Prof Bathmanndescribed a number of areas in which human activity was exertinga particularly negative impact on the ecosystem. Tourism, due toglobal change, had grown significantly. Arriving with the touristswere chemical substances such as 2-phenylbenzimidazole-5-sul-fonic acid as UV filter and other organo-chemicals from cosmetic,pharmaceutical and “health care” products of unknown chemicalstructure and environmental effects. He noted that these substanceswere released into the water when people were bathing in the BalticSea and could be found in the organisms inhabiting the Baltic. Thatfactor should be considered when ecosystems are assessed withinthe Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Baltic Sea ActionPlan.Then, Prof Bathmann referred to plastic the influence of which onthe environment had become very well known to the general publicfor some years. Macroplastic waste was easy to detect, exactly op-posite to microplastic which was much more harmful for the envi-ronment. He stated that these were granulates used in cosmetics, intoothpastes, which were released when washing fleece. The amountof microplastic was unknown because it was very difficult to isolatemicroplastic from natural products. According to Prof Bathmann,those questions should also be taken into account by the Baltic SeaAction Plan. Increasing ship traffic seemed to be a constantly grow-ing threat to the Baltic Sea. Firstly, with more traffic, the chance ofan accident and oil pollution was growing. Secondly, the ships werecovered with antifouling paint used to protect the ship’s hull fromsubsistence on living organisms but which was effecting geneticchanges in the organisms. Thirdly, underwater noise was increasingbecause of the growing number of commercial and tourist boats.Another factor noted by and mentioned by the speaker was relatedto the changing pattern of water exchange between the Baltic Seaand the North Sea, i.e. anoxic areas of the Baltic were growing larg-er while oxic periods were getting shorter. This phenomenon waschanging the environment from oxic conditioned to anoxic condi-tioned unfavourable for higher organisms.Session three 45Another threat was the WWII ammunition on the bottom of thesea. Corroding containers were releasing, among others, red phos-phorus – a highly harmful substance for people and animals. Scien-tists, the professor mentioned, had invented robots to retrieve thosedangerous objects from the sea floor.Due to EU regulation, commercial fishing had been reduced, re-sulting in a gradual growth of cod stock.Prof Bathmann concluded his presentation by stressing that the sit-uation of the Baltic Sea was far from satisfactory, therefore morepolitical actions were needed. He praised HLELCOM for its greatwork but recommended implementing additional measures andprogrammes of monitoring the state of the Baltic Sea in order toprovide answers to many questions, some of which were presentedin his speech.Mr Jari Haapala from the FinnishMeteorological Institute in his pre-sentation “Utility of Regional ClimateModels for the Baltic Sea Region”provided an overview of a number ofquestions that the climatologists inthe Baltic Sea Region seek to answer.The speaker pointed out that climatechange, as well as other anthropogen-ic and natural changes in the atmo-sphere, on land and in the sea, wasexerting different pressures on the natural and human-shaped envi-ronment of the region. These pressures included regional warming,declining sea ice cover, sea level rise, deoxygenation, acidification,changing precipitation and runoff patterns as well as the changingfrequency of high impact events like storm surges, floods, droughtand heat periods. The characterisation of these pressures, along witha synthesis of the state of scientific knowledge about their causesand impacts, he noted, had been a core goal of scientists operatingwithin the networking organisation – Baltic Earth. Baltic Earth wascontinuing the research work of BALTEX which had ended in June2013, and it represented a new, more holistic perspective on theBaltic Sea region, encompassing processes in the atmosphere, onland and in the sea, as well as processes evoked by and feeding backon human activity. Mr Haapala stated that the observed environ-mental changes were often caused by a mixture of factors, amongthem climate change and its associated impacts, eutrophication,pollution, fisheries, land cover change and others. Each of these46 Session threefactors had a scientific and a societal dimension, which were ofteninterdependent, making it difficult to identify a single or even dom-inant factor responsible for the change. The speaker gave examplesof possible linkages between the global scale change and local char-acteristics. For instance, the global to North-Atlantic/Eurasian scalewas controlled by the global climate system with very strong feed-back between the scales; Baltic Sea scale climate variability was verymuch controlled by the atmospheric circulation and some feedbackto large scale could be detected; at the Basin scale, atmospheric forc-ing was modified by local characteristics – the shape of the basin,interaction between the sub basins, river runoff etc. And last butnot least, the response of the ecosystem depended very much on thebasin scale characteristics, and even smaller sub-basin scale changescould be important. The speaker acknowledged that downscalingfrom the global to the basin scale had been actively studied duringthe last 10+ years, but comparably little was known about the im-pact of climate change on a local scale. The results of those studieswere available in the Baltic Earth publication Second Assessment ofClimate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin, Springer Regional ClimateStudies, May 2015.Prof Robert Feidenhans’l, Manag-ing Director of European XFEL, ex-plained that European XFEL was theunique research facility for the largestand most powerful X-ray laser in theworld to be used by researchers fromEurope and across the world. TheX-ray flashes were produced in un-derground tunnels, allowing scientiststo map the atomic details of viruses,film chemical reactions and study theprocesses in the interior of planets. The facility was officially in-augurated 2 days before the BSPC conference at an internationalevent with the presence of Prof Dr Johanna Wanka, German Min-ister for Education and Research, and other prominent guests fromacross Europe. The annual operational budget of the facility was117,000,000 €, as the host country, Germany (federal, Hamburg,and Schleswig-Holstein) covered 58% of the construction costs,Russia took over 27% and the other international partners between1% and 3% of the construction costs each. The project was the re-sult of the cooperation of 11 countries, many of them countries ofthe Baltic Sea area. The workforce counted more than 300 people.About 240 DESY employees operated the accelerator for Europe-an XFEL, half of the personnel is German, and the second largestSession three 47nationality is Russian, followed by the Baltic States and Poland.The European XFEL was constructed and now operated by the Eu-ropean XFEL GmbH, a non-profit Company of Limited Liabilityunder German law, founded in 2009. The speaker noted that the3.4-kilometre-long facility ran from the DESY campus in Hamburgto the town of Schenefeld in Schleswig-Holstein where teams ofscientists from all over the world would carry out experiments usingthe unique X-ray flashes produced in underground tunnels. ProfFeidenhans’l explained that to generate the X-ray flashes, bunchesof electrons were first accelerated to high energies and then directedthrough special arrangements of magnets (undulators). In the pro-cess, the particles emitted radiation that was increasingly amplifieduntil an extremely short and intense X-ray flash was finally created.Next, the speaker mentioned possible uses of the technologicallyhighly advanced facility instruments. He noted that the EuropeanXFEL produced extremely bright and ultrashort light pulses. Withthe help of specialized instruments, these X-rays enabled completelynew insights into the atomic details and extremely fast processes ofthe nanoworld. Scientists would use these X-ray flashes to, for ex-ample, map the three-dimensional structures of biomolecules andother biological particles, and do so faster and with more detail thanhad ever been previously possible. Furthermore, single snapshots ofparticles produced with the X-ray laser could be seen together tocreate “molecular movies” to study the progress of biochemical andchemical reactions – the basis for the development of new materi-als and substances. There were six instruments in the underground48 Session threeexperiment hall of the European XFEL. The instruments were opti-mized for particular purposes. Each experiment required light withspecial properties, such that the instruments were permanently as-signed to the different light sources (beamlines) of the EuropeanXFEL. Prof Feidenhans’l underlined that the facility’s foundationwas the result of great cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region and theinvolvement of young people was needed to develop and deepenthis cooperation in the future. The facility was intended to be theplace where young people could meet and exchange knowledge.Therefore, he asked the audience to support the youth exchangethat could take place in the European XFEL. The speaker conclud-ed with the quotation of Niels Bohr who had said that science wasthe language everybody could speak and science was the field youcould contribute to independent of your gender, nationality andrace. He added that collaboration in the Baltic Sea was proof of theaccuracy of the Nobel Prize winner’s words.Session three 49DebateMs Suzanne Svennsson, Swedish Member of Parliament, praisedHELCOM for their report on nutrification and all speakers foraddressing, in their excellent presentations, important issues ofenvironmental threats in the Baltic Sea. She agreed that the issuesdiscussed at that session were very complex and there were manyproblems to be tackled. However, she had chosen to speak aboutmicroplastics because of her involvement in the Committee for aSustainable Nordic Region in the Nordic Council and a number ofactivities undertaken by that body. Ms Svennsson drew attention tothe fact that there was no reason to use microplastics in cosmetics asthey could be easily replaced by other substances. Another worryingfact was that 60% of microplastics came from rubber produced bythe car industry. According to the speaker, not enough attentionwas paid to those facts. Therefore, the Nordic Council would pre-pare a report with a call for action to reduce the amount of micro-plastics in the Baltic Sea. Similar discussions had been pursued inthe Nordic Council of Ministers, Sweden hosted a conference in theframework of the Sustainable Development Summit in New Yorkin September. A huge amount of research had been conducted but50 Session threestill much more could have been done. The speaker called for morepolitical action and more research especially on microplastics andasked Prof Bathmann whether he could give examples of studies inthat field.Prof Bathmann acknowledged that intense research in microplas-tics and close cooperation with the chemical industry started 5-6years ago but more research and more cooperation was needed. Hepointed out that microplastic was very difficult to separate from theocean and differentiate from other substances, therefore the esti-mate of the amount of microplastics coming from car tires or othersources was rather hard. He admitted that while there were manyexamples of European and German agencies promoting science bypolitical activities which had improved the public awareness of theissue, but there was still a long way to go.Mr Veiko Spolītis, Member of the Latvian Parliament, addresseda number of questions to the speakers. He asked about the reasonfor the decrease of nitrogen in the Baltic Sea, requesting furtherexplanation of the oxygen inflow to the Baltic Sea and wonder-ing who should take the lead in imposing the high environmentalstandards of the Baltic Sea worldwide. Mr Spolītis emphasised themeaningful achievement of HELCOM to maintain cooperationwith all countries around the Baltic Sea regardless of political trans-formations that had taken place in the region. He mentioned thatbuilding sewage treatment plants in St. Petersburg and Kaliningradhad improved the environmental status of the Baltic Sea yet at thesame time the Mediterranean region was not as intensely focused onreducing pollution, therefore a real impact on global warming couldbe exercised only by common action.Prof Bathmann agreed that establishing sewage treatment plantswas significantly reducing nitrogen and underlined that establish-ing plants in St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad was a great exampleof the positive impact of politics on environment. He added thatit was the way to be followed. With regard to global warming, henoted that some parts of the Baltic Sea, such as the ScandinavianPeninsula were more affected than others. Therefore, the scientistshad studied downscaling from the global to the regional scale andestimated the effect that global warming had on particular regionsof the Baltic Sea. Prof Bathmann agreed with Ms Svennsson and MrSpolītis that action must be taken on global level; Future Earth –research for a global sustainability platform – could be an exampleof such action. On the other hand, he underlined that Europe andthe Baltic Sea Region should set a good example for other parts ofthe world.Session three 51Ms Stankiewicz in her response confirmed that the reduction ofnitrogen and phosphorus was related largely to the improvementof waste water treatment in the cities around the Baltic Sea, andthis was according to the regional HELCOM standards and Euro-pean directives. She added that European requirements were notsufficient for the BSR and HELCOM standards were much higher.Another important initiative worth mentioning was establishingnontoxic areas for shipping in the Baltic Sea. The initiative, whichwould result in a reduction of 7 tons of nitrogen annually, had beentaken by the region as the regional response to the MARPOL con-vention by IMO. Ms Stankiewicz stressed the fact that because theBaltic Sea had a huge catchment area, it required tailor-made solu-tions. Therefore, even though it might take a long time to achievethe same rules at the European level, only Baltic actors could make achange. She added that fortunately Sustainable Goals were provid-ing political momentum and the Baltic Sea Region should make aneffort for the sake of present and future generations.Prof Jānis Vucāns thanked all speakers and the audience for theirparticipation and closed the session.52 Opening of the ConferenceSession four 53Fourth sessionSustainable TourismThe chair of the session, Pyry Niemi, Member of the Swedish Par-liament, opened the session and underlined the importance of sus-tainable tourism for both the region and the BSPC, pointing outthat in 2015, the BSPC had established the Working Group onSustainable Tourism, chaired by Ms Sylvia Bretschneider, Presidentof the Landtag Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and co-chaired by MsSara Kemetter, Member of the Parliament of the Åland Islands, andMr Veiko Spolïtis, Member of the Parliament of Latvia. The Work-ing Group had held its final meeting on the Åland Islands, and theirfinal report was presented during the current session. Mr Nieminoted that the year 2017, which had been declared the Interna-tional Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development by the UnitedNations, had provided a great opportunity to present the BSPC’spolitical recommendations regarding sustainable tourism and itscontribution to sustainable development to the United Nations andother political actors.The session was co-chaired by Karin Gaardsted, Member of theDanish Parliament.The first speaker, Sara Kemetter,Member of the Parliament of theÅland Islands and the Vice Chair ofthe BSPC Working Group on Sus-tainable Tourism, presented saidworking group’s final report to theconference. The group had developedeleven recommendations to the gov-ernments of the Baltic Sea Region,all of which had been included in the26th BSPC Conference Resolution.The speaker reported that a number of best practices in sustain-able tourism had been collected as part of a methodical approachto support the transfer of advantages and opportunities of sustain-ability between the Baltic Sea Regions. The best practices in IslandTourism, Cruise Tourism, Cycling Tourism as well as the existenceand implementation of sustainable approaches of a national strategyhad been analysed. The working group had furthermore considered54 Session fourexisting connections between environmental protection, climatechange and sustainable tourism. Intensive discussions on the dif-ferent taxation models for tourism as well as tax incentives in thetourism sector had been conducted within the group. Ms Kemetteracknowledged that, because the governments of the states and re-gions had distributed their answers concerning the implementationof the 25th resolution early on, it had been possible for the first timeto analyse the implementation of mid-term working group recom-mendations regarding sustainable tourism. The speaker noted thatthe topic of cooperation had played a key role in many answers ofthe governments. Especially the cross-border cooperation betweendifferent states and regions around the Baltic Sea in the field oftourism had proven to be a relevant issue for the governments. Suchan approach was worth strengthening since cooperation in the fieldof tourism was a real challenge because the stakeholders often werecompetitors as well. But, according to the report, more coopera-tion was needed to strengthen the BSR position in the worldwidemarket. Therefore, it would be a significant step forward if the Bal-tic Sea States could elaborate a common programme based on astrategy within the framework of the CBSS to develop sustainabletourism in the Baltic Sea Region. Another key point of the gov-ernments’ reports was focused on the growing connection betweentourism and sustainability. The BSPC role in this respect would beto call on the governments in the BSPC resolution to make surethat the consequences of tourism were sustainable and accordinglyadopt models and methods to save and protect nature. Concludingher report, Ms Kemetter mentioned the constructive participationof the young people appointed by the BSPC members to participatein the discussions of the working group and proposed continuingthat format.The contribution made by the Bal-tic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forumto the final recommendations onsustainable tourism was presentedby two young delegates, FriederikeSchick from Hamburg and EliasLindström from the Åland Islands.Improving education standards andraising the job status in tourism,switching to eco- and agriculturaltourism, strengthening sustainabletransport and launching a Baltic Sea Summer Ticket, those were justa few of the many ideas discussed by young people with politiciansduring the meeting of the BSPC Working Group in Kiel. The ideasdiscussed and elaborated by 13 youth representatives and politi-Session four 55cians during the meeting and report-ed by Friederike and Elias referred tofive key areas: digitalisation, borders,travel, tourism and the environment.With regard to the first two topics,the speakers noted that nowadays,the use of digital tools was a crucialsuccess factor for a tourist destina-tion. Therefore, a web portal for theBaltic Sea Region had been proposedas a tool for promoting tourist desti-nations in the BSR. Such a web portal should provide easy access tothe individual countries’ informational sites and booking for train/ferry tickets in a single package. The digitalisation of museums wasanother idea thoroughly discussed. Digital equipment in physicalmuseums would have to be implemented for an interactive expe-rience, by using augmented and virtual reality. Furthermore, start-ups of different kinds, fostering innovations, required more sup-port to enable them to maintain their high level of innovation. Theyoung speakers underlined that the political stability in the regionwas also a striking argument in favour of Baltic tourist destinations.However, the great possibilities of visiting so many countries anddiverse cultures around the Baltic Sea with short travel distanceswere limited by still existing borders. Therefore, in order to makethe Baltic Sea a region attractive for a generation that travels morethan any other before, open borders were essential. With regard tothe next two areas – work in the travel sector and tourism -, theyouth representatives indicated that jobs in the tourism industrywere generally seen by young people as reserved for low-qualifica-tion workers with low wages. To attract people to work full timein the tourism industry, the status of those jobs needed to be im-proved. Another problem raised by the speakers was connected totourist destinations around the Baltic Sea being almost exclusivelysummer destinations. So, for people to make a living wage off theirwork, some type of full-time jobs had to be offered. Therefore, someform of connecting summer and winter destinations might improvethe situation for those employed in tourism. The example given bythe speakers was working during the summer near the coast andat a ski resort for the rest of the year. Another idea of theirs was aBaltic Sea Summer Ticket, similar to the Europe ticket or railwaysummer ticket. With a single ticket, an individual should be able totravel across the Baltic Sea and visit different countries. This would,according to the speakers, make travelling in the Baltic Sea regionmore attractive. Another important issue they mentioned was eco-and culture tourism. Nature and sport tourism included activitiessuch as hiking, cycling, swimming or even husky racing. Culture56 Session fourtourism included not only museums but also rock, art or food fes-tivals. Those events usually attracted a wide range of people. Allthese activities should be accessible through a “Tour de Baltic”. Inconclusion of their presentation, Friederike and Elias pointed outthe danger that mass tourism might exploit the natural resourcesand ruin the culture and “soul” of the destination. There were manyplaces in various countries around the world which had experiencedthat problem. This should be kept in mind while more discussionand greater involvement of young politicians was recommended.Therefore, the speakers called for a continued support from theBSPC for a youth forum in the coming years.Further examples of the tourism industry’s efforts to promote sus-tainability came from Dr Monika Griefahn, Chief SustainabilityOfficer at AIDA Cruises, Alexander Sirchenko, Vice DirectorGeneral for the Development of Internal Tourism, TUI Russia, andMichael Otremba, Managing Director of Hamburg TourismusGmbH. Arild Molstad, tourist expert from Norway, provided foodfor thought about the challenges facing tourism in the changingworld.Session four 57Dr Monika Griefahn, Chief Sus-tainability Officer AIDA Cruises andformer Minister of the Environmentof Lower Saxony, noted that sustain-ability was crucial for cruise shippingbecause a cruise was inextricably linkedwith experiencing unspoiled nature.On such ships, tourists were discover-ing beautiful places of the region, andsustainability was the reason for peopleto want to go on holidays. Therefore,establishing the Baltic Sea Region as the eco region for all countriesand all areas of economy, rather than just tourism, would be especial-ly beneficial for tourism in the BSR. Ms Griefahn assured her audi-ence that the company she represented was taking a pioneering rolein many areas of sustainability – for example with regard to the use ofliquefied natural gas (LNG) for low-emission ship operations. She de-scribed LNG as the cleanest fossil fuel currently available and said thatAIDAprima would be the first cruise ship in the world to be fuelledin an environmentally friendly way with LNG when docked. Underthe “Green Cruising” concept, the next AIDA generation would befuelled entirely with liquefied natural gas. AIDAnova, the first ship ofthis new series and built to the same design, would be put into servicein autumn 2018, while its sister ship would follow in the spring of2021. By using LNG, the emission of soot particulates and sulphuroxides would be reduced by up to 100%, emissions of nitrogen ox-ides by 80 percent and CO2 emissions by 20 percent. Apart from thedual fuel engine for LNG operation, AIDAprima also featured twoland power connections and a three-phase system for the treatment ofwaste gas, reducing soot particulates, nitrous oxide and sulphur oxideemissions by 90 to 99 percent. Furthermore, since May 2015, as partof a pilot project, while another ship (AIDAsol) was docked at theHafenCity Hamburg, it had been fuelled via the LNG hybrid bargewith low-emission power from liquefied natural gas. The speaker stat-ed that the company was participating in research projects on usingrenewable energy sources and admitted that the solutions currently inuse were only a bridge technology until the next generation of shorepower connections, which would be fully renewable, came on line.With regard to waste water treatment, Ms Griefahn reported thatAIDA Cruises strictly fulfilled the high international environmentalstandards for the treatment and disposal of sewage water in the mar-itime industry, to some degree even exceeding those. For example,onboard the ships brought into service since 2007, waste water wasprocessed in biological membrane purification plants up to almostdrinking water quality. With these system, it was possible to reacha degree of water purity which was not achieved by many treatment58 Session fourand cleaning plants on land. Apart from environmental protection,the sustainability strategy of the company also embraced a commit-ment to their employees and society. The potential of nine thousandemployees from over 40 countries was being promoted with extensivetraining and continuing education options. All those efforts had beenrewarded in 2015 when the company was named a “Top Employer”.The speaker also mentioned the challenges closely linked to environ-mental regulations, such as the EU Water Framework Directive, theEU Sulphur Directive and the Helcom Action Plan. The regulationswere interpreted differently in various countries, thus causing manyproblems for a company operating worldwide. She gave an example ofa regulation on LNG infrastructure for ship fuelling which requiredlegislation for a chemical plant, as in the case of Hamburg harbour,while other ports merely needed a fuelling ship regulation. Therefore,Ms Griefahn underlined the necessity of close cooperation among thestakeholders around the Baltic Sea in order to ensure high and com-mon standards in the area of sustainable tourism.Alexander Sirchenko, Vice DirectorGeneral for the Development of Inter-nal Tourism, TUI Russia, presented hiscompany as one of the largest touristoperators in the Russian Federation,both for international and domestictourism. The company had createda number of links between state in-stitutions and business units in orderto secure investments in tourism andensure the economic prerequisite fortourism in Russia. One of the key areas of interest for the compa-ny had been the Baltic Sea Region with its rich natural and culturallegacy as well as its great potential for developments in tourism. Thespeaker reminded the audience that St. Petersburg has always beenthe Russian window to Europe, wherefore he called for simplifyingvisa regulations in the region. This would make it much easier to getinvolved in cross-border projects and contribute to the developmentof tourism in the region. He pointed out that since 2003, the RussianFederation has introduced a number of laws to ease the visa regimeespecially as far as cruise ship tourists were concerned. For instance,such tourists could stay in Russia without a visa for 72 hours, whilein Vladivostok’s check point, the passengers of ferries could receiveelectronic visa to enter the Russian Federation. Moreover, in Kalinin-grad and St. Petersburg, ferry connections to Helsinki, Stockholm andTallinn had been installed. Therefore, a relaxation of visa regulationsSession four 59was essential for the tourism industry. The speaker referred to anotherlarge challenge - the threat of terrorism. He drew attention to the factthat terrorist attacks posed a threat to tourism as a whole. Therefore,close cooperation to combat terrorism and extremism and to mitigatethe impact of such attacks was of utmost importance. Because of thatreason, regional partnerships in the area of tourism and other areasshould be intensified. With regard to the marketing of the Baltic, MrSirchenko expressed his hope for a common logo of the Baltic Sea Re-gion, a common brand and a unified marketing strategy of the BSR aswell as comprehensive touristic offers in the area of cultural, landscapeand nature tourism. This would contribute to ensuring that tourismwas sustainably developed in the whole region. The speaker stated thatin Russia, the tourism industry was prioritised by the state as an im-portant area of the Russian economy, and thus, many initiatives hadbeen undertaken to enhance tourist flow while at the same time main-taining all safety procedures. For instance, a number of agreementsbetween the Russian Federation and China would make the organisedflow of tourists better distinguishable from that of migrants – bordercontrols would be tailored to particular groups of visitors. A numberof laws had been put in place, aimed at creating favourable conditionsfor tourism, and many programs had been launched to support tour-ism development. At that point, the speaker mentioned the FederalProgramme 2013-2020 which had been tailored to develop tourismas the key component of the infrastructure development programmefor the Russian Federation. The range of tourist services had expand-ed, enhanced and contributed to Russia becoming a more and morepopular tourist destination on the world market. Therefore, for MrSirchenko, continuing close cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region wasessential to maintain high quality and sustainable tourism in the re-gion with the BSPC as a great platform for dialogue between parlia-ments, governments and the civil society of the BSR.Arild Molstad, a Norwegian writer,tourism expert and conservationist,confronted his listeners with funda-mental questions regarding the futureof sustainable tourism in a world inwhich approximately 1.6 billion peo-ple were traveling abroad for touris-tic reasons every year, in which socialmedia was driving the travel industryand changing the demand structure.He began his speech by admitting that tourism was a double-edgedsword – it could add value to or destroy destinations’ culture capital60 Session fourand natural resources. He compared tourism to a virtual force ofnature, much like water: there was either too much or too little ofit. These days, as many as 1.3 billion travellers were touring theworld, a number that had to be multiplied by 3 to include domestictrips. Accordingly, the word “over-tourism” had recently entered theEnglish language, describing the “asymmetric” power distributionwhen unprepared destinations were confronted by mass tourism.He added that simply counting visitors as a measure of success wasclearly not the way of the future. The UN had declared 2017 theYear of Sustainable Tourism for Development – right when tour-ism was getting out of control, driven by accelerated changes inthe following: population growth, an expanding middle class’s dis-cretionary spending power, the emergence of low cost airlines andaffordable cruises, the use of the internet and social media. Its cur-rent growth and magnitude was making tourism difficult to man-age. Mr Molstad described the situation as “everybody is connectedbut nobody is in charge” and explained that the human cravingfor comfort, even luxury, was in increasing conflict with rapidlydeclining biodiversity, fragile culture heritage, unique ways of lifeand future livelihoods. Therefore, the growth of global tourism hadrecently reached a crossroads. While the Paris climate accord hadmade tough demands on people’s habits with regard to environ-Session four 61mental and climate changes, more decisive actions were still needed.Mr Molstad noted Norway as an example: the country was tacklingthe challenge by launching the Green Competitive Initiative, a di-rect outcome of the Paris Climate Accord Setting, creating a newagenda for all economic sectors in Norway, tourism included. Allmajor sectors had to draw up a roadmap from the present day to2030/50. The main rules of the Green Competitive Initiative aslisted by the speaker were the following: the polluter would pay,incentives would reward those who come up with green initiatives,taxes and fees would be imposed on those who do not, externalitiesshould be given a price value (those environmental costs normallykept out of the equation when evaluating a tourism-related proj-ect), the approach had to be holistic as well as cross-sectoral andmulti-departmental; if the outcome of an intervention or an initia-tive was in doubt, it had to be stopped or postponed until multipledividends were in evidence; a private-public approach needed tobe taken. For the tourism industry, all these rules meant that, forinstance, tourism products, services and travel experiences had tobe low-emission, globally competitive and had to add value andwelfare to society. Norway’s Sustainable Tourism Roadmap was amodern, up to date model that could work elsewhere, the speakernoted, in all countries facing common challenges, namely adap-tation to climate change, more equality and prosperity for all. MrMolstad concluded his speech by underlining that tourism neededto move to a low-carbon future by making the business case formeeting targets grounded in climate science. Tourism also had totake a more holistic approach and look at its impact on the wholesociety. It needed to be more relevant to the needs of the communi-ty and to understand and demonstrate the real value of the assets onwhich its growth depended.Michael Otremba, Managing Direc-tor of Hamburg Tourismus GmbH,began his speech by quoting Guyde Maupassant, “It is the encoun-ters with people that make life worthliving.” He admitted that tourismwas still striving for recognition eventhough it had become an importanteconomic sector. In Hamburg, tour-ism stood for an added value of 6 bil-lion euros per year and 100,000 jobsdirectly and indirectly linked to tourism. The social value attachedto tourism had grown recently – after real estate and cars, the ex-62 Session fourpense for traveling appeared to be the third highest for householdsin Germany. Cars were losing their status as an object of prestige,while instead, due to the sharing trend, expenses for traveling andtourism would soon rise to take over second place. The increasingeconomic growth which could be observed in all countries was le-veraging the desire to travel and to explore. For the majority ofpeople, cities had become the immediate environment of experi-ence and living life. According to studies by the United Nations, inthe year 2050, 70% of the world’s population would live in urbanareas. Additionally, the changes in the aviation market – the pow-er and the momentum of local carriers – were important driversfor increased mobility. Mr Otremba acknowledged that the majorchallenges for tourism were how to reconcile the requirements ofboth guests and residents, how to create a high quality experiencefor guests of the city of Hamburg and last but not least how toinfluence the behaviour in the use of public spaces. Therefore, thespeaker underlined the importance of the social dimension of sus-tainable tourism, pointing out that welcoming guests and being agood host was based on the willingness to interact with people. Onthe other hand, tourists wanted to experience the true pulse of thecity, they wanted to “dive” into the city. Therefore, more and moreresidents were taking on the role of hosts through the developmentof popular platforms. A growing number of people were also seek-ing to make use of public spaces. With Hamburg’s increasing pop-ularity, there was a risk that more and more conflicts related to theuse of public spaces would arise. Enhancing the balance betweenthe needs of visitors and residents was crucial for the further devel-opment of sustainable tourism in the city. Mr Otremba admittedthat only a positive attitude towards tourism would allow the cityto provide a warm welcome and to serve as a good host. In the past,it had been seen as most important to encourage or attract greaternumbers of people to come to Hamburg. At present, the focus wasshifting from an inbound perspective – attracting people to stayovernight – to an inside perspective – assessing the satisfaction ofboth guests and residents, the recommendation rate, the unique-ness of the Hamburg experience. Surveys regarding the attitudetowards tourism among Hamburg residents conducted since 2015had shown that most of them recognised the benefits arising fromtourism, were aware of rising tourist numbers, yet only a small shareof them seemed disturbed by the guests of the city. In the inner city,the numbers were slightly higher for the last point, reaching 14 %.But according to Mr Otremba, it was not the quantity of incomingguests but rather people’s behaviour that created a real challenge forsustainable tourism. Influencing the behaviour of people sharingpublic spaces was essential and a starting point for reducing thelevel of disruption. Guests and locals were in fact coming closerSession four 63together because guests were truly looking to experience the pulseof the city. The speaker concluded his speech by underlining thattourism was all about dialogue – about interaction and about en-counters. Exploring different cultures, connecting with people andsharing a joined experience were essential components of a modernholiday trip. Especially today in times of an increasing tendencyto build mental boundaries, to think in nationalistic terms, it wasmore and more important to facilitate encounters through traveland to strengthen mutual understanding.DebateAnn-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson, Member of the Swedish Par-liament, praised the speakers for presenting the issue of sustainabletourism from different perspectives. She underlined the importanceof cross-border cooperation initiatives and noted the opportunitiesprovided by new technologies and the digitalisation of service intourism. She referred to the challenges caused by mass tourism, inparticular the pollution of the sea, and noted that new ferry boatsoperating between Scandinavian harbours had been equipped withnew technological solutions which contributed to a reduced pollu-tion of sea waters. She expressed her belief that deepening knowl-edge, rising awareness and exchanging good practice examples weregood ways to develop sustainable tourism.Veiko Spolïtis, Member of the Parliament of Latvia and Vice-Chairof the BSPC Working Group on Sustainable Tourism, recalled hiswork in the maritime committees prior to entering the EU sulphurdirective and discussions with shipping companies on the possi-ble impact on shipping business through the new strict law. Heshared his satisfaction that maritime transportation had not beenaffected and that the environment had benefited from those provi-sions. However, he remarked that the impact of EU environmentalregulations were limited only to the member states; therefore, heencouraged delegates representing Russian parliaments to presenttheir positions on those issues, for instance on the use of liquefiednatural gas for low-emission ship operations on Baltic Sea watersand other activities aiming at sustainability in tourist business.Valentina Pivnenko, Member of the Russian Duma and memberof the BSPC Working Group on Sustainable Tourism, extended herthanks to the chairs and members of the Working Group on Sus-64 Session fourtainable Tourism, emphasising the excellent cooperation and goodresults achieved by the group. She pointed out that sustainabledevelopment was a very important issue in Russia, wherefore thestrategies of Socio-Economic Development of the Russian Feder-ation until 2020 (“Strategy 2020”) and the State EnvironmentalDevelopment Policy of the Russian Federation until 2030 had beenapproved by the parliament and the government of the RussianFederation. The State Programme Culture and Tourism Develop-ment 2013-2020 went in line with the state strategies. The maingoal of the programme was to improve the tourist infrastructurewhich would have a positive impact on the growth of that sectorof the economy which in turn would contribute to the social andeconomy prosperity of the region. Investments in infrastructure intourism would allow experts to be attracted to that field, jobs to becreated and the environment to be protected. Therefore, apart fromcreating an overall common sustainable tourism programme for theBaltic Sea Region, a significant role should be given to investmentsin the sustainable infrastructure of tourism. In response to thequestion raised by Mr. Spolïtis, the speaker proposed deliberatingon that particular issue during one of the next Standing Committeemeetings and pointed out that, actually, these discussions had beencarried out in the framework of the BSPC Standing Committeemeetings, Working Group meetings and BSPC conferences. MsPivnenko emphasised that tourism was the best way to learn othercultures, to meet other people and better understand each other.Therefore, she called for an extension of the WGST activities andfor further discussion on creating a Baltic Sea Region SustainableTourism Strategy which could be a macro-regional component ofthe Strategy for Socio-Economic Development of the North-WestFederal District.Annette Holmberg-Jansson, Member of the Parliament of theÅland Islands, shared her strong conviction, strengthened by thesession inputs, that protecting the environment was of utmostimportance for attracting tourists, especially to places such as theÅland Islands. Therefore, she pointed out that it was important forpoliticians to take the lead in that task and monitor its implemen-tation. She announced that Åland’s government, together with pro-ducer associations, had developed a sustainable food strategy as aresponse to the Development and Sustainability Agenda for Åland.Most of the 7 strategic goals of the sustainable agenda were part-ly complemented by those of the sustainable food strategy. Theyapplied particularly to the objectives of ecosystem imbalance andbiodiversity and to the goal on good quality water, sustainable andconscious patterns of consumption and production, and also attrac-tiveness to residents, visitors and business. The speaker pointed outSession four 65that the sustainable food production system was also economicallyprofitable for the tourist sector of the economy because what peo-ple wanted to experience when visiting a country or a region weregood local food and a clean environment. She concluded her con-tribution to the debate with an invitation to visit the Åland Islandswhich were on a good way to reach total sustainability in 2021.Stephan Holowaty, Member of the Schleswig-Holstein Parliament,drew attention to the variety of demands by people visiting holidayspots. He mentioned large groups of tourists from Asia, groups ofyoung tourists who just wanted to have fun, and others who mightnot be interested in immersing themselves in local culture or livingthe life of locals. Nevertheless, those people had a right to spendtheir holidays the way it suited them. So, the question was how tocreate a sustainable tourist environment for people who might notbe “ideal tourists” but still citizens and voters.Arild Molstad referred to the comments by previous speakers andpointed out that the major challenge facing policy makers was toensure certain conditions for growth in global tourism. What wasmost needed was to diminish the enormous gap between detailedknowledge on the financial and economical basis for tourism onthe one hand and on the other, poor knowledge on sustainabilityand environmental issues in tourism. The speaker encouraged theconference to support all efforts in that respect, whether in the formof implementing the resolution, promoting working group reports,organizing training sessions and using social media.The chair of the session, Pyry Niemi, thanked all the speakers fortheir inspiring inputs and closed the session.66 Opening of the ConferenceSession five 67Fifth sessionMigration and IntegrationThe session completed a two-year debate in the BSPC with regard tothe topic of migration and integration . The BSPC Standing Commit-tee agreed to establish a Working Group on this topic . The chair ofthe session, Franz Thönnes, Member of the German Bundestag, inhis opening remarks pointed out that the reason for that decisionseemed evident as Europe had been witnessing one of the largestmigration flows of the present day. That challenge needed efficientsolutions and coordinated efforts. Therefore, with the StandingCommittee decision, the BSPC had joined the debate on migrationand integration that had also found a profound place in the politicalagenda in the CBSS Swedish Presidency Priorities.The session was co-chaired by Per Rune Henriksen, Member of theNorwegian Parliament.The first speaker, Pedro Roque, Presi-dent of the Parliamentary Assembly ofthe Mediterranean (PAM), the organ-isation encompassing the countriesmost severely affected by the recentmigration crisis, reported that in thevery recent years, the rate of popula-tion movements across the Mediter-ranean had increased exponentially,driven by conflicts and political insta-bility in the Middle East and NorthAfrica, as well as by poverty, unemployment, poor governance, cor-ruption, aggressive foreign investments and the lack of capacity inmitigating the consequences of climate change in sub-Saharan Af-rica, particularly in the Sahel region. Countries like Jordan, Leba-non, Greece, Italy and Turkey were struggling to cope either with theinflux of asylum seekers or economic migrants, while maintainingtheir primary obligations to their own populations to provide servic-es, jobs and security. The speaker illustrated the problem through the68 Session fiveexample of Jordan which, in its own territory, was burdened most bythe humanitarian aid provided to Syrian refugees, who exceeded 1.5million and had reached 20% of the national population. In fact,only one third of the international assistance pledged to Jordan hadbeen received. Similar numbers could be used for Turkey. Mr Roquepointed out that the issue of economic “illegal” migration from Afri-ca was very different. While the majority of refugees one day wouldreturn to their countries, the African exodus was, as he claimed, adifferent game – it was a one-way ticket. Specialized agencies indi-cated that the population of Africa, set at 1.3 billion people today,would reach 2.3 billion by 2050. Nigeria alone would number 1 bil-lion people. According to a recent study, every day in Africa, 33,000young people arrived on an already saturated employment market.Only 40% of them would be lucky enough to find a job. By 2050,Africa’s youth population alone was expected to number more than830 million. At the present demographic pace, no development goalwould be sustainable. The speaker emphasized that at the same time,and faced with the tip of the iceberg related to this unprecedentedexodus, the 28-nation European Union was still incapable of agree-ing on a much needed coherent approach to manage the influx ofmigrants from Africa. The positive signs mentioned by the speakerwere: the meeting of four European leaders in Paris a week beforethe conference, clearly acknowledging that the asylum system hadto be changed, and the meeting of Home Affairs Ministers of theEU in July who had reached an “agreement on using all the availa-ble means” to reduce migratory pressure in the Mediterranean Sea,first and foremost by making “greater efforts in Libya” and in otherthird world countries to prevent departures. The “Libyan solution”as described by Mr. Roque seemed to work, since, as of August 2017,the influx of illegal migrants from Libya to Italy had been drasticallyreduced by 68% compared to the earlier months of the year. Theproposed creation of “hot spots” – a kind of transition and screeningcamp – in Niger and Chad would further externalize the Europeansouthern borders. With regard to integration, the speaker noted thatmany experts had highlighted the perceived failure of the Frenchand Belgian models to confront the terrorist threat. Many youngpeople from “la banlieue – the people of the periphery”, were bornto non-European parents, and in extreme cases expressed their diffi-culties of integration and hate for their host societies, in which theyhad grown up, by joining ISIS or carrying out “low-cost” terroristattacks. Furthermore, some imams, in the case of Islamic communi-ties, had indicated publicly that the way to follow in Europe was notintegration but cohabitation. This concept directly challenged themany statements by political leaders who, to reassure their citizens,had spoken of integration as the solution to what some analysts werepresenting as a new Clash of Civilizations.Session five 69In conclusion, Mr Roque reiterated PAM’s commitment to deal-ing with these crucial issues and working together with the BSPC,in a close and structured cooperation, through both parliamentarynetworks, to achieve respect for human rights, ease the suffering ofcivilians in regional conflicts, strengthen the rule of law and con-solidate more coordinated efforts to fight human trafficking, whileassisting the most vulnerable members of society.Isabel Santos, Vice-President ofthe OSCE Parliamentary Assemblyand Vice-Chair of the PA’s Ad HocCommittee on Migration, gave anoverview on the Committee activitiesand presented the recommendationsadopted by the OSCE. She statedthat the unprecedented levels of mi-gration throughout the OSCE regionin 2014 and 2015 had prompted theOSCE Parliamentary Assembly to be-come increasingly active on this topic, including a number of fieldvisits to some of the most affected OSCE countries. In February2016, an Ad Hoc Committee on Migration had been establishedwith the mandate to serve as a focal point for the OSCE PA’s workin this field, to develop policy recommendations aimed at enhanc-ing the OSCE’s work in the field of migration and at improvingthe treatment of, and prospects for, migrants in OSCE countries;and to promote exchanges of best practices. The Committee cur-rently consisted of 23 members from 19 countries spanning NorthAmerica and Europe. Furthermore, the Committee had prepared aResolution on Ensuring a Coherent, Shared and Responsible Gov-ernance of Migration and Refugee Flows which had been adoptedon 9 July 2017.Ms Santos remarked that the Committee’s recommendations wereambitious as they sought to address a number of the interlinkingaspects of the current migration crisis, with the aim of develop-ing a coherent, shared and responsible approach to migration gov-ernance. She listed a number of critical areas for action such as:resettlement of persons in need of international protection fromfrontline states and increased support for Syrians and other refugeesin border countries; addressing irregular crossings as well as deathsin the Mediterranean; the need to stabilize Libya as the main de-parture point of irregular crossings in the Central Mediterraneanas well as resolving the conflict in Syria; respecting human rights70 Session fiveand preventing xenophobic attacks and discrimination against refu-gees, migrants and persons perceived to be migrants; the protectionof particularly vulnerable persons, especially unaccompanied andseparated children as well as women; combatting human traffick-ing and dismantling smuggling networks; reform of the EU asylumsystem, speeding up the processing of asylum claims as well as de-veloping more effective family reunification processes. With regardto the integration issue, the resolution had indicated that integra-tion in host countries should be organised with ensuring expeditedfamily reunions once a claim had been recognized and hosting ref-ugees in smaller housing units rather than ghettos. It had also em-phasised education – ensuring that refugees and migrant childrenwere able to attend mainstream schools as soon as possible; ensuringthat there were also sufficient opportunities for adults to learn thelanguage and customs of the host country and providing access tothe labour market of recognized refugees. Ms Santos also reportedas examples of best practice that the Committee had discussed thepositive examples of Italy’s SPRAR system (Protection System forAsylum Seekers and Refugees) and Canada’s Programme of PrivateSponsorship of Refugees. The Committee had furthermore high-lighted the role of the media in countering misperceptions aboutthe security threats posed by refugees and asylum-seekers by provid-ing accurate data and presenting well-articulated outreach. In herclosing remarks, the speaker pointed out that migration and refugeeflows had become the new normal. These were issues which theinternational community would have to face for decades to comeand which would only be exacerbated by conflict, poverty, climatechange and demographics. She underlined the importance of soli-darity, noting that purely voluntary mechanisms and appealing tocountries’ sense of solidarity did not usually work unless they wereaccompanied by financial or other sanctions. She gave the exampleof the Baltic States which, similar to her home country of Portugal,had historically low levels of refugees and asylum seekers; it hadbeen shown that a more welcoming attitude towards migrants andrefugees could be accompanied by concrete demographic, societal,cultural and political benefits. To build secure societies, the new-comers should be integrated and made to feel secure. Therefore,she advocated for inter-institutional coordination and cooperationand for further cooperation between the OSCE PA and the BSPC.Session five 71DebateMaira Mora, CBSS Secretariat Director General, with regard toestablishing the new BSPC Working Group on Migration and In-tegration informed the audience about the establishment of an “AdHoc Expert Group on Labour and Employment” in the frameworkof the CBSS Secretariat, linked to the Baltic Sea Labour Forum,the BSPC and the Northern Dimension Partnership on PublicHealth and Social Well-Being as the result of the Declaration of theHigh-Level Meeting of the Representatives of the Labour Minis-tries of the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) which had beenadopted by the High Representatives of the Ministries of Labour ofthe Council of the Baltic Sea States on 15th of June 2017 in Berlin.She announced that the CSO CBSS hopefully would adopt the es-tablishment of that Ad Hoc Expert Group at the meeting scheduledfor the following week. The activities of the group would focus onsix chosen areas: labour mobility; demographic challenges; knowl-edge supply; youth employment; migration/integration and involv-ing the groups of vulnerable people in the labour market, includingpersons with disabilities. Ms Mora announced that the first groupmeeting would be convened at the end of October or in early No-vember 2017 and invited the members of the BSPC Migration andIntegration Working Group to take part in it.She also admitted that the CBSS had granted seed money facilitysupport to develop a full project with regard to labour issues to theEuropean Social Fund with the aim of implementing some of theLabour Ministers’ recommendations as well as recommendationsstemming from the Soft Security and Migration in the Baltic Sea Re-gion conference which had been organised by the Icelandic Presi-dency of the CBSS and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finlandin Helsinki, 30-31 May 2017. The recommendations were due tobe published by the CBSS.Daniel Riazat, Member of the Swedish Parliament, raised the ques-tion of certain terms used when talking about refugee crises. Headmitted that it was those seeking asylum who were in crisis ratherthan the wealthiest countries in the world. He also called for moreself-criticism because some countries, such as Afghanistan, Iraq andSyria, used to be among the richest on the continent while thesedays, their people had to leave their homes and run away. The rea-sons for that were certain nations selling arms and invading othercountries officially in the name of democracy but with quite anoth-er goal in mind. As for integration, Mr Riazat pointed out that hehimself had escaped from Iranian dictatorship not to be anotherperson but to be able to remain himself. He admitted that he had72 Session fiveachieved success because he had been able to mix features he hadbrought from his country of origin with what he had learned inSweden. Furthermore, he opposed the word integration, as for himit meant accepting the norms of the society the refugee had not cho-sen but had been forced to come to, and he pleaded for coexistence,inclusion and sustainable migration.Veiko Spolītis, Member of the Latvian Parliament, supported theprevious speaker by saying that more tangible actions should beundertaken and more efforts be put into effect to solve the problem.He referred to the historical experiences of his fellow countrymenwith regard to migration, for instance to the USA or Canada duringthe Soviet occupation of the Baltic States. Furthermore, he respond-ed to Ms Santos’ remark on the supposedly insufficient response torefugee crises by the Baltic States by pointing out that the BalticStates had followed the EU jurisdiction to its full extent and forexample had successfully managed to integrate the people who hadarrived in Latvia and Estonia after WWII. With regard to currentmigration crises, Mr Spolītis agreed that the quotas which had beenestablished legally and equitably amongst all member states had notbeen met. The reason for that was that many of those who had cometo Latvia had left to be reunited with their families in wealthiercountries. Therefore, the proposal presented by Germany and Swe-den to harmonise the welfare aid for refugees was, according to thespeaker, the most worthy of support.Oleg Nilov, Member of Parliament of the State Duma of the Rus-sian Federation, emphasised that the debate should have also in-Session five 73cluded the responsibility for the current situation of instability inso many countries and the causes that were forcing people to leavetheir homes in Libya, Syria and Iraq. Without that broad debate,the refugee problem would never be solved. Mr Nilov moreovermentioned that sanctions imposed on Russia would not result inanything good for the region; instead, they might just achieve theopposite by bringing instability and further problems.In response to that, Veiko Spolītis, Member of the Latvian Parlia-ment, disagreed and said that discussing the guilt and blame of anyparticular country would not help to solve the problem. However,he confirmed that in the case of conflicts in Iraq, all western coun-tries shared the blame for what had happened there. Libya and Syriawere a different case, though, and Russia had accepted the inter-vention in the United Nations and in the Security Council. Thespeaker mentioned that the instability in that region was the legacyof the colonial era and the division of Syria’s and Iran’s territory bythe superpowers at the beginning of the 20th century. He advocateddealing with the challenge according to the European tradition ofhumanity and to take care of each person affected by the war.Summing up the debate, Per Rune Henriksen, co-chair of the ses-sion, voiced his belief that the question of migration and integra-tion could be tackled from many different angles and that the newBSPC Working Group would elaborate a number of good proposalsfor the BSR governments on how to turn that challenge into an op-portunity to expand the economy and overcome the demographicproblems in the BSR societies.74 Closing sessionClosing session 75Closing sessionFarewell to long-term membersof the BSPCCarola Veit, the BSPC President, extended her thanks to those who,for various reasons, were leaving the BSPC: to Per Rune Henriksenwho had represented the Norwegian delegation for several years inthe Standing Committee and had been engaged in BSPC work since2009 as a member of the Norwegian delegation; to Wille Rydman,Member of the Finnish Parliament, and the member of the StandingCommittee serving as the representative of the Nordic Council;to Sonja Mandt, Member of the Norwegian Parliament and theRapporteur on Cultural Affairs, who had provided very informativereports on culture and cultural heritage; and to Björn Andreassen,the secretary of the Norwegian delegation who had worked for manyyears with great commitment in the BSPC. Ms Veit also expressedwords of appreciation for the BSPC work of Franz Thönnes who haddecided to cease his work as a parliamentarian. She reminded heraudience that Mr Thönnes had first participated in the Baltic SeaParliamentary Conference in 1998 and had been the leader of thedelegations from the German Bundestag to the BSPC since then.He had been the president of the BSPC and the chairman of theWorking Group Labour Market and Social Welfare of the BSPC.76 Closing sessionAfterwards, he had been the rapporteur to the BSPC for this politicalarea, and for more than a dozen years, he had been a continuousmember of the Standing Committee which he had chaired in 2006-2007. He had been the driving force for the Baltic Sea Labour Forumwhich had been created as a result of this work. Ms Veit emphasisedthat Mr Thönnes had been a pillar supporting Baltic Sea cooperationfor many years and somebody who had significantly influenced andput his mark on the contents and the direction of the Baltic SeaParliamentary Conference for nearly 20 years.Jörgen Pettersson stressed the ability of Mr Thönnes to considerthe opinions of all BSPC members even though he represented oneof the largest countries. On behalf of the delegation of the ÅlandIslands, the speaker thanked him for his excellent cooperation andwished Mr Thönnes all the best for the future.Per Rune Henriksen commented that in some parts of theworld, some leaders believed that building walls would securethe prosperity for their citizens. He stated that the attitude of theBSPC was completely opposite – the BSPC work had always beento dismantle walls built many years ago and to remove hindrancesblocking cooperation because doing so was the only way to securea prosperous future for the Baltic Sea region. He continued bysaying that the parliamentarians’ job was to build trust, peaceand democracy for the people who elected parliamentarians. Heacknowledged that he was honoured to have been a part of this workfor 10 years now, noting his belief that the BSPC work would becontinue by the young people who had already engaged in debatesand had presented their opinions at the BSPC conference.Closing session 77Franz Thönnes offered his gratitude for all the words of appreciationand mentioned that he was grateful for the opportunity to work,for 20 years, with parliamentarians from different parties and fromdifferent countries. He emphasised that for him, the commoninterest of the Baltic Sea countries was to hold the Baltic Sea togetherand to strengthen the cooperation in the region. The speaker notedthat he had learned a lot from other BSPC delegates – for instancehow to cooperate, how to discuss and how to respect his opponents’position. At this point, he mentioned Mr Vatanyar Yagya from St.Petersburg, a long-term member of the BSPC. Ending his speech,Mr Thönnes called for handling the Baltic Sea cooperation withthe care it deserves as in the framework of BSPC work, politicianshad always found the compromise and consensus which was thefoundation of cooperation and the way to keep peace in that partof Europe.Closing of the 26th BSPCBSPC President Carola Veit opened the closing session of the 26thBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference and reminded those presentthat the decisions could be taken by unanimous consent.The fist decision taken by the BSPC was the adoption of changesto the BSPC Rules of Procedure reflecting changes to the nominaland relative figures of the BSPC contributions .78 Closing sessionThe second decision concerned the adoption of the BSPCResolution. At that point, Ms Veit remarked that the resolution hadfound the unanimous agreement of the members of the DraftingCommittee, although it had not been easy to reach that consensus.The President drew attention to the fact that the text was muchshorter than it had been in previous years which she considered asuccess.The conference agreed unanimously to adopt the 26th Resolutionof the BSPC.With the adoption of the resolution by the 26th Baltic SeaParliamentary conference, the gathering also agreed to theadministrative matters included in the resolution, including: thelaunch of a new Working Group on Migration and Integration,the Work Programme 2017-2018 as well as the adapted Rules ofProcedure.Furthermore, Ms Veit informed the group that the Presidency of theBSPC for 2017/2018 would now be taken over by the Parliamentof the Åland Islands and the symbol of the Presidency has passed toMr Jörgen Pettersson, the incoming BSPC President.Closing session 79In his inaugural speech, Jörgen Pettersson thanked Carola Veit andthe Parliament of Hamburg for having hosted the 26th Baltic SeaParliamentary Conference in a pleasant atmosphere, with generoushospitality as well as great discussions and debate. He also extendedhis thanks to Ms Veit for her friendship and the professional wayshe had led the work within the BSPC.He promised that he himself and all the other Ålanders woulddo their utmost to steer that unique and significant organisationtowards the future.He referred to the history of his homeland which proved thatÅland was a great example of crisis management. In difficult times,when the fate of independence had been weighed after complicatedand sometimes dangerous political negotiations, the League ofNations had decided that Åland should belong to Finland withguarantees for language, culture and much more. A unique type ofautonomy was formed which ever since had proven to be beneficialfor everyone. He emphasised that the lesson from that was, “Nomatter how complicated situations and conflicts seem to be, there isalways a solution “. Therefore, he continued, the organisers of nextyear’s conference should consider possible themes to be discussedby the BSPC. One of the most important issues for debate couldbe finding good ways towards a prosperous Baltic Sea. Amongstthe alternatives mentioned by the speaker was building sustainablesocieties in the Baltic Sea based on democratic values, human rightsand equal chances for everyone as everyone needed cooperation andintegration for a secure and prosperous Baltic Sea area. Mr Petterssonunderlined that there was no better place than the demilitarised andneutralised Åland Islands to discuss difficult questions like these forthe common best. Furthermore, the speaker referred to the varietyof nationalities and cultures of his home – among 30,000 peopleliving on the island, there were 90 different nationalities whichindicated that their society was used to dealing with new and othercultures.Mr Pettersson wholeheartedly invited the BSPC family to theÅland Islands for the 27th BSPC annual conference which wouldbe held in Mariehamn on 26-28 August 2018 and concluded bystressing that there was a shared goal uniting the people working forthe development of the Baltic Sea Region – the common journeytowards a better tomorrow.80 AnnexANNEXAnnex 81Annex 1Conference ResolutionThe participants, elected representatives from the Baltic Sea RegionStates*, assembling in Hamburg, Germany, 3-5 September 2017,• w elcoming successful steps taken to re-establish full-scale andcomprehensivepolitical dialogue in the Baltic Sea Region, inparticular within the Council of the Baltic SeaStates, highlight-ing the importance of the Foreign Ministers’ meeting on theoccasion ofthe 25th anniversary of the CBSS hosted by theCBSS Icelandic Presidency in Reykjavik on20 June 2017 andthe call for maintaining the momentum and spirit of these pos-itivedevelopments;• s upporting the appointment of an independent group of wisepersons, includingrepresentatives from civil society by theCBSS to elaborate a report with recommendationsfor a visionfor the Baltic Sea Region beyond 2020 and on the future role ofthe CBSS andthe means to expand its impact as a forum forpolitical dialogue and practical cooperationin the region;• w elcoming the High-Level Meeting of the Representatives ofthe CBSS LabourMinistries and the Declaration adopted on 15June 2017 in Berlin;• w elcoming the adoption of the CBSS Action Plan - “Realizingthe Vision: The Baltic2030 Action Plan” as an important steptowards ensuring sustainable development of theBaltic SeaRegion;*Parliaments and Parliamentary Organizations:Baltic Assembly, Free Hanseatic City of Bremen, Denmark, Estonia, Federal Republicof Germany, Finland, Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, Iceland, KaliningradRegion, Karelian Republic, Latvia, Leningrad Region, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,Nordic Council, Norway, Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Securityand Co-operation in Europe (OSCE PA) Poland, City of St . Petersburg, FederalAssembly of the Russian Federation, Schleswig-Holstein, Sweden, Åland Islands .82 Annex• w elcoming the decision by the CBSS to continue operation ofthe Council’s ProjectSupport Facility for 2017-2019, noting inparticular its role as a tool for supporting thestrategically impor-tant project activities in the Baltic Sea Region;• f urther promoting and encouraging public-private practicalinteraction as a tool forcross-border cooperation, economicallyviable actions and projects for the benefit of theBaltic SeaRegion, taking into account the continuous progress made bythe SaintPetersburg initiative;• c ontinuing involving youth into the procedures of the BSPCworking groups.Especially during the second half of a two-yearmandate of a working group the vivid debate with young peo-ple nominated by the member parliaments can be an enrichingalso with regard to the annual conference;• e xpressing deep concern about the growing number of terroristattacks that haveoccurred since the last BSPC in Riga namely inStockholm, St. Petersburg and Berlin and -by reaffirming theposition in the 25th resolution - utterly condemning terrorismin all itsforms as an increasing common threat for our citizensand our shared values, a threatwhich can only be eliminated byjoint efforts;• b eing convinced that the issues of Migration and Integrationpose a tremendouschallenge to all countries in the Baltic SeaRegion as well as a great chance for their furtherdevelopment.Those issues call for intensive dialogue as well as close coopera-tion andcoordinated policies also between the Baltic Sea States;discussing Cooperation and Participation as well as Innovative Sci-ence and Sustainable Tourism in the Baltic Sea Region,call on the governments in the Baltic Sea Region, the CBSS and the EU,Regarding Cooperation in the Region, to1. intensify the cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region including theNorthern Dimension,the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region andthe Strategy for the socio-economicdevelopment of the North-WestFederal district of Russia in addition to other regional actorsby iden-tifying common priorities and developing respective regional strate-gies and actionplans in fields of common interest and mutual bene-Annex 83fits. Since macro-regional strategiesgather stakeholders and actorsfrom all sectors and levels of governance, macro-regionalstrategiesoffer efficient instruments to improve relations between neighbour-ing countriesand thereby support European Neighbourhood Policy;2. further strengthen and develop HELCOM as the coordinatorof the regionalimplementation of ocean-related goals of the 2030Sustainable Development Agenda ofthe United Nations, throughthe strengthened implementation of the HELCOM Baltic SeaAc-tion Plan and further commitment to achieve a Baltic Sea in goodenvironmental statusby 2021 and if applicable, by renewing theBaltic Sea Action Plan in line with the UNSustainable Develop-ment Agenda with a time perspective until 2030;3. support HELCOM in elaborating a regional action plan onunderwater noise as wellas in implementing the marine litterregional action plan and in its battle againsteutrophication; con-crete measures to reduce the input of plastics into the marineenvi-ronment should be taken on;4. support the significance of the Science, Research and Innova-tion Agenda as it isoutlined by CBSS Science Ministers’ Conferenceheld in 2016 in the Chair’s Conclusions:Baltic Science: Renewingthe Commitment to Science/Research Joint Actions in the Baltic-Sea Region;5. elaborate a common programme based on a strategy within theframework of theCBSS to develop sustainable tourism in the BalticSea Region, considering the followingaspects• t he reduction as far as possible of obstacles to cross-border trav-elling to promotethe freedom of travel including promotion ofthe local border traffic regime on outer bordersof the EU• f acilitating border and visa regime for youth and organizedtourist groups• t he improvement of sustainable transport and tourism infra-structure• s upport for the idea of Baltic Sea Region States creating acommon Baltic Sea Brand,based on cultural and natural her-itage, to strengthen tourism competitiveness• t he improvement of travel options especially for young people(e.g. interferry);84 AnnexRegarding Democratic Participation and the Digital Age, to6. further improve and develop means of democratic participation,e.g. throughtransparency, comprehensive information, governmentaccountability and otherinstruments of citizen participation;7. commit to strengthening the involvement of youth in all areasof society, including,but not limited to, government, science, edu-cation and culture. To this end, the BSPC willcontinue to worktowards establishing a Baltic Sea-wide youth forum;8. stimulate a common dialogue and debate in the Baltic Searegion on ethicalconditions for the digitization of states and socie-ties and the possibilities of a common legalframework in this policyfield. The task of the Parliaments is to guarantee fundamentalrights,democracy and the rule of law in the digital world as well. Parlia-ments andgovernments are encouraged to ensure that there is nogap between the digital societyand the state;9. work with the aim to make the Baltic sea region a global front-runner in making newdigital technologies work for democracy andpolitical development;10. stimulate policies to enhance digitization of democratic activityand processes withthe aim to increase public participation in deci-sion-making through sharing of technologyand best practices bygovernments and parliaments;11. draw attention to training and education for the youth withregard to digitalizationopportunities in order to foster a competentand responsible use of the evolvingtechnological innovations -thereby contributing to democratic societies in the digital age;12. understand state coordination of innovation policies in terms ofa social progressand not only as a technological process;13. support the social partners in the Baltic Sea Region in their pur-suit to use thechances of digitalization for decent and sustainableworking and living conditions;14. draw special attention to the gender and generation aspects ofdigital innovationand the consequent societal changes;15. bearing in mind the importance of freedom of expression,explore legal possibilitiesand a common approach to react against“Hate Speech” and “Fake News”;Annex 85Regarding Innovative Science and Research, to16. intensify scientific cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region qualita-tively andquantitatively and therefore• p romote the development of more credible projections of thefuture of the BalticSea, based on the best basic marine researchas well as the most plausiblesocioeconomic development sce-narios and associated alterations in humanpressures, and thecomplex impacts of climate change on the ecosystem,• p romote the delivery of new comprehensive knowledge ontrue long-term effects ofvarious human pressures on all organ-izational levels - from genes to an ecosystem,as well as sugges-tions on ways to mitigate these effects,• p rovide a scientific foundation for innovative cross-borderpolicy making, includingpotential internalization of the costsof marine ecosystem services into the economicsystem;17. promote the further development of the Baltic Sea Science Net-work to enhancemacro-regional dimensions of science and researchpolicy from which higher education andresearch institutions shouldbenefit and to thus create a supra-regional network thatprovides an“administrative network” in addition to the existing “scientific net-work” tomanage the scientific cooperation in a useful and targetedway, especially in the frameworkof the project “Baltic Science Net-work”;18. take a more active role with regard to providing sustainableresources for researchand development in order to further innova-tions by developing e.g. common standards,data security and intel-lectual property rights within the Baltic Sea Region;19. continue to support the efforts in building closer ties betweenanalytical researchinstitutions and businesses in the framework ofthe Baltic TRAM (Transnational ResearchAccess in the Macro-re-gion) project;20. further improve the conditions of the Baltic Sea Region inglobal scientificcompetition through joint strengthened efforts byincreased investments in innovativescience and research;21. recognize the EUSBSRs Policy Area Innovation and Policy AreaEducationcommitment to ensure a prosperous, sustainable andcompetitive region based on frontrunning innovation, research and86 Annexhigher education activities as “a common good” andhighlight theimportance of developing measures to overcome innovation andperformancegaps in the region;22. strengthen citizen awareness of education and science as impor-tant innovationresources through suitable measures;23. referring to the success of the Baltic Sea Science Day held forthe first time in St.Petersburg on 8 February 2017, to support andpromote the continuation of this initiativeas a useful tool for theintensification of scientific cooperation in the Baltic Sea Regionandfor improving the visibility of the Region’s achievements andpotential in the field ofscience, research and innovation;24. support BONUS II;25. intensify measures to facilitate cross-border border integrationof interdisciplinaryEarth system science in the Baltic Sea region;26. call for seeking synergies and measures for developing the Arc-tic-Baltic joint vision,collaboration and scientific performance;27. improve the short-term mobility possibilities of researchers byprovidingunbureaucratic support outside of large funded projectsto allow for more flexibility invisibility and international researchcollaboration and a better integration of the Baltic SeaRegionresearch landscape, to intensify the mobility of teaching profession-als and studentsby stipend programmes for mobility within the Bal-tic Sea Region imparting the benefits ofscientific and culturalexchanges and while strengthening and to promoting summer-schools as well as exchange programmes in the Baltic Sea Region;Regarding Sustainable Tourism, to28. work towards the vision that the Baltic Sea Region will becomethe first eco-regionin the world, conceiving the Baltic Sea Region asthe first region where ecology andeconomy work together in a bal-anced and integrated manner to sustain societies andculture.29. ensure that the consequences of tourism are sustainable byadopting models andmethods to save and protect nature and orientwork along the principle that sustainabilityis the guiding principleand standard practice in all types of tourism in the Baltic Sea region;Annex 8730. further examine the use of carbon footprints to improve thecomparability andattractiveness of tourism products and their eco-logical and economical impacts; furtherimprove the transparency oftourism products as to their quality in terms of sustainability,e.g byusing common labels and standards;31. promote wastewater facilities at harbours in the Baltic SeaRegion;32. improve interrailing, to promote the use of alternative sourcesof energy and fostera sustainable multimodal split (sea, road, rail),and to improve bike infrastructure includingbicycle stands andEbike charging stations at transport hubs as examples for ecologi-calforms of tourism;33. jointly task a Tourism Transport Impact Assessment Study toanalyze continuouslythe output of different political action toincrease the level of sustainability;34. counteract the lack of skilled workers in the tourism sector inthe Baltic Sea Region,e.g. by establishing an international winterschool to increase labour skills, language andintercultural skills;35. fully use the possibilities of the circular and fair sharing econo-mies creating newjobs in the service sectors;36. foster a joint promotion by private and public stakeholders ofthe Baltic Sea Regionas a tourism destination especially in newsource markets and to foster cooperation in theregion as a main keyfor the successful development of the Baltic Sea Region;37. better use the potential of digitalization in promoting sustaina-ble tourism andfurther support the development of the Baltic SeaTourism Center into a permanentplatform for information andexchange of know-how at the transnational level, especiallywithregard to the long-term priorities of the CBSS;38. sustain a sound environment, safeguarding the recreationalquality of natural andman-made landscapes and integrating natu-ral, cultural and human environments withinthe BSR so that tour-ism activities do not endanger the natural and cultural heritage oftheBSR and instead actively contribute to their preservation;39. promote and sustain the competitive quality and efficiency ofthe tourism businesswhile also creating satisfactory social condi-tions for tourists, the workforce and the localpopulation;88 Annex40. involve citizens in the development of tourism strategies.Furthermore the Conference Decides to41.welcome with gratitude the kind offer of the Parliament of Ålandto host the 27thBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Mariehamnon 26–28 August 2018.Annex 89Annex 2List of ParticipantsMember Parliaments and Parliamentary OrganizationsFirst Mayor of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg1. Olaf ScholzÅland2. Jörgen Pettersson, Member of the Åland Parliament, Vice-President of the BSPC3. Sara Kemetter, Member of the Åland Parliament4. Annette Holmberg-Jansson, Member of the ÅlandParliament5. Ingrid Johansson, Member of the Åland Parliament6. Sten Eriksson, Secretary of the delegation of the ÅlandParliament7. Maj Falck, Member of Staff of the Åland ParliamentBaltic Assembly8. Prof Aadu Must, President of the Baltic Assembly andMember of the Estonia Parliament9. Prof Jānis Vucāns – Vice President of the Baltic Assemblyand Member of the Latvian Parliament, Vice-President of theBSPC10. Marika Laizane-Jurkane, Secretary GeneralBremen11. Sülmez Dogan, Vice-President of the State Parliament ofBremen12. Antje Grotheer, Member of the State Parliament of BremenDenmark13. Karin Gaardsted, Member of the Danish Parliament14. Peder Pedersen, Advisor of the Danish Parliament15. Louise Egholm Hattens, Advisor of the Danish Parliament90 AnnexEstonia16. Johannes Kert, Member of the Estonian Parliament17. Ene Rongelep, Senior Advisor of the Parliament of EstoniaFinland18. Veera Ruoho, Head of the Delegation of the FinnishParliament19. Hanna Kosonen, Member of the Parliament of Finland20. Riitta Myller, Member of the Parliament of Finland21. Maria Tolppanen, Member of the Parliament of Finland22. Anne-Mari Virolainen, Member of the Parliament ofFinland23. Anna Kiiskinen, Secretary for International Affairs of theParliament of Finland24. Hans Häyrynen, Advisor of the Parliament of FinlandGermany25. Franz Thönnes, Member of the German Bundestag,Chairman of the German delegation to the BSPC26. Jürgen Klimke, Member of the German Bundestag27. Peter Stein, Member of the German Bundestag28. Sonja Steffen, Member of the German Bundestag29. Herbert Behrens, Member of the German Bundestag30. Nicole Tepasse, Secretary of the delegation of the GermanBundestag31. Petra Grätz, Secretary of the delegation of the GermanBundestag32. Doris Schächter, Political Advisor at the German BundestagHamburg33. Carola Veit, President of the BSPC, President of the StateParliament of Hamburg34. Dr Kurt Duwe, Member of the State Parliament ofHamburg35. Norbert Hackbusch, Member of the State Parliament ofHamburg36. Prof Jörn Kruse, Member of the State Parliament ofHamburg37. Sören Schumacher, Member of the State Parliament ofHamburg38. Ulrike Sparr, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg39. Michael Westenberger, Member of the State Parliament ofHamburg40. Barbara Duden, Member of the State Parliament ofHamburg41. Murat Gözay, Member of the State Parliament of HamburgAnnex 9142. Gulfam Malik, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg43. Dorothee Martin, Member of the State Parliament ofHamburg44. Olaf Steinbiß, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg45. Dr Sven Tode, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg46. Johannes Düwel, Director of the Parliament of Hamburg47. Florian Lipowski, Advisor of the Parliament of Hamburg48. Friederike Lünzmann, Advisor of the Parliament ofHamburgIceland49. Teitur Björn Einarsson, Member of the IcelandicDelegation to the Nordic Council50. Hrannar Arnarsson, Member of the Icelandic Delegation tothe Nordic Council51. Brynjar Nielsson, Member of the Icelandic Delegation tothe Nordic Council52. Helgi Thorsteinsson, Member of the Icelandic Delegationto the Nordic CouncilKaliningrad53. Aleksandr Musevich, Member of the Parliament of theKaliningrad Regional Duma54. Leonid Stepanyuk, Member of the Parliament of theKaliningrad Regional Duma55. Iuliia Velichko, Employee of the Kaliningrad RegionalDumaKarelia56. Dr Leonid Liminchuk, Member of the Parliament of theKarelia Regional DumaLatvia57. Dr Romualds Razuks, Member of the Parliament of Latvia58. Atis Lejins, Member of the Parliament of Latvia59. Veiko Spolitis, Member of the Parliament of Latvia60. Juris Vilums, Member of the Parliament of Latvia61. Ingrida Sticenko, Senior Advisor of the InterparliamentaryRelations BureauLeningrad62. R egina Illarionova, Member of the Leningrad Regional Duma63. Ivan Khabarov, Member of the Leningrad Regional Duma64. Andrey Lebedev, Member of the Leningrad Regional Duma65. Alexander Perminov, Member of the Leningrad RegionalDuma92 Annex66. Nikolay Pustotin, Member of the Leningrad RegionalDuma67. Zoya Rodina, Advisor of the Leningrad Regional DumaMecklenburg-Vorpommern68. Beate Schlupp, Vice-President of the State Parliament ofMecklenburg-Vorpommern69. Dirk Friedriszik, Member of the State Parliament ofMecklenburg-Vorpommern70. Nikolaus Kramer, Member of the State Parliament ofMecklenburg-Vorpommern71. Karsten Kolbe, Member of the State Parliament ofMecklenburg-Vorpommern72. Dirk Zapfe, Head of Division at the State Parliament ofMecklenburg-Vorpommern73. Georg Strätker, Senior Advisor of the State Parliament ofMecklenburg-Vorpommern74. Julien Radloff, Advisor of the State Parliament ofMecklenburg-VorpommernNordic Council75. Wille Rydman, Member of the Parliament of Finland andNordic Council76. Sigurður Ingi Jóhannsson, Member of the Parliament ofIceland and Nordic Council77. Arne Fogt Bergby, International Advisor of the NordicCouncilNorway78. Per Rune Henriksen, Member of the Norwegian Parliament79. Sonja Mandt, Member of the Norwegian Parliament80. Ingebjørg Godskesen, Member of the NorwegianParliament81. Marianne Seip, Political Advisor of the NorwegianParliament82. Trine Eskedal, Head of Section of the Norwegian Parliament83. Bjørn Andreassen, Senior Adviser of the InternationalDepartment of the Norwegian ParliamentParliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security andCooperation in Europa (OSCE PA)84. Isabel Santos, OSCE PA Vice-PresidentAnnex 93PolandSejm of the Republic of Poland85. Dorota Arciszewska-Mielewczyk, Chair of the Delegationof the Sejm and the Senate of the Republic of Poland to theBSPC, Sejm of the Republic of Poland86. Jerzy Borowczak, Member of the Delegation of the Sejmand the Senate of the Republic of Poland to the BSPC, Sejmof the Republic of Poland87. Zbigniew Gryglas, Member of the Delegation of the Sejmand the Senate of the Republic of Poland to the BSPC, Sejmof the Republic of Poland88. Grzegorz Matusiak, Member of the Delegation of the Sejmand the Senate of the Republic of Poland to the BSPC, Sejmof the Republic of PolandSenate of the Republic of Poland89. Piotr Koperski, Office for International and EuropeanUnion Affairs, Chancellery of the Senate of the Republic ofPolandRussian FederationCouncil of the Federation90. Anna Zhiltsova, Councilor of the Committee for ForeignAffairs of the Council of the FederationState Duma91. Valentina Pivnenko, Chair of the Russian Delegation to theBSPC, Member of the State Duma92. Vladimir Bortko, Member of the State Duma93. Oleg Nilov, Member of the State Duma94. Alexey Veller, Member of the State Duma95. Yulia Guskova, Advisor on International Relations at theState Duma96. Ekaterina Jordan, Assistant to the Head of the Delegation97. Anna Priemysheva, InterpreterMinistry of Foreign Affairs98. Sergey Petrovich, Deputy Director of the Second EuropeanDepartment, Russian Senior Official at the CBSS Committeeof Senior OfficialsSaint Petersburg99. Dmitry Tugov, Member of the Saint Petersburg LegislativeAssembly100. Prof Vatanyar Yagya, Plenipotentiary of the Chairman of theLegislative Assembly for International Relations94 AnnexHuman Rights Ombudsman101. Alexander ShishlovSchleswig-Holstein102. Rasmus Andresen, Member of the State Parliament ofSchleswig-Holstein103. Wolfgang Baasch, Member of the State Parliament ofSchleswig-Holstein104. Hartmut Hamerich, Member of the State Parliament ofSchleswig-Holstein105. Stephan Holowaty, Member of the State Parliament ofSchleswig-Holstein106. Volker Schnurrbusch, Member of the State Parliament ofSchleswig-Holstein107. Jette Waldinger-Thiering, Member of the State Parliamentof Schleswig-Holstein108. Jutta Schmidt-Holländer, Secretary for International Affairsof the State Parliament of Schleswig-HolsteinSweden109. Staffan Danielsson, Member of the Swedish Parliament110. Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson, Member of the SwedishParliament111. Pyry Niemi, Member of the Swedish Parliament112. Daniel Riazat, Member of the Swedish Parliament113. Suzanne Svensson, Member of the Swedish Parliament114. Petra Sjöström, Senior Advisor of the Swedish ParliamentAnnex 95BSPC and ObserversBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference115. Bodo Bahr, Secretary GeneralBaltic Development Forum116. Flemming Stender, DirectorBaltic Sea Region University Network (BSRUN)117. Kari Hyppönen, PresidentBaltic Sea States Sub-regional Cooperation (BSSSC)118. Roger Ryberg, Chairman119. Hilde Beate Aaro, Senior Advisor120. Malgorzata Ludwiczek, CoordinatorBaltic Sea Forum121. Prof Kurt Bodewig, President122. Uwe Döring, Board Member123. Jürgen Schmidt, Treasurer124. Markus Köhl, Head of the Office of the BoardCouncil of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS)125. Hans Olsson, Chair of the Committee of Senior Officials ofthe Council of the Baltic Sea States, Ambassador of Sweden126. Guðmundur Árni Stefánsson, Outgoing CBSS Chair,Committee of Senior Officials, Ambassador of Iceland127. Maira Mora, Director General of the SecretariatCPMR Baltic Sea Commission128. Jari Sainio, President129. Ossi Savolainen, Regional Mayor of Helsinki-UusimaaRegional CouncilHelsinki Commission (HELCOM)130. Monika Stankiewicz, Executive SecretaryParliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea EconomicCooperation (PABSEC)131. Prof Asaf Hajiyev, Secretary GeneralParliamentary Association of North-West Russia (PANWR)132. Dr Victor Novozhilov, Chairman of the Archangelskregional CouncilUnion of the Baltic Cities (UBC)133. Mikko Lohikoski, Strategy Coordinator96 AnnexConsular CorpsFinland134. Hans-Christoph StadelLatvia135. Sabine Sommerkamp-HomannNorway136. Detlef PalmPoland137. Piotr Golema138. Mariusz PindelRussian Federation139. Ivan KhotulevSweden140. Dr Sven I. OksaarSpeakers• Carola Veit, BSPC President and President of the HamburgParliament• Olaf Scholz, First Mayor of the Free and Hanseatic City ofHamburg• Guðmundur Árni Stefánsson, Outgoing CBSS Chair• Hans Olsson, Chair of the CBSS Committee of SeniorOfficials• Prof Jānis Vucāns, BSPC Vice-President• Jörgen Pettersson, MP Åland, Rapporteur on IntegratedMaritime Policy• Sonja Mandt, MP Norway, Rapporteur on Cultural Affairs• Franz Thönnes, MP Germany, Rapporteur on LabourMarket and Social Welfare• Prof Jobst Fiedler, Hertie School of Governance, ProfessorEmeritus• Alexander Shishlov, Saint Petersburg Human RightsOmbudsman• Veiko Spolitis, Member of the Parliament of Latvia• Valentina Pivnenko, Member of the Parliament of the StateDuma• Frank Rieger, Chaos Computer Club, Speaker• Espen Krogh, President Nordic Youth CouncilAnnex 97• Prof Bathmann, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research,Director• Jari Haapala, Finnish Meteorological Institute, Head of UnitMarine Research• Prof Robert Feidenhans’l, European XFEL, Director• Monika Stankiewicz, HELCOM Executive Secretary• Maira Mora, Director General of the Secretariat of the CBSS• Sara Kemetter, Vice-Chairperson of the BSPC WG onSustainable Tourism and Member of the Parliament of theÅland Islands• Friederike Schick, Baltic Sea Youth Parliament• Elias Lindström, Baltic Sea Youth Parliament• Camilla Gunell, Deputy Prime Minister of the Åland Islands• Dr Monika Griefahn, AIDA Cruises, Chief SustainabilityOfficer• Aleksandr Sirchenko, Vice-Director General on theDevelopment on Internal Tourism, TUI Russia• Arild Molstad, Author and Journalist• Michael Otremba, Hamburg Tourismus GmbH, Director• Isabel Santos, Vice-Chair of the OSCE PA ad hocCommittee on Migration and former OSCE PA Vice-President• Pedro Roque, Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean,PresidentGuestsDeutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron141. Christian Harringa, Director of Administration142. Uwe Sassenberg, Coordinator Baltic TRAMGerman Institute for Trust and Security on the Internet(DIVSI)143. Michael Schneider, Head of Unit CommunicationHamburg Centre for Political Education144. Dr Sabine Bamberger-Stemmann, DirectorHamburg Data Protection Officer145. Prof Johannes CasparHamburg Institute for Social Research146. Sabrina Broocks, Administrative Director147. Victoria Romano, AdvisorHamburg Ministry for Science & Research148. Klaus von Lepel, Head of Unit98 Annex149. Katariina Röbbelen-Voigt, Project Manager Baltic ScienceNetworkHamburg Tourismus GmbH150. Michael Otremba, Director151. Dr Larissa Wolf, AdvisorHamburg University – Center of Teaching and Learning152. Prof Kerstin Mayrberger, Deputy HeadHamburg Youth Parliament153. Nicloas Kleenworth, Member of the PresidiumHouse of Representatives of the House of Representatives ofthe Republic of Belarus154. Prof Valery Voronetsky, Chairman of the PermanentCommission for International AffairsMinistry of Foreign Affairs, Finland155. Erja Tikka, Ambassador for Baltic Sea Affairs and EUSBSRCoordinatorParliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean (PAM)156. Dr Pedro Roque, President157. Dr Renato Sampaio, President of the Portuguese PAMDelegationParliamentary Forum Southern Baltic Sea158. Jan Bobek, Chairman159. Maciej Zasada, Member of the Assembly of Warmia andMazury VoivodshipAnnex 99Administration of the Hamburg Parliament161. Marco Wiesner, Head of the Projects and EventsDepartment162. Ulfert Kaphengst, Head of the Protocol Division163. Katrin Dreyer, Head of the IT Department164. Markus Pawelczyk, Personal Advisor to the President165. Sascha Balasko, Press Secretary166. Kerstin Kuhlmann, Event Manager167. Brigitte Stein, Assistant at the Protocol Division168. Sabine Grählert, Assistant at the Protocol Division169. Thomas Felskowsky, Shuttle Coordinator170. Susanne Ahrens, Internet and Social Media, Publications171. Christin Schmidt, staff172. Manuela Knieler, staff173. Dr Monika Potztal, staffOther ParticipantsWikipedia174. Ralf Boesch, Photographer175. Olaf Kosinsky, Photographer176. Ralf Roletschek, Photographerrodenb.org177. Achim Schnell, Director178. Nina Bruun, AssistantInterpreters179. Elena Almas180. Maria Hemph Moran181. Aleksandr Jakimovicz182. Catherine Johnson183. Piotr Krasnowolski184. Stein Larsen185. Aleksei Repin186. Aleksandre Tchekhov187. Gyda Thurow188. Martina Würzburg100 AnnexAnnex 3ProgrammeSunday, 3 September09:30 – 10:00 Participant registration and information deskavailable at theEntrance Hall, Town Hall09:30 Departure from Scandic Hamburg Emporio by bus(only Drafting / Standing Committee participants)10:00 – 12:00 Meeting of the BSPC Drafting CommitteeRoom 151, Town Hall12:00 coffee break / snacks12:30 – 14:00 Meeting of the BSPC Standing CommitteeRoom 151, Town Hall13:00 Departure from Scandic Hamburg Emporio by bus13:15 Departure from the Town Hall by busExcursion I – Deutsches Elektronen-SynchrotronResearch Center(back at the hotels around 17:00)13:45 Departure from Scandic Hamburg Emporio by bus14:00 Departure from the Town Hall by busExcursion II – Harbour boat trip18:00 Departure from Scandic Hamburg Emporio by bus18:30 Reception and Dinner hosted by Ms Carola Veit,President of the Hamburg ParliamentTown HallHonorary Guest: H. E. Sigmar Gabriel, Ministerof Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic ofGermanyAnnex 101Monday, 4 September08:00 Departure from Scandic Hamburg Emporio bybus (if necessary – only Drafting Committeeparticipants)08:30 – 09:30 Meeting of the BSPC Drafting Committee (ifnecessary)Room 151, Town Hall09:00 Departure from Scandic Hamburg Emporio by bus09:30 OpeningMs Carola Veit, MP, Hamburg, President of theBSPCWelcome by Mr Olaf ScholzFirst Mayor of the Free and Hanseatic City ofHamburg102 Annex10:00 FIRST SESSIONCooperation in the Baltic Sea RegionChair: Jörgen Pettersson, MP, Åland, Vice-Presidentof the BSPCCo-Chair: Valentina Pivnenko, MP, RussianFederationReport from the Council of the Baltic Sea States(CBSS)- Mr Guðmundur Árni Stefánsson, OutgoingCBSS Chair, Committee of Senior Officials,Ambassador of Iceland- Mr Hans Olsson, Chairman of the Commit-tee of Senior Officials, Ambassador of SwedenProf Jānis Vucāns – “Implementation of the 25thBSPC Resolution”Briefings from BSPC Rapporteurs- Jörgen Pettersson on Integrated MaritimePolicy- Sonja Mandt on Cultural Affairs- Franz Thönnes on the Baltic Sea LabourForumDebate11:30 Family Photosubsequently Exhibition Opening “Finland 100 AnniversaryExhibition”Annex 10312:30 SECOND SESSIONDemocratic Participation & the Digital AgeModerated by: Carola Veit, MP, Hamburg, Presidentof the BSPCProf Jobst Fiedler, Professor of Public andFinancial Management, Hertie School ofGovernance – “Democracy at a Crossroads –Rebuilding Trust through Participation”Alexander Shishlov, Human Rights Ombudsmanfor Saint Petersburg - “Digital Age Challenges toHuman Rights and Democracy”Roundtable:- Veiko Spolītis, MP, Latvia- Valentina Pivnenko, MP, RussianFederation- Alexander Shishlov, Human RightsOmbudsman for Saint Petersburg- Prof Jobst Fiedler, Professor of Public andFinancial Management, Hertie School ofGovernance- Frank Rieger, Speaker of ChaosComputer Club- Espen Krogh, Nordic Council YouthPresidentDebate14:00 Lunch104 Annex15:00 THIRD SESSIONScience and ResearchChair: Prof Jānis Vucāns, MP, Latvia, Vice-Presidentof the BSPC Co-Chair: Prof Aadu Must, MP,President of the Baltic AssemblyMonika Stankiewicz, HELCOM ExecutiveSecretary – “State of the Baltic Sea 2017 – in thepresent and in the future”Maira Mora, Director General of the PermanentInternational Secretariat of the Council of theBaltic Sea States – “Science and Research policyin the Baltic Sea Region and the Baltic ScienceNetwork”Prof Ulrich Bathmann, Leibniz Institute for BalticSea Research – “Evidence-based EnvironmentalManagement”Jari Haapala, Finnish Meteorological Institute –“Utility of Regional Climate Models for the BalticSea Region”Prof Robert Feidenhans'l, Director EuropeanXFEL – „European X-ray – A new research facilityat the forefront of Science”Debate17:00-18:00 Meeting of the BSPC Drafting Committee (ifnecessary)Room 151, Town Hall17:00 Departure for Scandic Hamburg Emporio by bus18:30 Departure from Scandic Hamburg Emporio by bus18:45 Departure from the Town Hall by busAnnex 10519:00 Buffet Dinner hosted by Ms Carola Veit,President of the Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConferenceAlsterloungeTuesday, 5 September08:00 Departure from Scandic Hamburg Emporio bybus (if necessary – only Drafting Committeeparticipants)08:30 Meeting of the BSPC Drafting Committee (ifnecessary)Room 151, Town Hall09:00 Departure from Scandic Hamburg Emporio bybus09:30 FOURTH SESSIONSustainable TourismChair: Pyry Niemi, MP, SwedenCo-Chair: Dorota Arciszewska-Mielewczyk, MP,Poland (tbc)Sara Kemetter, BSPC Working Group Vice-Chairperson – “Final report from the BSPCWorking Group on Sustainable Tourism”Friederike Schick and Elias Lindström, BalticSea Parliamentary Youth Forum – “Reportingback to Plenary: Developing Sustainable Tourism”Dr Monika Griefahn, Chief Sustainability OfficerAIDA Cruises – “Sustainability at AIDA Cruises”106 AnnexAlexandr Sirchenko, Vice-Director Generalon the Development on Internal Tourism, TUIRussiaArild Molstad, Author and Journalist, Advisoron conservation and sustainable tourism tointernational institutions, Norway – “The ParisClimate Agreement and tourism: A Roadmap forthe future”Michael Otremba, Managing Director HamburgTourismus GmbH – “Sustainable Tourism inCities. The permission to grow?“Debate11:30 NEW BSPC WORKING GROUPMigration & IntegrationChair: Franz Thönnes, MP, GermanyCo-Chair: Per Rune Henriksen, MP, NorwayPedro Roque, President of the ParliamentaryAssembly of the MediterraneanIsabel Santos, Vice-Chair of the OSCE PAad hoc Committee on Migration and OSCEPA Vice-President – "For a Coherent, Sharedand Responsible Governance of Migration andRefugee Flows"DebateAnnex 10712:15 CLOSING OF THE 26th BSPCChair: Ms Carola Veit, MP, Hamburg, Presidentof the BSPCCo-Chair: Mr Jörgen Pettersson, Åland, Vice-President of the BSPC- Administrative matters- Adoption of the Conference Resolution- Address by the incoming President ofthe BSPC 2017-2018- Presentation of Next Year’s Host Country13:00 LunchBus transfers Town Hall – Hamburg Airport110 Opening of the ConferenceOpening of the Conference 111112 Opening of the ConferenceOpening of the Conference 113Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Secretariatwww.bspc.netBSPC Secretariatc/o Schlossgartenallee 1519061 SchwerinGermany