Conference Report (English)

27 BSPCYEARSBaltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceThe Baltic Sea – Our LifelineCooperation, Sustainabilityand Smart EnergyThree Pillars for FutureDevelopment27th Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConference2727th Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConferenceMariehamn, 26-28 August 20182The Baltic Sea – Our Lifeline The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC)Cooperation, Sustainability and Smart Energy was established in 1991 as a forum for politicalThree Pillars for Future Development dialogue between parliamentarians from the27th 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, Marc Hertel, efforts to support a sustainable environmental,Bodo Bahr social and economic development of the BalticSea Region. It strives at enhancing the visibilityEditing: Bodo Bahr of the Baltic Sea Region and its issues in a widerLayout: Produktionsbüro TINUS European context.BSPC gathers parliamentarians from 11Photos: Ralf Roletschek, Olaf Kosinsky 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 otherSchlossgartenallee 15 relevant national, regional and local stake-19061 Schwerin holders in the Baltic Sea Region and itsGermany neighbourhood.3INTRODUCTIONLadies and Gentlemen,It is my distinct honour to have served as BSPC President for this past year and tobe the host of our 27th annual conference. The Plenary Hall of the Åland Lagtingetand the Åland Islands – the islands of peace – set the scene for the 27th Baltic SeaParliamentary Conference. This conference is after 1999 and 2010 the third BalticSea Parliamentary Conference which took place in this Plenary Hall and had beenthe first one under the Presidency of Åland. Thanks to everyone attending thatmake this possible.The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Åland on 26-28 August 2018 offeredconstructive dialogue, open debate, forward-looking solutions, friendship and astrong will to increase cooperation and prosperity in the region. The members ofBSPC are from different geographical and cultural parts but are united in their carefor the Baltic Sea. Our common language is the search for a prosperous future inour common challenge.Especially for the people of the Åland Islands, the title of the 27th Baltic SeaParliamentary Conference brings it to the heart of what we are all about:The Baltic Sea our Lifeline.We are not only surrounded by the Baltic Sea, wherever we look, but we also livefrom it and with it. We go to sleep every night seeing the sun lowering in the seaand we wake up every morning listening to the sound from the waves.If the Baltic Sea is not in good shape, we suffer too.If the Baltic Sea is in good shape, we are great as well.It is an important matter of our hearts to make every effort – together with ourfriends and partners – to improve the status of the Baltic Sea and the entire BalticSea region. What is healthy for the Baltic Sea is good for all of us.With our topics “Sustainability and Smart Energy”, based on the fundament of ourcooperation I believe we have chosen forward-looking themes, which will increase4the strength of our societies and our region in the future. These are pillars for ourfuture development and success.I am grateful that the President of the Republic of Finland, H.E. Mr Sauli Niinistö,gave the opening Speech at our 27th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference inMariehamn and highlighted the need for action and not only talk and plans.We have also included the young generation in our deliberations – as we regularlyhave done in our former conferences – and gave them the opportunity to discusstheir recommendations on the United Nations 2030 development goals which theyelaborated one week before in Mariehamn at a youth summit called ReGeneration2030. We must never forget that the youngsters of today are the decision-makersof tomorrow.For the first time, we had a general debate, which was hard, but open and honestand did not break off our friendly cooperation. As we all know we learn the mostfrom our honest friends and by sharing your views you inspire others to grow.We have once again succeeded in unanimously adopting a resolution with far-reaching and forward-looking demands – all of them for the best of the BalticSea. Our appeal is to the governments to implement these calls for action. I amconvinced that the implementation of these measures will contribute to the furtherpositive development of our region, our states and our homes.If we have succeeded in strengthening the parliamentary cooperation in the BalticSea region on the basis of our democratic values and if together, we can make ourvision of a healthy Baltic Sea a reality, then it has been worth all our efforts.I want to thank all the speakers and participants who attended the Conference andcontributed to its extraordinary success and also those who have already committedideas, suggestions and inspirations in the run-up to this conference.I also thank the speaker of the Åland Lagtinget Ms Gun-Mari Lindholmand my colleagues from the BSPC delegation in our parliament as well as theadministration of Lagtinget for their support and smooth preparation in hosting ofthe conference. Special thanks go to Mr Sten Eriksson and Ms Maj Falck for theirsupreme efforts during the entire Presidency. Finally, let me express my gratitudeto Mr Bodo Bahr, BSPC Secretary General, for his deep and genuine expertiseand inspirational engagement as well as for his close and excellent cooperation. AnAssociation like ours can only be successful if we constantly strive towards beingpresent, actual and factual. Moreover, doing this among friends is necessary. We aredemocrats and policymakers and we can make a difference.Finally, I would like to congratulate Norway and entrust the BSPC Presidency toMr Jorodd Asphjell in 2018-2019, I wish him all success in steering the BSPC allthe way up to the 28th BSPC in Oslo.Jörgen PetterssonPresident of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in 2017–20185ContentsOpening of the Conference ............................ 7Session oneCooperation in the Baltic Sea Region ................... 13Session twoThe Vision of a Healthy Baltic Sea -A Call for more Action .............................. 43Session threeSustainable Energy, Smart EnergyDistribution Platform ................................ 63The Closing of the Conference ........................... 81AnnexConference Resolution ................................ 85List of Participants ................................... 92Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101Impressions ....................................... 1086 Opening of the ConferenceOpening of the Conference 7Opening of the ConferenceJörgen Pettersson,President of the BSPC 2017-2018Jörgen Pettersson, the President of the Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConference, welcomed all the participants of the conference, ex-tending a particularly warm welcome to the President of the Repub-lic of Finland H.E. Mr Sauli Niinistö. He reminded the conferencethat the BSPC had been established in 1991 as a forum for polit-ical dialogue between the parliamentarians of the Baltic Sea Re-gion. The initiative had come from the Finnish Parliament and itsspeaker Mr Kalevi Sorsa. The parliamentarians would now meet forthe 27th time to find better and common solutions for the region.He expressed his gratitude to the President of the Republic for hiswillingness to open the 27th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conferencein Mariehamn and underlined that the President of the Republicof Finland was among the friends of peace, progress and prosperity.Gun-Mari Lindholm, the President of Åland’s Lagting, welcomedall those present and noted that the Åland Islands were often men-tioned as the islands of peace. She stated that Åland gained its au-tonomy in 1921 by a decision of The League of Nations and thatthis decision had been the guarantee of security in the region. Shehoped that the conference would bring good results as the topicswere urgent and important. She also wished the participants tolearn about Åland and their autonomy, their business as well as8 Opening of the ConferenceGun-Mari Lindholm,President of Åland’s Lagtingeveryday life. She highlighted the fact that the Baltic Sea separatedpeople but also united them, and that it was the same sea whichwould be left to the next generations. She expressed her hope thatthe conference would come to smart solutions and find ways for-ward for the environment and humanity because only throughthe common work of large countries and small islands could theBaltic Sea be protected.After a concert by a quartet of young musicians from the Åland Islandsplaying Jan Sibelius Andante festivowo, the floor was taken by the Pres-ident of the Republic of Finland H.E. Mr Sauli Niinistö.H.E. Mr Sauli Niinistö underlined the uniqueness of cooperationamong the countries around the Baltic Sea, which, starting withthe Hanseatic League, had brought remarkable benefits throughouthistory to the peoples living around it. The sea had connected themlong before the road and railroad network. He pointed out thatthere was probably no other region in the world with a networkof different regional cooperation structures as dense as it was inthe Baltic Sea region, listing The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Confer-ence, HELCOM, the Council of the Baltic Sea States, the BalticSea States Subregional Co-operation and the Union of the BalticCities as the examples out of many networks operating in the BalticSea Region. He also referred to the EU Strategy for the Baltic SeaRegion (EUSBSR), the European Council initiative towards a newkind of macro-regional thinking and mentioned that in the fol-lowing year, Finland would assume the Presidency of the EuropeanOpening of the Conference 9H .E . Mr Sauli Niinistö,President of the Republic of FinlandUnion. This was a good moment, 10 years after the adoption of theStrategy, to take a look at its achievements in finding solutions tothe challenges faced by the Region by connecting the region, savingthe sea and increasing prosperity.The President stressed that a cornerstone of environmental cooper-ation in the BSR was the Helsinki Commission, HELCOM, whichfor decades had done valuable inter-governmental work on protect-ing the marine environment of the Baltic Sea.Finland had taken over the Chairmanship of HELCOM for a two-year period. A priority of the Finnish Chairmanship was the updat-ing of The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), the roadmapfor achieving the goals for a healthy sea environment. Likewise, Fin-land was paying particular attention to the effects of climate changeon the Baltic Sea and emphasized the need to reduce nutrient in-puts and to foster nutrient recycling. He expressed his support forthe idea that one day, the Baltic Sea region would also become amodel area for sustainable development. While much had alreadybeen done to achieve a cleaner sea, there was a need to speed up theactions. Neither reducing the nutrient load from human activities,like agriculture, nor reducing the amount of plastic litter enteringthe sea could be delayed any longer.The President appealed to the responsibility of all those present,pointing out that the long tradition of mutual cooperation wouldbe their common superpower and underlined: “Together, we are10 Opening of the Conferencestronger. Together, we will sustain a secure and prosperous BalticSea area. Together, we will achieve the goals for a better environ-ment.”President Niinistö closed his speech by a call for concrete actions tosustain a secure and prosperous Baltic Sea area.Paula Lehtomäki, State Secretary, Prime Minister’s Office, Finlandbegan her presentation on the Finnish Strategy for the Baltic Searegion with the statement that a lot had been done for the BalticSea over the years but the current summer with its algae growth hadindicated that much more had yet to be done. She stated that in au-tumn 2016, the Prime Minister’s Office had set up a steering groupfor the Baltic Sea and Integrated Maritime Policies, consisting ofcivil servants from various ministries. This was done because mari-time issues required a cross-sectoral approach and there was a needto update Finland’s Baltic Sea Strategy. The priorities had been se-lected in an interactive and inclusive process, considering the viewsexpressed by stakeholders from NGOs, business and academia. Thenew strategy had been published in November 2017, and currentlythe government was preparing the maritime policy white paper toclarify the main targets of the Finnish policy on the global level andto work out measures and activities. Ms Lehtomäki explained thatthe Strategy had set out a vision for Finland’s objectives to devel-op the Baltic Sea region and stated that Finland was committed toactively work to make the Baltic Sea region a global leader in theeconomy and the circular economy, to make the BSR well connect-ed and innovative and to have the BSR produce model solutions forsafe and clean shipping, the maritime industry and sustainable useof the maritime environment.The State Secretary listed six key areas of action elaborated in Fin-land’s Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. The first was blue growth,including maritime know-how and industry, the blue bio economy,sustainable tourism and spatial planning, the next bio and circulareconomy including reducing nutrient and carbon emissions andmaritime litter, then connectivity including logistics and transport,communication hubs and smart grids; a safe and secure Baltic Seawith a view to maritime and navigation security, the preventionof environmental accidents and reaction to them; innovation andcompetitiveness promoting the internationalization and exports ofSMEs, digitalization and freedom of trade, and last but not least,international impact and cooperation.Opening of the Conference 11Paula Lehtomäki,State Secretary, Prime Minister’s Office of FinlandThe speaker acknowledged that the strategy had boosted some coreactivities in many areas. One of the examples she mentioned was inthe area of circular economy: a key project for developing methodsto return nutrients from food industry side products back to thefields. Autonomous maritime traffic was another area with the mostsignificant progress. The aim was to create an environment suitablefor autonomous ships by 2025.Ms Lehtomäki drew the audience’s attention to the preparationprocess of the White Paper on maritime policies with sustainableblue growth as the key overall priority. The Paper would also ad-dress such issues as maritime logistics, maritime cluster and blueeconomy, protection of the ocean and the seas. She emphasized thathere, the government was also working together with the NGOsand other stakeholders as well as business circles to implement con-crete actions. The State Secretary concluded her speech by under-lining that the complex nature of the Baltic Sea and the Baltic SeaRegion called for deeper cooperation. She expressed her strong be-lief that strategies were useful because they boosted concrete actionand made them more efficient. Strategies could clarify targets andprioritize concrete actions but most importantly, the preparation ofthe strategies brought people together, and that was how the actionwould be guided towards the common goal.12 Session oneSession one 13First SessionCooperation in theBaltic Sea RegionThe session was chaired by Jörgen Pettersson, President of the BSPC,Member of the Åland Parliament, and co-chaired by Jorodd Asphjell,Vice-President of the BSPC, Member of the Norwegian Parliament .Jörgen Pettersson emphasized that The Plenary Hall of the ÅlandLagtinget had set the scene for the 27th Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConference with the presence of the President of the Republic ofFinland, H.E. Mr Sauli Niinistö, and his warm address to the del-egates of all represented parliaments and also Ms Paula Lehtomäki,State Secretary to the Prime Minister of Finland who had presentedFinland’s strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. He highlighted thatthe decision to organise the conference in the Parliament building,firstly, kept up the tradition of the BSPC location in Mariehamn,secondly, that the BSPC was a conference of parliamentarians, andthirdly, the house with its historical paintings breathed the histo-ry of the autonomous region and the independence of the ÅlandIslands. The speaker then underlined that the headline of the 27thBSPC - The Baltic Sea – Our Lifeline - presented the convictionthat the population around the Baltic Sea depended on the goodshape of the Baltic Sea and that parliamentarians should take every14 Session oneeffort to improve the status of the Baltic Sea and the entire BalticSea region.He closed by thanking all those who had contributed their ideas,suggestions and inspirations in the run-up to the conference.Jorodd Asphjell informed his audience about the organisationalstructure of the session and gave the floor to Jörgen Pettersson,the President of the BSPC, who provided the conference with thereport on the BSPC activities throughout the previous year. Mr Pet-tersson emphasized that the BSPC had visibly and in every respectfulfilled its strategic objectives and achieved significant progress.Based on the BSPC programme and the BSPC resolution in theyear 2017-2018, the BSPC had communicated the principles andcore messages of a large number of Baltic Sea-relevant events andbeyond, had intensified the cooperation with the regional partnersand efficiently promoted programmatic concerns and contents. Theparliamentary dimension and principles of cooperation had beenemphasized, and the impact on governmental activities had beenstrengthened. The BSPC 2017-2018 work programme coveredthree strategic priorities: Sustainable societies in the Baltic Sea re-gion based on democratic values, human rights and equal chancesfor all, Cooperation and integration for a secure and prosperousBaltic Sea area as well as Migration and integration, finding solu-tions based on mutual information and best practices had been tar-geted in all activities throughout Åland’s BSPC presidency. JörgenPettersson presented a list of events and activities beginning withthe first Standing Committee under the Åland Presidency in Marie-hamn during which, in the run-up to the establishment of the BSPCworking group “Integration and Migration”, detailed presentationson the topic and a lively exchange of information with experts fromÅland had taken place. Then he mentioned the second StandingCommittee meeting in Brussels and an expert presentation on thepossible consequences of Brexit for the Baltic Sea region, a report onthe Swedish Presidency of the CBSS, a report on the current stateof the implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan by HELCOMand important facts concerning transnational cooperation. The dis-cussion had been continued at the third Standing Committee meet-ing in Koli. Additionally, at that meeting, experts from the FinnishEnvironment Institute had addressed the SC members in a roundof presentations on projects by the Finnish Environment Instituteand on collaborative practices for environmental decision-making.Mr Pettersson underlined that it was the honourable duty of theBSPC President to meet with the BSPC partners and other parlia-mentary organisations. He mentioned his addressing The Sessionof the Nordic Council in Helsinki, The Baltic Assembly in Tallinn,The Northern Dimension Parliamentary Forum in Brussels, the In-Session one 15ternational Environmental Forum “Baltic Sea Day” in St. Peters-burg and the Plenary Session of the Interparliamentary Assemblyof the CIS Member Nations in St. Petersburg, the InternationalForum on Development of Parliamentarism in Moscow where del-egates from 96 parliaments all over the world and representativesof 10 international parliamentary organisations had attended. TheBSPC had been the only international parliamentary organisationto address the participants during the opening plenary session. TheBSPC had been represented at the 50th and 51st General Assemblymeetings of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea EconomicCooperation (PABSEC). Based on a memorandum of understand-ing, connecting the BSPC with the PABSEC, the collaboration hadalso been deepened by the Secretaries General. At that point, MrPettersson showed himself content that the Chairman of the PAB-SEC Legal and Political Affairs Committee as well as the PABSECSecretary General, Prof Asaf Hajiev, could attend the conference.Vice-President Carola Veit had attended the Parliamentary Assem-bly of the South-East European Cooperation Process (SEECP) inthe Slovenian capital Ljubljana, emphasizing there the crucial im-portance of parliamentary cooperation and partnerships betweenthe various parliamentary forums. Other MPs had taken part inother events important to the BSPC’s work, such as Kari Kulmalaand Saara-Sofia Siren at the EUSBSR Summit in Tallinn. In addi-tion, the BSPC rapporteurs had been to many events and had takenon board the findings relevant to their policy fields. Mr Petterssonstressed that the attendance at that impressive a number of eventsserved to convey the message of the importance of internationalparliamentary cooperation – especially in times of tense situations –and on the need for interparliamentary dialogue and strengtheningthe influence of parliaments. He underlined that all the previousyear’s expert hearings, all the participation in international events,all the deliberations and discussions had formed the basis for the16 Session one27th BSPC and 27th BSPC resolution. He closed his speech by ex-pressing his gratitude to all those involved in the work done duringÅland’s BSPC presidency.According to the Standing Committee’s decision, the President of theConference at which the resolution had been adopted, reports on theresults of the governmental statements on the implementation andthe evaluation . The political scientists of the previous year – Dr To-bias Etzold, also a member of the CBSS Vision Group, nominated byDenmark, and Christian Opitz, from the Foundation of Science andPolitics – have elaborated a political analysis . Therefore, the report waspresented by Ms Carola Veit, President of the Hamburg Parliamentand the Vice-President of the BSPC .Carola Veit reported that 14 submitted statements had been fea-tured in reaction to the 26th BSPC Resolution which meant thatall national governments of the countries around the Baltic Sea hadsent their statements, proving that the request had been treated se-riously and the responses had become more and more comprehen-sive over the previous three years. The speaker pointed out that theresolution’s aim regarding strengthening the involvement of youngpeople in all areas of society and thus including the BSPC’s will-ingness to continue the work on establishing a Baltic Sea Forumfor Young People had found a reaction by both the Nordic Councilof Ministers and the CBSS in supporting the ReGeneration 2030initiative. The conference on the Åland Island some days earlier hadbrought together young people from Denmark, Estonia, the FaroeIslands, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway,Poland, Russia, Sweden, Germany and Åland.With regard to the thematic chapter “Democratic Participation andthe Digital Age” of the last year’s resolution, Ms Veit noted thatmany of the issues raised had been well covered by numerous pro-grammes and projects such as digital election in Åland, a focus ondigital literacy, the journalists’ ethnic ombudsman in Lithuania andthe “Nationwide Education Network” in Poland. Closer regionalcooperation on digitization had been a key priority for the Norwe-gian Government during its Presidency of the Nordic Council ofMinisters in 2017, as summed up in a ministerial declaration calledDigital North. Another issue mentioned by the speaker was dem-ocratic participation and the digital age with regard to employingnew digital technologies for the subjects of democracy and politicaldevelopment. Here, she mentioned a transnationally successful ex-ample of Helsinki’s cooperation with Hamburg within the frame-work of the EU project “MySmartLife”. Another initiative pointedout by Ms Veit was one of the participatory projects of Hamburg,Session one 17called “Finding Places” for accommodating refugees in which inter-active planning desks allowed citizens to identify areas for buildingsites and settlements and review existing proposals.Turning to the assessment regarding the chapter “Sustainable Tour-ism” of last year’s resolution, Ms Veit pointed out that the focus inthis diversified section – from wastewater facilities to bike routes –lay on national measures due to certain international conventionsto promote sustainable tourism. Worth mentioning according tothe speaker was the regular participation of several countries in theannual Baltic Sea Tourism Forum and their support for the idea ofestablishing the Baltic Sea Tourism Centre to create a permanentplatform for collecting and sharing relevant tourism informationabout the development of tourism in the Baltic Sea Region. Shealso welcomed that some of the governments had seemed to havefollowed last year’s suggestion to concentrate more on transnation-al initiatives compared to strictly national projects. However, thestatements had still concentrated too much on previous activities,several of which even dated back several years. The reporting periodof less than a year to implement certain requirements was of coursetoo short in a number of cases to talk about concrete results. Anoth-er issue worth taking into account was that more attention shouldbe paid to the overall political environment and the current politicaldevelopment, encompassing the concrete technical measures. It hadbeen a particular concern of the parliamentarians to take successfulsteps towards restoring a comprehensive political dialogue in theBaltic Sea region.In conclusion, Ms Veit underlined that thanks to the analysis pre-sented in her report, the parliamentarians had been provided with18 Session onethe highest possible quality feedback for their further work, be-cause, as she stressed, only if the statements were comprehensiveand interdisciplinary, the governments could be held accountableregarding the BSPC Resolution.It is the BSPC’s tradition to hear the voice of The Council of Baltic SeaStates which is the natural counterpart of the BSPC on the executivelevel . Therefore, the floor was given to Mr Hans Olsson, the previousChairman of the Committee of the CBSS of Senior Officials, Ambas-sador of Sweden .Ambassador Olsson reported that during the Swedish Presiden-cy, which lasted until 30 June 2018, the key priorities had beenSustainability, Continuity and Adaptability and take on new chal-lenges. All those priorities fell under the goals and priorities of theAgenda 2030. An important part of the Swedish presidency hadbeen the follow-up to the Reykjavik Declaration from 2017. In thisrespect, the task had been given to a group of independent expertsto come up with a report with suggestions for the tasks and workingmethods of the Council after 2020. Much had changed in the BalticSea Region since the CBSS had been established in 1992, thereforesuch a critical analysis had been of utmost importance. The group’sreport had been presented at the Stockholm Ministerial meetingand would be discussed further during the Latvian Presidency.In the next part of his report, Mr Olsson gave some examples ofresults achieved during the previous year. He pointed out that theCBSS had started the implementation of the new Baltic 2030 Ac-tion Plan with a particular emphasis on the goals 12 - sustainableSession one 19consumption and production -, 13 - climate - and 17 - good gov-ernance. Other achievements were- the implementation of the Joint Position on Enhancing Cooper-ation in the Civil Protection Area, the cooperation in combatingdisasters and major accidents, involving not only national govern-ments but also regional and local authorities,- increased cooperation within the UN Sendai Framework for Dis-aster Risk Reduction and increased work within the Task Forceagainst Trafficking in Human Beings including trafficking relatedto migration flows,- continued efforts and projects within the framework of the Chil-dren at Risk Group, for example the expansion of the “Barnahus”concept to more member states but also to countries outside theCBSS Area,20 Session one- continued efforts to improve research and science-related cooper-ation in the region, for example within the Baltic TRAM frame-work by organizing a Baltic TRAM Mid-Term Conference and aBaltic TRAM High Level Group Meeting, and last but not least- the reactivation of the Expert Group on Maritime Issues with anew mandate.He concluded by expressing his best wishes to the current CBSSPresidency, the Republic of Latvia.Juris Bone, Chairman of the CBSS Committee of Senior Officials,Ambassador-at-Large of Latvia, representing the current CBSSPresidency, gave a brief overview on the priorities of the Council ofthe Baltic Sea States’ Latvian Presidency 2018-2019, e.g. Integrityand Social Security as well as Dialogue and Responsibility. He stat-ed that the Report of the CBSS Vision Group prepared during theCBSS Swedish Presidency 2017-2018 would be taken further andthat an implementation plan would be elaborated. He explainedthat, with regard to Integrity and Social Security, the Latvian Presi-dency would focus on enhancing cooperation in the civil protectionarea to strengthen resilience in the region against major emergenciesand disasters, on fighting against human trafficking to prevent andmitigate the consequences of this severe crime and on combatingorganized crime and strengthening border management. The overallaim would be working together to establish the culture of a securesociety. Regarding the Priority Responsibility, the main effort wouldbe directed towards the implementation of the Sustainable Devel-opment Goals (SDGs) set by the Baltic 2030 Action Plan. Mr Boneemphasized that responsibility was multifaceted – it had political,administrative, environmental, economic, social, cultural and mor-al aspects. In the Headline Dialogue, the cooperation in the area ofcultural heritage would be developed as an important element inSession one 21the development of a democratic, law-based, culture-oriented so-ciety. Thus, cultural heritage was playing a role both in shaping aregional identity and ensuring sustainable growth – both long-termpriorities of the CBSS. This area required a modern, an interdisci-plinary approach; it would deal with issues like the digitalizationof cultural heritage, including modern heritage, such as the OperaHouse in Oslo or the National Library in Riga.The Ambassador also mentioned that during the Latvian Presiden-cy, 20 years of the CBSS secretariat and 20 years of the cooper-ation on Children at Risk would be celebrated. The cooperationhad started in 1988 in Riga. Therefore, the commemoration of theevents would equally take place in Riga. Youth involvement wasalso pointed out by the speaker. He reported that the presidencyhad started with an event connected to youth cooperation; the “Bal-tic International Summer School on media literacy and democraticprocesses” took place at Vidzeme University of Applied Sciences inValmiera in Latvia in the framework of the CBSS Summer Uni-versity. The ambassador underlined the unique role the CBSS hadplayed in the Baltic Sea Region and hoped for further close cooper-ation in changing conditions.Hans Wallmark, Member of the Swedish Parliament and theChairman of the BSPC Working Group on Migration and Inte-gration, informed the audience that the BSPC Working Group onMigration and Integration had come half-way in its work and, asa consequence, delivered a Mid-way Report which had been pub-lished on the BSPC website. He reiterated as a well-known fact thatthe countries of the region had very different traditions with regardto migration. Some of them had been receiving immigrants for aconsiderable time while others had rather been countries of emigra-22 Session onetion, not immigration. He expressed his belief that different histor-ical experiences could serve as a strength enabling parliamentariansto discuss the problems from a wide scope of different perspectives.By highlighting and discussing best practices, everyone would havesomething to learn.He appreciated the work that had been done by Ms Carola Veit,President of the Hamburg Parliament, the vice-chair of the WorkingGroup, who had successfully chaired the first meeting of the WorkingGroup held in Hamburg in December 2017 and had done an admira-ble job in collecting and presenting intergovernmental data coveringbest practices from each country. The survey would be of great benefitto the working group. The speaker thanked Mr Pyry Niemi who hadchaired the third meeting of the Working Group in Copenhagen inJune and all the members of the Working Group as well as all whowere involved in this work for their high-quality contributions, theintensive discussions as well as the harmonious atmosphere.Regarding the content of the mid-way report, Mr Wallmark stat-ed that it had shown that much could be learned from Germanhistorical experiences of migration, the role that sports could playin Swedish integration policies and the latest findings of Danishresearch on migration. Another recommendation the speaker men-tioned included increased offers of migration-specific advisory ser-vices and language training to enhance integration, increased sup-port to the civil society, volunteers and local institutions.He also underlined the importance of adopting a more holistic viewon migration. Migration and security perspectives were of para-mount importance when it came to trade, labour rights or envi-ronmental preservation, too. His conclusion was that the mid-wayreport was an overview of the first results as well as the input whichthe group had received from many experts and a compilation of thematerials of the group’s work. The main focus was on the politicalrecommendations which had been elaborated during the previousmeetings and which would be expanded and deepened in the con-tinuation of the work. Therefore, the report should be considereda strategic summary of the Working Group on Migration and In-tegration.Jörgen Pettersson introduced the next speakers by emphasizingthat the BSPC was including young people in the debates with pol-iticians and was listening carefully to their voice. He informed hisaudience that the ReGeneration2030 summit had taken place theprevious week in Mariehamn and that the young participants hadagreed on a Manifesto in that very plenary hall.Session one 23Simon Holmström, the chairman of ReGeneration 2030, andHanna Salmén, the coordinator of ReGeneration 2030, both rep-resentatives of the young generation in the BSR, gave their reporton ReGeneration 2030. They noted that the idea of that movementhad come from the young people who believed that intense actionwas needed to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals.Their vision was to build a movement where teenagers and youngadults would innovate and use existing solutions to reach thesegoals, solutions that could be implemented by individuals, thecivil society, businesses and the national legislations in building asustainable future. They informed the audience that from 18-20August 2018, more than 90 young people, aged 16 to 30, comingfrom all the Nordic and Baltic Sea countries, had met on the ÅlandIslands to discuss, in a context of inter-generational learning, howthey could contribute to the implementation of the 2030 Agen-da and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particularSDG12 – responsible consumption and production. Two very in-tensive days of work had resulted in formulating a Manifesto whichreflected the Vision, Commitments and Demands of the Baltic Searegion youth. A platform had been created around which youngpeople could work on those important issues. The youth represent-atives stated that they needed cooperation not only within their agebracket but also across sectors, across borders and across genera-tions, to contribute to solving the problems. They pointed out thatthe movement had been given support from many youth organi-sations and also from the CBSS, the Nordic Council of Ministers,the Swedish Institute, the Swedish Environmental Institute and theBSPC. The main demand called for by the Regeneration 2030 dele-gates was to include the youth in every decision-making process onall levels of society, allowing them practical influence to promotethe 2030 Agenda.24 Session oneDEBATEOleg Nilov, Member of the StateDuma, emphasized the significanceof preserving the ethnic and culturaltraditions as well as the languages inthe Baltic Sea Region communitiesbecause those traditions should havebeen transferred to the followinggenerations. He called for more dis-cussion within a permanent workinggroup and to consider this issue as aBSPC priority.He proposed that one of the next meetings could be devoted to thequestion how to preserve the culture of the peoples of each BSRState. He underlined the necessity to place more attention andmore money on that issue. Another of his proposals was to establisha festival of folk music, ethnic music from all those cultures, thusaddressing the issue of ethnic music and culture. He emphasizedthat as a representative of a social-democratic party, he and his partyhad focused on culture at the top of their agenda.At that point, he invited all delegates to the event called “Dobrow-idenia”, held in September in the St. Petersburg Palace hall. Theevent would gather outstanding folk groups and honoured guests.Ingrid Johansson, Member ofthe Åland Parliament, shared herthoughts on youth in democraticprocesses, inspired by the work ofReGeneration 2030. She empha-sized that the fact that it was moreand more difficult to activate theyoung people to join traditional par-ties did not indicate that youngsterswere not interested in politics. Shebelieved that it was the opposite,and that young people were takingpart in politics to a great degree but often did so differently thanthe older generation. For instance, young people were more in-terested in specific topics such as sustainability. At that point, shementioned ReGeneration 2030 as a great example of that interest.She called on the delegates to consider reforming the parties andpolitical structures so that they would draw more young people intopolitics. The speaker emphasized that many values which had beenSession one 25taken for granted were nowadays questioned. As examples of thattendency, she mentioned Brexit, the current American leadershipand a more polarized Europe. She highlighted that it was politi-cians’ responsibility to involve young people, that politics shouldevolve and adapt to a new way of thinking. She concluded her in-tervention by encouraging all delegates to work together to preservegood cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region and friendship for thefuture as well. The younger generation needed to be involved, andthe older needed to evolve and adapt to a new way of thinking.Juris Viļums, Member of the Parlia-ment of Latvia, referred to the mi-gration issue. He reported that manypeople were coming to Latvia fromRussia and from other countriesand that they served as a source ofinformation about the situation inthe countries of their origins. Thespeaker stated that Latvian politi-cians were very much concernedabout the issue of migration. TheBaltic Assembly also discussed thattopic. In the Latvian Parliament, there was a group for cooperationwith civil society in the Russian Federation. The Latvian parliamentmaintained dialogue with the State Duma and other representativesfrom Russian Federation but they were also listening to the civilsociety. He emphasized that in his country, Latvians lived togetherwith Russians, Belarussians and people from other nations. Thesegood practice examples of the coexistence of a variety of peoplescould be shared with other nations. The speaker also mentionedthe situation of Oleg Sencow, who had been imprisoned in Rus-sia. Mr Volems called him a political prisoner and encouraged theparliaments to discuss his situation during debates in their nationalparliaments.The second part of the session consisted of reports on the issues of spe-cial interest of the BSPC rapporteurs such as Labour Market and So-cial Welfare, Integrated Maritime Policy, Cultural Affairs, SustainableTourism, HELCOM, Eutrophication and the speeches given by the or-ganisations holding observer status at the BSPC .Christina Gestrin, a former BSPC President, presented her reportabout environmental cooperation in the Baltic Sea region whichhad been published by the Nordic Council on 6 March, the same26 Session oneday the HELCOM ministerial meet-ing had taken place in Brussels.She reported that the Northern Di-mension Environmental Partnershiphad an important role in bringing to-gether both EU and non-EU states inprojects carried out in the north-west-ern part of Russia during the last twodecades. The successful measures torestore the sewage systems in St. Pe-tersburg would not have succeededwithout the diligent efforts of officialsworking in ministries and environmental agencies and the financialsupport from Nordic and European financing institutions. She em-phasized that from 1997 to 2017, about € 1 billion euros, of whichapproximately one third had been comprised of international loansand grants and two thirds had come from domestic Russian resourc-es, had been designated to environmental projects in St. Petersburg.Currently over 98 % of the waste water in St. Petersburg was beingtreated. However, the speaker underlined that the political tension inthe region had shown serious negative consequences for environmen-tal cooperation as no new projects had been funded or planned by theEuropean banks or the Nordic Investment Bank. Ms Gestrin men-tioned some challenges that would therefore remain unresolved, forexample 184 sites in the Leningrad region without properly workingwastewater treatment plants and sewage systems, Krasnyj Bor, a land-fill for hazardous waste situated close to St. Petersburg, and SosnovyBor, one of Russia’s nuclear towns to the south-west of St. Petersburgwith four old nuclear power plants of the Chernobyl-type still oper-ating, and four new nuclear power plants under construction. Sheadmitted that at the HELCOM ministerial meeting in March 2018,the ministers had had to accept that the actions taken by the BalticSea states had not been enough and that HELCOM’s goal to restorethe Baltic Sea’s good ecological status by 2021 would therefore notbe achieved. The conclusion of Ms Gestrin was that there was notime to waste, that environmental cooperation must continue andthat European and Nordic financial institutions should be allowed tocontribute to projects carried out within the area, despite the politi-cally challenging times.Gun Rudquist, Head of the Policy Unit of the Baltic Sea Centerat Stockholm University, gave an example of how the universityworked to increase the collaboration between science and policymakers in her presentation “Bridging the gap between science andpolicy”. The Baltic Sea Centre, the institution she represented, wasoperating within Stockholm University and dealt with research.Session one 27She emphasized that the Centre hada special task – to synthesize andcommunicate research results to thestakeholders and policy makers.For its studies, the Centre had a fieldstation with a research vessel, whilecommunications was served by a gen-eral communication unit. She men-tioned The Baltic Nest Institute asthe research group collaborating withHELCOM and putting together alldifferent background materials main-ly on the status of the Baltic Sea.Ms Rudquist gave an example of The Baltic Eye, a project created andlaunched by the University together with a foundation. She admittedthat it was quite unique for a university to attach so much impor-tance to policy issues. The Baltic Eye Project had gathered a uniqueteam consisting of researchers from different fields along with sciencecommunicators, journalists and policy analysts. She explained thatthe project worked collectively to support evidence-informed deci-sion-making related to the sustainable management of the Baltic Seaenvironment. This had yielded knowledge that could be understoodand useable for policy makers. On the other hand, as she pointedout, researchers should know which questions needed to be answeredand what were the urgent issues to be investigated. The speaker drewattention to the Baltic Eye Project website offering many policy briefsand several policy recommendations. She gave an example of theadvanced water treatment issue which had been tackled first throughresearch. The investigation had aimed at answering a lot of questions,for instance whether it was possible to measure the flows of chemicalsaround the Baltic Sea, what could be done to stop these flows etc.The researchers had showed that by implementing advanced waste-water system in the largest wastewater plants around the Baltic Sea,the flows of chemicals could be reduced by 50 %. The next step of theprocess was to bring the research results to the media as well as to thestakeholders and decision makers. The speaker emphasized that herreport at the BSPC was also a good opportunity to discuss the issuesthat required scientific studies.Franz Thönnes, former Member of the German Bundestag andformer BSPC President, provided his report on the work of theCBSS/BSLF Coordination Group on Labour and Employment.He emphasized that the Baltic Sea Labour Forum had been one ofthe greatest successes of the BSPC and a great example of turningpolitical debate into action. It was a unique forum for a dialogueof the social partners in Europe. Founded in 2011, the Forum was28 Session onecurrently comprised of 30 organi-sations, 11 employers’ associationsand 17 trade unions as well as theCBSS and the BSPC with an activeparticipation by partners from St.Petersburg and Moscow. The speak-er reported that labour mobility,cross-border workers, fair workingconditions and youth unemploy-ment had been key issues so far. Thecommon goal of all was to increasethe competitiveness of the region, toguarantee cross-border commuting with social security in place andto strengthen training and employment. He pointed out that themeeting of the Labour Ministers of the member states, which hadtaken place in Berlin in June 2017, had marked the first time in the25-year history of the Council of the Baltic Sea States that both,representatives of the BSPC and the BSLF had been present. Oneof the results of that meeting was establishing an ad hoc working/expert group in conjunction with the CBSS Secretariat, the BSPC,the Northern Dimension Partnership on Health and Social Wellbe-ing and other organisations dealing with these issues. Close cooper-ation with the BSPC and its Migration/Integration Working Grouphad also been recommended. The result of an informal cooperationplatform formed by the CBSS Secretariat and the BSLF was the“CBSS/BSLF Coordination Group on Labour and Employment”(CG), which functioned thanks to the voluntary participation ofrepresentatives of the member states of the Council of the Baltic SeaStates. The efforts of the group were focused on issues of commoninterest, such as the future of work, new qualifications and betterlinks between training and labour market needs, the importanceof lifelong learning and a broad outlook for the future of the la-bour market as well as research and demographic development. MrThönnes mentioned that the CBSS’ intention was to apply to theEuropean Social Fund for a “BSLF for a sustainable working life”project. In his closing remarks, the speaker thanked all those whohad been involved in preparatory work and supported the effortsto establish the Coordination Group, such as e.g. Daria Akhutina,Senior Advisor at the CBSS Secretariat, where the administrationof the BSLF was currently located, Maira Mora, the CBSS Dep-uty-Director General Bernd Hemingway, Anders Bergström fromthe Norden Association with the Baltic Leader Program, the Swed-ish Institute and the BSPC Secretary General Bodo Bahr as well asfinally the Presidencies of Iceland and Sweden in the Council of theBaltic Sea States, during whose term of office that process had beenintensively promoted.Session one 29Daria Akhutina, CBSS SeniorAdvisor on Economic Issues, coor-dinator for the Baltic Sea LabourForum and secretary to the CBSSExpert Group on maritime issues,pointed out that the challengeswith regard to ageing populationsand the new requirements of thelabour market on skills and qual-ifications called for better syner-gies between educational systemsand labour markets’ demands aswell as a response to ageing workforces and pressures on pen-sion systems. She said that it was essential to learn more abouthow to effectively use the resources at hand by fostering activeand healthy ageing and by increasing the labour force participa-tion of older people. In that regard, she underlined the specialvalue of the study carried out by the Max Planck Institute on“Increasing the Labour Force Participation of Older People inthe Baltic Sea States: Challenges and Chances” in the frameworkof the CBSS-supported project “Ageing Workforce, Social Cohe-sion and Sustainable Development – Political Challenges withinthe Baltic Sea Region”. The study was based on the outcomesfrom researchers with profound expertise in the national situa-tion of the workforce participation of older adults from all CBSSmember states. The speaker announced that the CBSS Secretariathad the intention to apply to the European Social Fund with aproject entitled “BSLF for Sustainable Working Life” focusingon the ageing labour force. Here, the CBSS/BSLF CoordinationGroup on Labour and Employment would play a key role in theimplementation of its results. The project would address three is-sues crucial for the socio-economic development of the countriesin the Baltic Sea Region - the Demographic challenge, Activeageing, and Life Long Learning (LLL). The speaker emphasizedthat, according to the experts from the field, it was of utmostimportance to take a life course perspective when discussing pro-longing working lives since ‘the young workers of today are theolder workers of tomorrow’. That approach implied a particularfocus on lifelong learning, health prevention and reconciliationpolicies, including the reconciliation of work and care. Other ac-tivities mentioned by the speaker had resulted in developing theWorking Paper “Fostering sustainable, inclusive and attractive la-bour markets in the Baltic Sea Region: A life course perspective”,where the topics of future work, demographic challenges and aninclusive labour market had been prioritized.30 Session onePyry Niemi, the BSPC Rapporteuron Labour Market and Social Wel-fare, Member of the Swedish Parlia-ment, referring to the informationprovided by Mr Thönnes, and MsAkhutina, pointed out that the workof the CBSS/BSLF CoordinationGroup on Labour and Employmentshould lead to finding common ar-rangements in the Baltic Sea area,best practice examples and thus toimproving the labour market allaround the Baltic Sea. Currently, the labour markets differed greatlyfrom one country to the other because of different legislations anddifferences in the respective labour market situations. Therefore,creating a common platform would be of an interest of all countries.Mr Niemi mentioned that even if a country enjoyed satisfactorysolutions in their own labour market, they were not able to preventnegative phenomena in the labour market such as exploitation andlow wages. Such a nation was also unable to make the labour forcemore mobile, adequately educated and better protected by the law.He mentioned that all these important issues could be discussedduring the Norwegian presidency and in the next 2 or 3 years. Thespeaker expressed the need to interlink the work of the group to theUN 2030 goals, especially goal 4 – Quality education – and goal8 – Decent work and Economic Growth – which could lead to ap-proaching the issue not only on the BSR level but also globally. Hehoped that by implementing the goals mentioned above, the thusimproved labour market in the Baltic Sea Region would make it abetter place. He also addressed the need to support the work of theCBSS/ BSLF coordination group and called on all governments toprovide the necessary conditions to do so. Mr Niemi expressed hisstrong belief that by encouraging all governments to deal seriouslywith that important issue, the labour market in the Baltic Sea Re-gion would develop to contribute to the economy growth in theregion.Jochen Schulte, BSPC Co-Rapporteur on Integrated Maritime Pol-icy, shared some of the insights gained in the field of maritime policy,out of many published on the BSPC website in the full report. MrSchulte reported that in January, he had presented the BSPC posi-tion at the first meeting of the Maritime Cluster “Maritime Safetyand Security” in Rostock and had discussed the emanating oppor-tunities for the maritime economy. The result from that debate hadbeen that all issues of maritime security were bringing forward smalland medium enterprises as well as larger enterprises in the BSR –Session one 31and vice versa – because they neededinnovation in technology and logis-tics. With regard to the field of BlueGrowth, the speaker mentioned thatthe EU had delivered commitmentsat the “Our Ocean Conference” inOctober 2017 and that since then,the European Commission hadlaunched a new 14.5-million-eu-ro investment initiative to furtherpromote sustainable blue growthacross the EU. Those resources wereused to support green projects safeguarding the marine ecosystems .Eight million euros from the European Maritime and FisheriesFund had been set aside to help SMEs, including start-ups, testingnovel products and services in high-potential emerging blue econo-my sectors, including ocean renewable energy. The speaker furtherinformed the conference that, according to the annual report onthe EU Blue Economy from June 2018, that particular sector hadbeen growing steadily over the last decade. With a turnover of 566billion euros, the sector had generated 174 billion euros of addedvalue and created jobs for nearly 3.5 million people. With invest-ments in innovation and through responsible ocean management,integrating environmental, economic and social aspects, the sec-tor could be doubled in a sustainable manner by 2030. Mr Schultealso mentioned that the blue economy in several EU member stateshad grown faster than the national economy in the last decade, sof-tening the effects of the financial crisis. Regarding other sectors,specifically the so-called ‘living resources’ (i.e. fisheries, aquacultureand processing), the speaker reported that growth had gone up by22 % between 2009-2016. Also, the emerging sectors were boom-ing: The biotechnology sector had marked double-digit growth inmember states, and employment in the offshore wind industry hadjumped from roughly 23,000 in 2009 to 160,000 in 2016, outpac-ing the employment of the EU fishing sector. The speaker empha-sized the importance of growing the Commission’s support for themaritime economy compared to the ongoing period. The maritimefund would enable investment in new maritime markets, technol-ogies and services such as ocean energy and marine biotechnology.Coastal communities would receive more and broader support toset up local partnerships and technology transfers in all blue econo-my sectors, including aquaculture and coastal tourism.In his closing remarks, Mr Schulte expressed his strong belief thatthe decision to appoint two rapporteurs, one from the northernand the other from the southern part of the Baltic Sea was a good32 Session onechoice. He thanked all delegates and especially his co-rapporteurMr Pettersson for his support and great cooperation during thewhole time of his work as the Maritime Policy rapporteur whichhad now come to an end.Jörgen Pettersson, in his capacity asBSPC Co-Rapporteur on IntegratedMaritime Policy, pointed out thatthe report prepared by both rap-porteurs contained a great deal offacts and figures but in his speech,he wanted to comment on the pro-cesses, the policies and legislation.He gave an example of the sulphurdirective implemented in 2015which had been heavily criticized byboth shipping companies and policymakers. There were fears that the directive would trigger a modeshift from environmental transportation on the sea to tracks and theroads. He reminded his audience that after the sulphur directive’simplementation, the price of oil had gone down, and currently, 4years after the directive had been imposed, it was noticeable thatthe life of the people in the Baltic Sea had been extended because ofless dangerous particles in the air. The speaker underlined the factthat shipping had still been the main means of transportation ofgoods in the Baltic Sea and that legislation had made a direct im-pact and made a difference. He went on to the issue of autonomousships which had seemed science fiction a few years ago but wascurrently becoming a reality. At that point, he referred to the infor-mation given by Ms Paula Lethomaki on the preparations made bythe Finnish government to prepare a legislation for pilotage, a firststep to legislation on autonomous ships. Mr Pettersson expressedhis strong belief that this would prove another great change in manyways and that it would open new possibilities. He emphasized thatcargo vessels spent about 40 % of their time in ports, sailing empty40% of their time; so the possibilities to improve the effectivenesswere invaluable. He appreciated the EU support in raising the effec-tiveness resulting from the sulphur directive, prompting shippingcompanies to switch to LNG. Without the EU funds, that processwould not have been so fast and successful.In his closing remarks, Mr Pettersson underlined the importanceof legislation and of the role the Baltic Sea Region played in imple-menting advanced sustainable solutions which would be transferredand introduced by the IMO to the rest of the world for the benefitof environmental condition of the seas.Session one 33Karin Gaardsted, BSPC Rapporteur on Cultural Affairs, had cho-sen to work with a new type of sport called e-sport and reportedon that issue. She noted that e-sport was a cultural phenomenonevolving from the world of competitive video gaming throughcompetitions, communities and entertainment. It had captured theyouth, especially in the Baltic Sea region, and it was currently thefastest growing sport in the world. Ms Gaardsted said that it ena-bled a better understanding of how to interact with a digital reality,it contributed to creating jobs in various sectors, and it educatedand promoted intercultural dialogue among young people acrossborders. She pointed out that, although e-sport was a thriving in-dustry with revenues projected to increase by almost 40 % in thecurrent year and expected to become a one-billion-dollar industryby the next year, it suffered from a lack of recognition and supportamong local and national governments. At that point, the speakerreported on the results of a questionnaire sent out via the BSPCStanding Committee to the respective governments. She admit-ted that an awareness of the cultural, economic and social reachof e-sport had been growing, but only a handful of the BSR coun-tries had formed national e-sport federations. Yet these were stillnot quite treated as equals to traditional sports federations. Also,on an amateur level, young people did not have the same possibili-ties to create teams, sportsmanship and participate in competitions,nor to develop their skills in a positive and constructive way as theleague players were sponsored by industry and large companies.The rapporteur presented several ways in which society and sportsorganisations became involved in e-sport. For instance, the SportsInstitute of Finland had been supporting the development of ed-34 Session oneucational programmes for e-sport coaches and training camps forFinnish e-sports players, while sport clubs in Hamburg consideredincorporating e-sport into their structures; in Denmark, EsportDanmark together with Denmark sports associations had created anew sports league which was divided into several divisions. Otherareas of society had also shown an interest in e-sport. In the educa-tional sector, public high schools and boarding schools increasinglywere adopting e-sport into the curriculum. Ms Gaardsted summedup her speech by pointing out that politicians should support thepositive development of e-sport in the Baltic Sea Region as it had apotential for the development of the BSR society with an emphasison non-commercial efforts working on creating an organisationalbase for the development of e-sport in and across the respectiveBaltic Sea countries. Such support would counter the commercial-ization of e-sport and instead focus on building a base for amateurplayers to practice and compete in.Sara Kemetter, the Rapporteur onSustainable Tourism and Member ofthe Åland Island Parliament pre-sented the first report on that issueprepared jointly by her and SylviaBretschneider, BSPC Rapporteur onSustainable Tourism and President ofthe Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Parlia-ment, who was unable to attend theconference .Sara Kemetter informed the audience that the report containedan analysis on the reactions and responses of the governments ofthe States and Regions of the Baltic Sea on the political positionsand recommendations pertaining to sustainable tourism, whichhad been integrated into the 26th BSPC Resolution. Furthermore,it presented keystones and events of the last year and aimed to in-form on the state of sustainable tourism in the Baltic Sea Region,best practices, challenges and opportunities in sustainable tourism.She underlined the fact that in nearly all answers, the governmentshad responded by promoting wastewater facilities at harbours inthe Baltic Sea Region and had provided information on the statusof the implementation of these facilities, often with concrete details.To implement a more sustainable tourism, many governments hadadopted specific plans or agendas, also labels and management sys-Session one 35tems. She found it remarka-BSPCble that the topic of cooper-Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conferenceation had also played somerole in the answers of thegovernments, as the tour-ism sector was a competitive Report onmarket, and the companies Sustainable Tourismin the Baltic Sea Regionand regions were strugglingto ensure own profit in thatsector. 2018With regard to a cen-tral demand of the BSPCparliamentarians aroundthe Baltic Sea to establishthe Tourism Centre, MsKemetter reported that atthe beginning of the year2018, the profile of thisCentre had been enlarged,the development of con-cepts for the Baltic Sea Tourism Centre network and business planhad been compiled, and the project with the title “From the Sus-tainable Developments Goals towards a Sustainable Tourism in theBaltic Sea Region” had played a key role in realizing that demand.The speaker noted that sustainable tourism would be discussed atthe 11th Baltic Sea Tourism Forum from 14 – 15 November 2018in Riga and a position paper concerning the cooperation on sus-tainable tourism after 2020 would be evolved for that forum. Next,Ms Kemetter presented several personal political recommendationsreferring to the topic of sustainable tourism which she had foundof interest for the Åland Islands. She commented on the latest EUban on single-use plastics and acknowledged that it was a large steptowards sustainable tourism but she admitted that replacing sin-gle-use plastics would prove a difficult task for many small hospi-tality businesses, particularly the take-away sector which commonlyused single straws, plates, glasses and food containers. The existingalternatives could be too expensive for small hospitality businessesas 90% of them were micro enterprises. This challenge should betaken into consideration by the Commission. She also referred tothe widely discussed topic of the growing number of tourists world-wide. The speaker said that the UN World Tourism Organisationforecast the international tourism arrivals to rise by 250 million bythe end of the decade. Therefore, those challenges the Europe andBaltic SR destinations were facing should be urgently addressed.36 Session oneShe emphasized that the global rise in the number of tourists tothe Baltic Sea was good news for the hospitality business and thetourism sector as the whole. The challenge was that the demandswere not evenly spread but were concentrated to a few destinations,especially cities which were suffering from pressure on public infra-structure and the environment as well as on available rentals andthe rise of housing cost. Ms Kemetter called for further efforts toestablish the Baltic Sea Region the first ecoregion in the world.Saara-Sofia Sirén, the BSPC Co-ob-server at HELCOM and Member ofthe Parliament of Finland, thankedHELCOM for the work that hadbeen done by managing and im-proving the state of the Baltic Seaand underlined the long-term andclose cooperation of the BSPC andHELCOM with a great contribu-tion by Ms Sylvia Bretschneiderwho had been the BSPC observersince 2002. Ms Sirén was sorry thatMs Bretschneider could not attend the conference and to presentthe report herself. Ms Sirén then reported that the BSPC strivedto continue and strengthen its relationship with its partner HEL-COM, mentioning that the BSPC had again placed its support forthe HELCOM work among the most important priorities in the26th annual Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference and in the pres-ent draft resolution. Acknowledging that the regional implemen-tation of ocean-related goals of the 2030 Sustainable DevelopmentAgenda of the United Nations should be a major objective of theregion, the BSPC parties had committed to further strengtheningand developing HELCOM’s role as the major coordinator of thisgoal in the region. The speaker admitted that in order to do this,it would be necessary for the BSPC to support and strengthen theimplementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan by the governmentsand make an even stronger commitment to achieving a suitable en-vironmental status for the Baltic Sea by 2021. If applicable, it wasalso important that the Baltic Sea Action Plan would be renewed inline with the UN Sustainable Development Agenda with commit-ments extending to 2030.Another issue mentioned by the speaker in the report was “marinelitter” which had become one of the biggest threats to the well-be-ing of the Baltic Sea. To reach a greater awareness of this threat onthe political, economic and personal level, the Parliament of Meck-lenburg-Vorpommern had offered the traditional environmentalaward of the parliament on the topic of marine litter in the upcom-Session one 37ing year. Initiatives, schools and associations were encouraged toparticipate. The Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern wouldactively appreciate and support outstanding projects on their pathto reduce marine litter. The speaker commented on the newly pub-lished HELCOM report from which it appeared that the targets setfor 2021 would not be reached in time. Continued and renewedefforts were needed. She endorsed the priorities of the Finnish pres-idency in HELCOM, i.e. updating the Action Plan, reduction ofnutrients and nutrient cycling, mitigation of climate change, syn-ergy between the Agenda 2030 and HELCOM, and she expressedher hope for continuing and fruitful cooperation with HELCOMunder the chairmanship of Finland as the cooperation with andsupport for HELCOM was the key to the future success in environ-mental and economic sustainability in the Baltic Sea Region.Saara-Sofia Sirén, in her capacity as BSPC Rapporteur on Eutroph-ication, presented the report which had been published a year agoand which could not have been presented at the previous confer-ence. She stated that unfortunately, the topic of eutrophication wasstill timely, as the problem had not been solved within the year,therefore she announced that she would present it to the delegateswith some additional information. She stressed that despite all thestrategies, programmes, commitments and funding within the Bal-tic Sea Region since the 1980s, the status of the Baltic Sea still re-mained alarming. Eutrophication was not only an environmentalquestion but an economic and social question, too. It had been cal-culated that decreasing eutrophication would bring economic ben-efits for the region worth 3.6 billion euros. Water pollution couldin fact be regarded as an external cost, which required action fromthe governments concerned. The speaker drew attention to the factthat repairing the damage was a complex task which took time.Therefore, that aspect had to be taken into account when evaluatingstrategies.She also underlined the importance of further actions and bettertargeting as previous actions had resulted in only limited progressand investments had not been as effective as hoped. The HELCOMState of the Baltic Sea report from 2018 showed that the eutroph-ication status had changed only little since the previous holistic as-sessment in 2010. Almost all of the open sea was still affected byeutrophication. Around 12 % of the sea was considered in the cate-gory of the poorest eutrophication status. The maximum allowableinputs were still exceeded in 6/7 sub-basins for phosphorus and in4/7 sub-basins for nitrogen. She recalled that in the current year,the HELCOM Ministerial meeting had agreed to strengthen theimplementation of the Action Plan and had decided that the planwould be updated by 2021. The ministerial meeting had also agreed38 Session oneto elaborate the Baltic Sea Regional Nutrient Recycling Strategy by2020, aimed at reducing nutrient inputs. Ms Sirén appealed fora strong stand on the ambitious targets of the HELCOM BalticSea Action Plan which should remain ambitious, even more am-bitious than the current one. On the circular economy, she sharedher opinion that it had huge potential to decrease eutrophicationand could lead to the adoption of a lifestyle that no longer causedpollution and damage. Saara-Sofia Sirén pointed out that becauseof high temperatures, the summer 2017 had been one of the worstsummers in a long time regarding the number of blue-green algae inthe bodies of water. That fact had brought up more discussions andon a higher level than ever before. Yet apart from dialogue, intenseand effective work was needed to ensure that the children of todaywould have the opportunity to enjoy and sustainably benefit fromthe Baltic Sea.The last part of the session was given to the Representatives of otherParliamentary Assemblies and International Guests who addressed theaudience with presenting their messages to the BSPC .Roger Ryberg, the Chairman ofthe Baltic Sea States SubregionalCo-operation (BSSSC), informedthe delegates that the BSSSC wasa political network organisation –representing all sub-regions in thecountries around the Baltic Sea -,promoting the interests of regionstowards national authorities andEU institutions and by using thenetwork to promote and share bestpractices, support regional cross bor-der partnerships and to encourage concrete project developments.He stated that the Baltic Sea Region was a region of prosperity andchallenges, bridging east and west – bringing people together. In hisview, the bottom-up cooperation involving the local and region-al level was more important than ever, maintaining networks andpeople-to-people contacts across borders in challenging times. Hepointed out that cooperation must be based on the common andshared values of democracy, human rights, peace, social dimensionand the rule of law. Another issue mentioned by Mr Ryberg con-cerned sustainable development and climate change. He pointedout that it was probably the most demanding challenge to be facedand the economic, social and cultural as well as the ecological di-mension must be addressed simultaneously. The demand for sus-tainable development could only be met through innovation andSession one 39smart solutions, because there had to be a change in the way soci-eties, production, consumption, the distribution of opportunitiesand institutional structures were organized. The BSSSC Chairmanhighlighted that the BSSSC strongly supported the Baltic 2030 Ac-tion Plan prepared by the CBSS and endorsed by the Ministers ofForeign Affairs in June of the previous year. And, as sub-regions, theBSSSC would contribute to the follow-up through the network’spolicy work. Another issue mentioned by Mr Ryberg was the youthand youth involvement. He stated that a continuous and perma-nent dialogue with the young generation in the Baltic Sea Regionwas of high importance – as they were the change-makers and thekey to a more sustainable future. Therefore, the BSSSC was a part-ner in ReGeneration 2030 and had taken part in the Summit inÅland from 18 – 20 August. In closing his speech, the BSSSC chair-man invited those present to the BSSSC 26th Annual Conference“Solidarity, participation and being smart in action for a better future”,from 11 and 12 September in Gdansk, Poland, with the PomorskieVoivodeship as hosts.Ulla-Karin Nurm, Director of theNorthern Dimension Partnership inPublic Health and Social Well-being(NDPHS) informed the audiencethat the NDPHS had been estab-lished 15 years earlier to provide aframework to support common ef-forts in the field of health and socialwell-being. The NDPHS was one ofthe structures operating within theNorthern Dimension policy, whichwas a joint policy between four equalpartners - the European Union, Iceland, Norway and the RussianFederation. In its work, the partnership focused on three main pri-orities: 1) prevention of life-style related non-communicable diseas-es 2) reduction of the spread of major communicable diseases and 3)promotion of healthy and socially rewarding lifestyles and tacklingrisky behaviours. To illustrate the on-going work, Ms Nurm gaveseveral examples, among them the EU-co-financed project “North-ern Dimension Antibiotic Resistance Study” (NoDARS) which hadprovided new useful information on the levels of antibiotic resist-ance in society in several countries in the region and would form abasis for international and governmental organisations and policymakers to make evidence-based decisions. Some countries had al-ready stated that they would adjust their national guidelines in linewith the project’s recommendations. Another example given by thespeaker was the NDPHS work with a topic of continuous chal-40 Session onelenge for public health and medical professionals, i.e. the harmfuluse of alcohol. At the beginning of 2018, the Partnership AnnualMinisterial Conference had adopted the NDPHS Declaration onHarmful Use of Alcohol that focused on three major topics: a) alco-hol use during pregnancy and its influence on the development ofthe baby (Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD)), b) screeningof the harmful use of alcohol of the patients of the internal diseaseclinics and 3) community-based interventions to prevent and tacklethe harmful use of alcohol. The third example referred to the ongo-ing work to develop a common NDPHS flagship project involvingall NDPHS Expert Groups with the central topic being the healthof senior citizens. This NDPHS umbrella project would contributeto the process of advancing the health and well-being of peoplein their older age and ensuring enabling and supportive environ-ments for said process. Ms Nurm pointed out that those examplesdemonstrated how regional cooperation in health was contributingto addressing common challenges by joining together knowledgeand experience. She stressed that the NDPHS were strong believersin the value of international cooperation and therefore very muchappreciated the opportunity to be an observer at the Baltic Sea Par-liamentary Conference.Prof Asaf Hajiev, Secretary Gener-al of the Parliamentary Assembly ofthe Black Sea Economic Coopera-tion (PABSEC), informed the con-ference that the PABSEC had beenestablished in 1993 as a result of themajor political changes of the late1980s. Currently it was comprisedof 76 MPs representing 12 coun-tries. He recognized the importanceof the Baltic Sea and Black Sea re-gions not only for European politicsbut also for global concerns. There were many common interests forthose two regions, for example communication and transportation.Both sectors were crucial for each country’s economy. The speak-er highlighted that the Black Sea Region was a crossroad to maintransportation arteries such as the silk road from east to west and,in the near future, the extension of the silk road from the Black Seato North Europe and the Viking road which was heading directlyfrom the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. The speaker appealed for aclose cooperation in that field as a lot more could be done together.Another issue mentioned by Mr Haijiev were the huge energy pro-jects realized in the Baltic Sea Region as well as in the Black Sea, forinstance North Stream 2 in the Baltic Sea as well as Turkstreem andSession one 41Nabucco in the Black Sea region. Finally, the speaker touched uponthe question of migrants and refugees. He pointed out that therewere 60 million migrants and refugees in the world which indicatedthat among 110 people in the world, there was one a refugee ormigrant. In the Black Sea area, the number was even higher – oneout of 60 people was a refugee or a migrant and in Azerbaijan,even one out of 10 people was a migrant. He emphasized that therefugee problem caused huge damage to the world economy whichwas estimated to be a loss of 500 billion dollars. It was an obligationfor all parliamentarians to find a solution to that problem. And thebest solution for the region was peace, security and stability. At thatpoint, he referred to the history of the Åland Islands that could bethe best example of finding a peaceful solution of territorial integ-rity by granting the nation the right of self-definition. Regardingthe memorandum of understanding signed by the BSPC and thePABSEC the previous year, he proposed organizing a joint seminaron the Standing Committee level in the spring the following year.At such a meeting hosted by PABSEC, he offered that all issues ofcommon interest could be discussed. He closed his speech by a per-sonal remark and recalled the year 1991 when his home country re-ceived its independence, the borders had been opened, informationtechnology had entered people’s lives, and the world had becomesmall. He shared his belief that what this little world needed weresecurity, stability, peace and prosperity.42 Session oneSession two 43SECOND SESSIONThe Vision of a Healthy BalticSea - A Call for more ActionThe session was chaired by Prof Jānis Vucāns, Member of the Parliamentof Latvia, and co-chaired by Dorota Arciszewska-Mielewczyk, Memberof the Parliament of Poland . The background for the session was theHELCOM Ministerial Meeting on 6 March in Brussels: Renewed ef-forts for a Healthy Baltic Sea . The BSPC had supported the Baltic SeaAction Plan of HELCOM since the very beginning; however, three yearsbefore the end of the current Action Plan, a good environmental statusfor the Baltic Sea has not yet been achieved . Therefore, more politicalpressure and more action is needed in that respect .Karmenu Vella, EU Commissionerfor Environment Maritime Affairsand Fisheries, referred in his videomessage to the report on the state ofthe Baltic Sea, HELCOM II, whichhad been adopted in March togetherwith the Ministerial Declaration. Hepointed out that this was a positivestep towards a healthier sea with aclear mandate for an action plan af-ter 2020. The Finnish chairmanshiphad guided HELCOM towards thesustainable development of the local blue economy in line with theUN sustainable development goals. The Commissioner emphasizedthat sustainability was the key to the future of the Baltic Sea. It wasthe main topic of the recent Commission Report on Blue Growthand the Region, and it was a watchword for the shipping industry,for the bio economy, for coastal tourism and for other future bluegrowth sectors.The speaker went on to discuss blue growth and investment. Heexplained that what was most needed was coordinated action. Thatwas true of ocean energy, tidal and wave technologies which weremaking great progress in the Baltic Sea Region. Also, highly de-veloped supply chain services must be taken to another level. Thespeaker claimed that to maintain that leadership especially during44 Session twothe commercialization phase, more coordination, more politicalsupport and more available and accessible investments were needed.He assured those present that most of the framework was alreadyin place. He mentioned the European Union Strategy for the BalticSea Region as a very useful platform for exchange. Now it should beused to work on building a common vision.The speaker appealed for a more strategic approach which wouldfocus on pulling resources, scaling the projects and reaching crit-ical mass. He emphasized that there was a need to extend and tostrengthen the cross-sectorial, regional and interregional partner-ships. In fulfilling these tasks, EU funding could help. At this point,he mentioned the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund with theBaltic Scope project which had brought together national authori-ties in maritime spatial planning. Another project mentioned by theCommissioner was BLASTIC funded by the European Regionaland Development Fund.The speaker addressed the issue of litter in the sea. He explainedthat mapping litter sources in urban areas and at sea was a first stepto reduce the hazardous substances and plastic waste at sea. The Eu-ropean Union was working towards oceans that were healthy, safeand sustainable. The EU’s long-standing objective was in line withthe global sustainable development goals. However, he underlinedthe importance of member states, regions as well as the worlds ofbusiness and academia working together.He furthermore considered that the spirit of cooperation was al-ready very evident across the Baltic region and thanked the BSPCdelegates for their political engagement and for their valuable par-liamentary expertise.Kimmo Tiilikainen, Minister of the Environment, Energy andHousing of Finland, remarked that he was the head of the Finn-ish delegation to the BSPC which was why he would be especiallypleased to present the Priorities of the Finnish HELCOM Chair-manship and The future of the Baltic Sea Action Plan to the BSPCdelegates. He reported that the Holistic Assessment and the Stateof the Baltic Sea Report published by HELCOM in July, providedthe same message: There were many good trends but still too manyred areas on the maps indicating that a good status of the sea hadnot yet been reached. In March 2018, at the HELCOM Ministe-rial Meeting in Brussels, the status of implementation of the BalticSea Action Plan had been reviewed. Unfortunately, the conclusionswere that although implementation was underway, it had not pro-gressed as swiftly as it should have, and there was still much to doSession two 45before 2021, the deadline year for the Baltic Sea Action Plan. Thespeaker went on to highlight the strengths of the Baltic Sea Regionstakeholders. Most important for him were: the good scientific basiswith more than 100 years of scientific cooperation between the Bal-tic Sea states and the more recent BONUS programmes for fund-ing; next, sharing a common view of what a “healthy Baltic Sea” isin all of its technical details, thanks to HELCOM’s monitoring andassessment work, and last but not least the ability to collaborate andcooperate, of which the Baltic Sea Action Plan was a good example.The Minister referred to recent examples of such cooperation, i.e.preparations to jointly address the International Maritime Organi-sation, IMO, to make the Baltic Sea a Nitrogen Emission ControlArea (NECA); jointly designating 12 % of the area of the Baltic Seaas a marine protected area, and the recent agreement of all BalticSea states on the description of nine Ecologically or BiologicallySignificant Areas (EBSAs).With regard to the Finnish Chairmanship of HELCOM, Mr Tii-likainen informed the delegates that the Chair would be Ms SaaraBäck from the Ministry of the Environment. He stressed that Fin-land was fully committed to its chairmanship, to supporting HEL-COM’s work and to fulfilling the priorities of the Finnish chair-manship. The priorities mentioned by the Minister were as follows:updating the Baltic Sea Action Plan, understood as leading the re-vision process of the Baltic Sea Action Plan and finding commonsolutions to formulate an ambitious and realistic updated plan;secondly, reducing nutrient inputs and nutrient recycling by facili-tating the fine-tuning of the nutrient input reduction system basedon the agreed Maximum Allowable Inputs and developing an effec-tive follow-up system; thirdly, climate change and its consequencesfor the Baltic Sea such as warming, sea ice decline, acidification,46 Session twoanoxia and shifting species ranges, all of which had be taken intoaccount when updating the BSAP. The fourth priority reported bythe speaker was the synergy between the Agenda 2030 and HEL-COM’s work.Minister Tiilikainen underlined the important role parliamentar-ians had in ensuring that the Baltic Sea protection would receivethe attention it deserved both in parliaments - and in the nationalbudgets as well. He appealed to all parliamentarians to ensure thatall means would be provided for the work that Baltic Sea protectionneeded.Camilla Gunell, Deputy Prime Minister of the Åland Islands andMinister for Trade, Environment and Energy, presented the strate-gic document “Development and Sustainability Agenda for Åland”,which was a response of the Åland Islands’ society to the challeng-es of climate change and the consequences of rising temperatures.She emphasized that the current year’s dry and hot summer hadreminded the inhabitants of the northern part of Europe that cli-mate change was happening and that the situation strongly con-cerned everybody. In Åland, initiatives to counter the unsustainableelements of social development had been taken relatively early. In2014, the parliament had adopted the collective goal of total sus-tainable development in Åland, and the deadline was set for the year2051. A collective pursuit of that goal was required, a strong anddecisive agenda for visions, goals and actions, indicators for moni-toring those goals and a supporting structure for the realisation ofthe agenda. Ms Gunell underlined that the decision to start with thestrategy for Åland’s sustainable agenda was right on time as in 2015,Session two 47the EU member states had formally adopted the Agenda 2030 withthe 17 SDGs for the world. She stated that hundreds of Ålandershad taken part to create the vision and the goals together with therepresentatives of business, authorities and other stakeholders. Shedescribed said collective work as a public-private-people partner-ship. The result of that work were seven sustainable goals, unitedin one sentence: “Everyone can flourish in a viable society on theislands of peace”. Then Ms Gunell went on to present the goals, e.g.goal one “Happy people whose inherent resources increase”, goaltwo “Everyone feels trust and has real opportunities to participatein society”, goal three “All water is of good quality”, goal four “Eco-systems in balance and biological diversity”, goal five “Attractivefor residents, visitors and businesses”, goal six “Significantly higherproportion of energy from renewable sources, plus increased energyefficiency” and last but not least goal seven “Sustainable and mind-ful patterns of consumption and production”. Speaking of realizingthat vision, she stressed that it would be possible only by joint ac-tion, through a combination of commitment and conscious actionsamongst operators in every sector of society. She emphasized thatnot just decisiveness but also structured coordination and monitor-ing were needed to achieve the goals. Realization required cooper-ation between citizens, public, private and third sector operators.The implementation also required the mobilization of economicresources controlled by public financiers and private investors. Sheexplained that therefore a special council, the Development andSustainability Council, had been appointed to take on the responsi-bility and to lead the work. The council consisted of leading peoplefrom various sectors and was responsible for the network’s vitalityand long-term existence. The government and the parliament heldthe overall political responsibility for the realization of the agendabut all municipalities, authorities and other public sector operationswere expected to take an active part in the realization of it and to actas examples by thoroughly applying the principles of sustainabilityto their own working practices. As an example of ongoing action,the Minister mentioned Clic Innovation Ltd, a Finnish organisationowned by key industry and universities who had chosen the ÅlandIslands to test and demonstrate new business models for the futureenergy market. The Minister invited all delegates to visit her homeregion in the future and assured them that they would be able tofind many good practice examples for their sustainable work there.Ottilia Thoreson, Director of the Baltic Ecoregion Programme inthe World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), remarked that the chal-lenges facing the Baltic Sea Region community were growing ata faster rate than solutions or the ways they could be addressed.Therefore, the commitment delivered by different member states48 Session twothat were part of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan were ofutmost importance. The assessment developed by the Baltic Ecore-gion Programme had shown through the scorecard that implemen-tation was weak and needed to be strengthened and better coordi-nated. The speaker highlighted that scorecards did not show thebiological state of the Baltic Sea as had been done by HELCOMin their excellent report but indicated to what degree governmentsfollowed through on their commitments. The scorecard measuredprogress similar to the Baltic Sea Region Action Plan, including keyareas such as Eutrophication, Hazardous Substances, Biodiversity,Maritime Activities and additionally Delivery towards a SustainableBlue Economy. The scorecard aimed at showing how far the coun-tries of the BSAP had met the political commitments, and whathad happened in the last five years, since the previous Scorecard hadbeen devised in 2013. Ms Thoreson explained that the HELCOMdata base was used for the scorecard. Therefore, the accuracy of theanalysis was limited to the quality of countries’ reporting. They hadlooked at the actions according to action deadlines. Tracking the pro-gress was not an easy task because a great number of actions anddeadlines had been changed, split into new actions or combinedwith little explanation for this alteration. What could be seen wasthat all the countries were doing rather poorly, as shown in red inthe scorecard’s summary. The speaker underlined that regrettably,all countries were lagging behind on their commitments to meetthe Baltic Sea Action Plan goal of 2021. She also pointed out that,on the other hand, progress had been made since the last scorecardfive years earlier. Some countries like Finland and Germany hadmade progress for example in the area of hazardous substances aswell as some other countries. Sweden was the top-ranking nation– followed by Finland and Denmark - in a very low-graded, failingSession two 49class. Out of the 177 actions of the BSAP, there were as many as103 actions that had passed their deadline. Only half of the 177actions were considered accomplished. Parliamentarians should beaware that their countries were not doing enough. Ms Thoresonremarked at this point that the HELCOM secretariat was doing agreat job to push the actions through. This effort had resulted in thescore of 70 % delivered joint actions which had been accomplishedby the countries together with the leadership of the Secretariat. Thespeaker emphasized that on the national level, much more had to bedone. With regard to hazardous substances, the speaker concededthat much had been done but nonetheless, she pointed out thatthe level of contamination had not decreased since 2010 and thatcontaminates had reached a higher level in the columns for animals,sediments and water. Species were still accumulating more contam-inates. With regard to biodiversity, Ms Thoreson reported that twodeadline for the conservation of many species had not been met.Moreover, many species showed a poor status throughout the foodweb. To reverse the trend in the field of biodiversity, more actionshad to be delivered. As to maritime activities, the speaker noted thatthere had been some great success stories, for instance the reductionof sulphur through the respective emissions ban. However, duringthe last five years, very little had been achieved beyond that. Thesituation was similar with regard to the major threat of alien speciesand a more and more pertinent problem – underwater noise.The speaker also informed the conference about the score of sus-tainable or blue growth. The WWF had developed their own defini-tion of a sustainable blue economy, starting from the understandingthat no economy could sustain itself when its natural resource basewas systematically being degraded.To build a sustainable blue economy, smart investment and bettermanagement were needed. Those principle had been applied to theWWF report “All Hands on Deck”. Ms Thoreson pointed out thatthe Baltic Sea Region could become a model region to drive the sus-tainable blue economy. However, leadership from the governmentswas needed to achieve this. She gave positive examples of Sweden,Finland, Germany and Russia who had made significant progress,and the speaker appealed to the stakeholders to be more persistent,focusing on implementing measures agreed in the BSAP, ensuringthat the countries promptly reported on the progress of actions. Itwas necessary for countries to commit increased financing to ensurethat the BSAP was completed and the sustainable blue economyimplemented.Marc Klaus, Director of the initiative Race for the Baltic and BalticSea City Accelerator, informed the conference about the organisa-tion he represented, its mission and one of its main programmes.50 Session twoHe explained that Race for the Baltic was a foundation focusingon strategic initiatives to improve the state of the Baltic Sea. Ithad been founded over a decade before by Niklas Zennström, theco-founder of Skype and the CEO and co-founder of Atomico. Theorganisation had worked to get key stakeholders around the tableto collectively act to stop the decline and degradation of the BalticSea. The speaker emphasized that the main idea behind Race for theBaltic was to change people’s mindset, from seeing the challenges ofthe Baltic Sea as a problem to seeing them as an opportunity. Hereferred to the name of the organisation which implied that it hadbegun a race, “A Race for the Baltic”.The purpose of the race in 2013 had been to raise awareness aboutthe state of the Baltic Sea and to spearhead a call for more action. Inaddition to raising awareness, the campaign was an effort to increasecollaboration – and had brought together over 100 organisations aspartners on the 3,700 km cycle ride around the Baltic Sea. More-over, the campaign also had succeeded in collecting over 25,000signatures in a petition calling on ministers to act to fulfil the goalsin the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. This petition and the sig-natures had been presented by Niklas Zennström at the HELCOMMinisterial Meeting held in Copenhagen in October 2013. Thenext step was creating a road map the cities could follow to takeaction. The study provided by the Boston Consulting Group forthe organisation had shown that the future of the Baltic Sea couldbe improved by a stronger environmental strategy at the municipallevel – and that the investment in clear waters could create jobs andboost economic output.Across the entire region, the BCG calculated, the difference be-tween a “shipwrecked” scenario and a “clear waters” scenario couldSession two 51amount to 900,000 jobs and 270 million euros in economic out-put. The speaker pointed out that by restoring local waters, a citycould help to develop sustainable businesses in the community,increase the recreation and aesthetic value of the region, achievebetter flood control and, more broadly, raise the general well-beingof its citizens. Mr Klaus underlined the fact that as the result of thebike tour and from several meetings in the cities around the BalticSea Region, he and his team found out that many local politiciansdid not sense enough incentive to really act. Environmental goalswere set at the top – on the regional or national level – but in manycases, cities were the ones that would need to make the investmentsand they had these “investments” as a cost. The response to thatchallenge was The City Accelerator which was a platform for pub-lic and private actors and science to explore and co-create innova-tive approaches to local water challenges and meet sustainabilityobjectives. Building on changing the mind-set from “problem” to“opportunity”, the team had worked together to help create busi-ness cases and to create a new narrative about the Baltic Sea. Inthe Baltic Sea City Accelerator programme, experts from science,entrepreneurs, cities and solution providers were brought togetherto leverage the power of a collective vision for the Baltic Sea Re-gion. Twelve cities from four countries participated in the BalticSea City Accelerator from 2015-2017. Vaxholm, Värmdö, Västervikand Kalmar from Sweden, Panevezys in Lithuania and Slupsk inPoland as well as Mariehamn. The programme improved their un-derstanding of Baltic Sea environmental issues, contributed to theirdevelopment of a local Baltic Sea Action Plan and supported thesharing of knowledge across the Baltic Sea. The speaker highlightedthe necessity of involving local authorities and stakeholders with thebroader business community of investors, entrepreneurs and otheractors – from science, international networks as well as NGOs toimprove the state of the Baltic Sea and capture the opportunity.Jari Nahkanen, Chairman of the CPMR Baltic Sea Commission,stressed that environmental policies might bring results only whenthe emphasis would be put on implementation. He noticed that ac-tions that had been presented by previous speakers had been takenby actors on local and regional level, and therefore, it was necessaryto safeguard that the framework of policy and instruments support-ed that. He noted that the negotiations about the next programmeperiod in the EU had started, and they were not only about numbersin a budget but about the preconditions for actors to get involved.He feared that the tools and funds on the local and regional levelwere proposed to decrease. Mr Nahkanen referred to the subsidiarity52 Session twoprinciple which stated that decisions and priorities should be takenas close as possible to the citizens. That enabled different prioritiesin the north of the Baltic Sea compared to the south. For example,in the northern parts of the Baltic Sea region, the speaker’s home,much of what applied to Arctic policy was relevant and intercon-nected with Baltic Sea Policy. This was a fundamental fact which hadto be taken into consideration when proposals about climate changeand environmental issues were made as the Baltic Sea was a part ofthe Arctic and the Baltic Sea was also affected by global warming. Hegave an example of a problem of so-called black carbon or the fineparticles of soot. It caused ice melting and warming of the Arctic.Black carbon emissions were estimated to be worse than greenhousegases. Reducing the use and emissions of black carbon was not onlyan environmental but also a health issue. The reduction of black car-bon emissions in the Baltic Sea region was realistic through cross-bor-der cooperation. Therefore, the speaker expressed his concern thatwhen the Commission proposed merging the maritime cross-borderprogrammes, in an eagerness for a more effective administration, theywould lose the essence of effective governance. Another great threatreported by the speaker was that for the first time ever in an EUBudget proposal, the amount of funds directly managed by the Euro-pean Commission was greater than the amount that would be man-aged by the member states and regions. The mechanisms and alsothe political priority setting were being centralised to either capitalsor Brussels. The speaker stressed that this was not the right direction;a functional implementation was required. He also mentioned thatnew political priorities and Britain’s exit would sharply reduce EUfinances. That meant that the EU was expected to do more but withless funds. The CPMR BSC chairman stated that the CPMR BalticSession two 53Sea Commission was highly concerned that the EU Commission hadproposed reducing the budget for Interreg, despite its added value forfostering cooperation across Europe. There was a risk that Interregwould not be able to deliver due to its very limited financial resourc-es. The CPMR was calling for a strong and well-resourced Europe-an Territorial Cooperation. He also expressed his concern as to thenew architecture for maritime cooperation proposed by the Com-mission, which diminished the programmes that were close to localand regional actors. He opposed the scenario to integrate Interregmaritime cross-border programmes into transnational programmes,which would mean getting rid of the South Baltic, Central Baltic andBotnia-Atlantica programmes, which had brought tangible results.He concluded his speech by saying that politicians on the national,regional and local level must engage even more in the discussions onwhat future the EU wanted because the action was needed for theBaltic Sea, also for its competitiveness and connectedness.CommentsValentina Pivnenko, Member of the State Duma of the RussianFederation, expressed her concern that some statements voiced dur-ing the session did not contribute positively to a debate on sustain-able development in the Baltic Sea Region, increasing the qualityof life of inhabitants and the prosperity of all of those who wereliving in the Baltic Sea countries; after all, these were the reasons forcoming together at that session in the first place. The main concernhad been brought by some parts of Ms Gestrin’s report referringto Russia, to Crimea and the sanctions in place, indicating that allthose issues were making it almost impossible to work in the envi-ronmental area. Ms Pivnenko stressed that Crimea had always beena part of Russia, as clearly witnessed by history; therefore, linkingsanctions to the impossibility of cooperation was not just incorrect,it did not refer to reality. The speaker underlined that to preservethe quality of clean water, dealing with waste water, preserving theenvironment had been a hard endeavour. Those issues were a toppriority for Russia, not only for the government of the Russian Fed-eration but for all the member states working in the Baltic Sea Re-gion and all regional parliaments of four Russian Baltic Sea regions.Ms Pivnenko also reminded her audience of the Standing Com-mittee meeting in Finland organized by Kari Kulmala, Member ofthe Finnish Parliament, at which the questions around the environ-54 Session twomental cooperation of Russia and Finland had been discussed. Sheacknowledged that the debate had been constructive and mutuallybeneficial, and that it had led to changes in the approach towardsthe development of that region. She mentioned that in Russia, thetopic had been continuously discussed on the national level but alsowith local authorities. Moreover, in the fourth quarter of the year,the progress of environmental projects would be monitored, par-ticularly those efforts that had been be earmarked by the EuropeanCommission, the European Council or the governments of Fin-land and Russia. She stressed that Russia was very concerned aboutthe state of the most important European lakes in the Republic.The purity of their water was closely linked to the environmentalstate of the Baltic Sea Region. That issue was of utmost impor-tance to local populations. Therefore, a special Federal Programmeto protect those lakes had been set. All those issues were discussedin Petrozavodsk and also in the State Duma consultations with theMinisters. Ms Pivnenko stressed that she was firmly convinced thatSession two 55the programme would get the financial resources it required, and itwould be subject to monitoring and screening. She concluded herintervention by saying that examples given by her had proved thatthe discussion on how to improve the cooperation for the benefit ofthe region was needed rather than discussing political issues whichwould lead to the destabilization of that cooperation.Sussane Swensson, Member of the Swedish Parliament, in hercomment referred to the urgent issue of plastic waste in the sea. Shementioned that a positive signal had come from the BSPC when thedrafting committee had modified the approach in the Resolutiontowards stronger formulations regarding plastic and its amounts inthe seas.She welcomed the ban of the EU on single-use plastics but warnedthat it was not enough because the discussion on micro plastics andplastic pollution in the ocean had been carried on in the BSPC, but56 Session twothe situation was not improving. Therefore, Ms Swensson calledfor the process of implementing new methods across the Baltic SeaRegion to be sped up so as to reduce the number of plastic packages,plastic bags etc. She mentioned that influencing public opinion wasimportant and gave an example of the law introduced in Swedenaccording to which a customer had to be asked whether she or heneeded a plastic bag. The law had reduced the number of plasticbags offered in retail outlets by 50 %. The speaker called for moreresearch, more legislation and more action in all countries acrossthe Baltic Sea.The last point in the session agenda was a panel debate moderated bySimon Holmström, the representative of the young generation and theChairman of the Regeneration 2030 summit . He was given the oppor-tunity to raise the core questions for the future to the decision makersof today .Simon Holmström proposed that the topic of the discussion hewas about to moderate should be “How to make the Baltic SeaRegion great again” and invited all speakers of the second session totake part in the debate.His first question to Ottilia Thoreson was why the countries of theBaltic Sea were not good at implementing the Baltic Sea ActionPlan goals.Ottilia Thoreson’s opinion was that the many counteracting poli-cies, some on the national, some on the regional, some on the locallevel, streamlined by other spheres and by other ministers, could beblamed for that situation. She mentioned that the work HELCOMperformed was mainly in the capacity of the ministers of environ-ment, but back home, they had to negotiate with the enterpriseministries, forestry ministries, agriculture etc. which was not an easytask to have. That was the challenge, according to the speaker. Morecohesion and intergovernmental discussions towards understandingthe environment was a top priority and could improve the situation.Minister Kimmo Tiilikainen agreed with Ottilia Thoreson that thelack of implementation was a main problem. However, he stressedthat each government had to be responsible for doing their work.He reminded his audience that one of the reasons for Finland rais-ing the importance of the Agenda 2030 was the holistic approachwhich Finland was applying in their policies. It was that approachwhich had led to a debate on a sustainable future rather than oneor the other ministry issue. At that point, he mentioned the ÅlandIslands’ strategy as a great example of a holistic approach to envi-Session two 57ronmental issues. He called for more spirit in implementing theAgenda 2030Minister Camilla Gunell admitted that the island location ofÅland, with solar and wind energy resources, was an important pre-requisite of success. She compared the process of developing a greenstrategy to building a house – in both cases, the work had to startfrom the ground up.Simon Holmström requested an answer about the most pressingobstacles when it came to achieving a healthy Baltic Sea.Jari Nahkanen admitted that there were different challenges in dif-ferent parts of the Baltic Sea. Therefore, cooperation was needed onvarious levels, although this did not have to be a cooperation at astate level; a cooperation between regions was equally beneficial. Heunderlined that currently more than ever, cooperation and cohesionin the Baltic Sea Region and in Europe were needed. He gave anexample of the efforts of the northern Sweden and Finnish borderregions to save natural salmon populations. As a result of the coop-eration between those regions, Finland decided to shift focus fromplanting fish to maintaining and restoring the natural reproductivecycle in the Finnish national fishing strategy.Marc Klaus was asked whether it was possible that business in theBaltic Sea could transition towards the blue economy. He confirmedthat there was also a significant business opportunity in generationsor areas not yet identified, for example large corporate shippingcompanies could shift from the traditional maritime economy to aneconomy based on digital technologies, from skills for developinggames or music to skills for collecting data around the ocean orservices and discovery technologies based on information related tothe Baltic sea. The speaker mentioned that another field of progresscould concern the leadership. The private sector could bring someleadership and initiatives to the public sector; however, such a co-operation would require the public sector to provide predictable op-portunities on a longer term for private investments. And anotheraspect mentioned by the speaker was the understanding of the con-sumer. Business leaders might also address the role that enterprisescould take to provide a product that was sustainably produced fora more sustainable consumption pattern. Identifying the marketingperspective, presenting the leadership issues, looking for a way totap sectors of the economy that hadn’t been seen as contributing tothe health of the Baltic Sea – all of these aspects could also contrib-ute to the transition process.58 Session twoOttilia Thoreson referred to the topic of the conference which wasa call for action and stressed that there had been a lot of talk abouttaking action, implementation, leadership and cooperation. All ofthose were valid points to consider for the Agenda 2030. Howev-er, for Ms Thoreson, it was worrying that even the goals for 2021would not be achieved. Describing issues by using new buzz wordsonly moved the goal further away. To Ms Thoreson, leadership wasabout taking action immediately and having immediate results.Minister Kimmo Tiilikainen answered the question of whetherthere were too many buzz words and too many strategies empha-sized. He stated that the number of strategies was sufficient, butmore actions were needed to go straight forward with the imple-mentation, for example the Baltic Sea Action Plan. The speakerpointed out that the challenges were even greater than earlier be-cause of climate change and new threats such as macro and microplastics. Each country must improve its performance and focus onrecycling nutrients in the spirit of the circular economy which hadproved to be another great challenge for all countries around theBaltic Sea. The speaker informed the delegates that Finland, follow-Session two 59ing the European Commission’s proposal of a European Strategy forPlastic in a Circular Economy, had developed a national roadmap.Minister Camilla Gunell supported the opinion of the preced-ing speaker and called for thorough analyses of the reasons for notreaching the 2021 BSAP and which conditions were needed to besuccessful next time. She emphasized that societies could not affordto fail with the climate question. Ms Gunell stressed that harmoniz-ing the rules and legislation around the Baltic Sea Region would bevery valuable and beneficial for all stakeholders.Marc Klaus stated that great work had been done already, withmany best practice examples, but adopting a certain solution couldbe perceived as risky for some local politicians who had to take theelection cycle into account. Therefore, more information sharingwas needed to help politicians take decisions and to push for fasteraction. He explained that many solutions or actions started at a 50% level; if they were launched at 80 %, there would be enough timeto work on the remaining 20 %. Too often, though, actions evenstarted from scratch.60 Session twoJari Nahkanen informed the delegates that existing Baltic Sea Re-gion networks could help in sharing information about best prac-tice examples. He mentioned CPMR, BSC, BSSSC and UBC andhighlighted that closer cooperation was required between those or-ganisations.Ottilia Thoreson drew attention to the fact that recently, every-body had been talking about plastics, even though plastic littershad been a maritime problem for a long time before. She believedthe interest had been brought to the public, directly connecting itto the people and people’s health. She mentioned that the EnglishPremier League had teamed up with Sky News in an ambitious newpartnership aimed at getting clubs and fans to stop using single-useplastics. For Ms Thoreson, that action was an example of how totackle the problem of plastics.Simon Holmström asked his panellists if more alternative actions– such as the school strike for climate initiated by 15-year-old GretaThunberg – were needed to speed up the work.Minister Camilla Gunell replied that if the children in all partic-ipating countries would refuse to go to school before any actionagainst climate change was taken, there would be a revolution.Minister Kimmo Tiilikainen was of the opinion that a paradigmchange was necessary for if the Agenda 2030 and Paris Agreementtarget to be met. First of all, he underlined, the pipeline-fossil-basedeconomy had to be converted into a circular economy.In their final round, the panellists pointed out the most urgent issuethat should be combatted together.For Jari Nahkanen, it was the need for action towards reducingplastic waste and the inflow of hazardous substances into the BalticSea. He gave an example of the BLASTIC project – one of the flag-ships of the Baltic Sea Strategy which aimed at compiling a list ofpathways and sources as well as recommendations for cost-effectivemeasures to combat marine litter in e.g. the waste and water sectoron a municipal level.Marc Klaus said that that it could help to shift minds, perceivingwaste water treatment as production facilities for resources and fo-cusing on nitrification through recycling, i.e. the circular economy.Also, awareness could be raised by understanding on a very strongemotional level that the Baltic Sea was the swimming, the fishingand the sailing.Session two 61Ottilia Thoreson underlined that the catchment area of the BalticSea was four times larger than the Baltic Sea itself. Therefore, a hugearea had to be involved for the Baltic Sea Action Plan. She remind-ed the audience that there were many EU policies, for instance avery good Maritime Framework Directive, a Water Framework di-rective, but they were not delivered by countries. She indicated thatwater was the key factor for climate issues; on the one hand, therewere more and more floods while on the other hand, good drinkingwater was lacking. For the speaker, therefore, water linked societiestogether and was relevant to the climate issue and public health.Minister Camilla Gunell shared her belief that the stakeholdersknew what had to be done. Good practice examples should be high-lighted, and more effort had to be put into the work.Minister Kimmo Tiilikainen pointed out that a clean Baltic Seawould have a huge impact on people’s welfare and on the economy.The Baltic Sea Action Plan would be updated, and the measuresto be implemented should be treated as investments into a cleanerfuture. He called on those present for their support to reach thatambitious goal.62 Session threeSession three 63Third SessionSustainable Energy, Smart EnergyDistribution PlatformThe session was chaired by Valentina Pivnenko, Member of the StateDuma, Russian Federation, and co-chaired by Karin Gaardsted, Mem-ber of the Parliament of DenmarkMr Berndt Schalin, Senior Advisorto the Government of Åland, pre-sented the topic of “The Future Fos-sil-Free Energy System on Åland”.He spoke about pilot systems, whichhad been in the planning stage for along time and would be entering full-scale implementation, to show that afossil-free energy system was possible.Åland was planning to be fossil-free inits energy supply as soon as possible,at the very latest by 2050. To that end,a pilot project had been devised, attracting major technology suppli-ers, to create an energy grid run exclusively on renewable sources.The challenges here were related to wind and solar power not be-ing stable sources of energy. They were variable, or “VRES” (Varia-ble Renewable Energy Sources). For a truly self-sustainable energygrid with 100 % renewable sources, flexibility was necessary. Thisdemonstration system was about proving that a flexible energy sys-tem with 100 % renewable power sources was possible. He stressedthat this could not be done with the current structures of energygrids in most countries. That meant primarily changing the rulesby which the energy market was operating, to incentivize players tointroduce flexibility into the system.The government recognized that it was the key to empower the citi-zens to understand and engage with the system. Accordingly, it wasexplained to people what and why they were doing and what thatmeant for everyone in society. Most similar projects in the past hadhit obstructions in the way of citizen protests.By now, wind and solar had become feasible energy productionmethods but were hampered by their variability. On Åland, it was64 Session threeimportant to demonstrate the sources of flexibility. The viabilityrequired a smart grid as the foundation.The Åland Islands had been selected because of a number of uniquecharacteristics, such as excellent wind and solar conditions, with themost solar hours in Finland; because 80 % of electricity was importedfrom Sweden, that made switching over to a new grid easier; thanksto the Islands’ being self-governed with its own rules on electricity,regulations could be tweaked more easily than in larger markets;Åland is also a “full society” of 30,000 citizens, with an industry andservice sector, allowing the results of the demonstration to be scaledup; moreover, wind parks had already been planned to cover morethan the Islands’ electricity requirements. Finally, Mr Schalin stressedthat most of the features of the Åland Islands, such as GDP, electricityconsumption or population, were similar to the rest of Finland.He also mentioned that the roll-out would be an ongoing processwith several stages. There were the investments into renewable en-ergy that were not part of the demonstration project as such butrather an element of the Åland Islands’ 20-year experience of in-stalling wind power. Several houses on the islands also had solarpower rooftops. Moreover, the infrastructure for electric powercharging points had been established, assisting in the fast increasein the number of electric vehicle sales. Furthermore, electric buseswere being planned. Nonetheless, the speaker underlined that thesewere processes that had already been started and were continuingindependent of the demonstration project.In terms of organisation, the project had started with an intensephase of research, development and innovation, scheduled to becompleted at the end of 2018. It was managed by an innovationcluster called Clic Innovation Ltd., owned by 30 companies and 16universities. For the upcoming implementation phase, a new com-pany would be formed, a joint venture between Clic Innovationand the Åland Island industry organisations. The new company, thespeaker noted, would be up and running within about four weeksof his speech. He also noted that the project had drawn much inter-est from the industry, leading to a large number of players partici-pating in the demonstration.As the co-chair, Ms Gaardsted thanked him and mentioned thatthe problem was no longer to produce renewable energy but ratherhow to store it so that it could be used when needed.Mr Schalin agreed on that count and confirmed that this was alarge part of the flexibility that he had been talking about. He addedthat another factor was shifting consumption when it was applica-ble. Moreover, it was necessary to consider how to integrate it intoSession three 65the market in a cost-efficient way, so that electricity prices were notraised due to storage. In a very simple calculation, he described thatthey had identified about six days with neither wind nor sun, some-time during the winter on the Åland Islands. For the local popu-lation, that equated to 6 GWh of electricity. Storing that amountof power in lithium-ion batteries at current prices would cost 1.9billion euros. Since this was an impossible price, other solutionsneeded to be found.Mr Reinis Āboltiņš, energy marketand policy expert, reported aboutchallenges to sustainable energy inthe Baltic Sea region. He under-lined the geographic complexity andtherefore the difficulties in improv-ing the interconnectivity. Here, elec-tricity was concerned but the place-ment of natural gas pipelines wouldbe equally complex and challenging.He admitted that currently, therewere only three electrical connec-tions between the Baltic states andScandinavia, two between Estonia and Finland as well as one be-tween Lithuania and Sweden. Mr Āboltiņš stressed that these wereimportant for the functioning of the Nordic electricity spot market,Nord Pool. The speaker noted that the Baltic Sea Region was oftenlooked at as a single unit, but at the same time, it was difficult toimagine a more diverse ecosystem of diverging power systems as thecountries of the region presented.Key energy production in the local states – also including Iceland andNorway as parts of the BSPC – were geothermal energy, dominatingin Iceland, while Norway derived nearly all of its energy from largehydro power plants. Denmark featured a great deal of wind power aswell as CHPs. Mr Āboltiņš explained the latter as Combined Heatand Power, that is, power plants producing heat and electricity atthe same time. In the case of Denmark’s CHPs, they were switch-ing over primarily to using biomass as their fuel from coal and nat-ural gas. Sweden’s electricity supply was dominated by large hydropower plants, especially in the northern parts; moreover, the countryhad stuck with nuclear power but also used wind and biomass asenergy sources. Finland based its energy supply on gas CHPs, alsonuclear power – where, the speaker noted, the public opinion hadstayed roughly 50:50 on pro and contra nuclear energy -, large hydropower as well as wind plants. The parts of Russia on the Baltic Sea,i.e. Kaliningrad and St Petersburg, relied mostly on nuclear power66 Session threeplants as well as CHPs. Mr Āboltiņš pointed out that Estonia hadworked hard to introduce renewable energy but still relied primarilyon oil shale which was particularly “dirty”, even compared to otherfossil fuels. Nonetheless, this resource had made Estonia one of themost energy-independent countries among the EU member states.Latvia, though, relied mostly on large hydro power plants as wellas gas CHPs, with about one third of their energy imported fromneighbouring countries, mostly from Estonia. After Lithuania haddiscontinued – or stalled – its nuclear energy program, it was left withgas CHPs, hydro energy, wind power and biomass plants. Amongall the countries around the Baltic Sea, Lithuania was probably themost energy-dependent nation, the speaker stressed. For Poland, coalwas still its primary source of energy, not least because it was a nativesource of energy; the country also made use of gas CHPs and somewind energy. Mr Āboltiņš expected the share of gas in the energymix to rise as the EU would pressure Poland to switch from the fossilfuel coal to the fossil fuel gas, as the latter is much cleaner, one of thecleanest resources. Finally, the Baltic Sea Region part of Germanyhad gas CHPs, plenty of wind power, much like Denmark, and bi-omass reactors; moreover, its transmission and distribution networkwas very well developed. This also allowed integrating variable renew-able energy sources into the grid and distributing evenly, coveringpeak hours etc. Mr Āboltiņš admitted that there was indeed a hugediversity in the countries around the Baltic Sea. Some were fully en-ergy-independent, while some others were quite energy-dependent.The question was how to deal with this situation. Key for sustainableenergy production was the introduction of fresh renewable energysources and the switch of energy sources – from coal to natural gas,from gas to more distributed, renewable sources. Mr Āboltiņš listedsix key challenges to sustainable energy, technical or technological,economic or commercial, environmental, political, legal and societal.He mentioned the Baltic SCOPE project concerning cooperationamong the Baltic Sea Region states in marine spatial planning. Theproject aimed at incorporating four areas: energy, shipping, fisheriesand the environment. The interactions of these areas were being in-vestigated. As for the origins of the project, Mr Āboltiņš pointed outthat marine space was finite and did not expand, but the demand forthat space was growing quickly. The increasing demand and grow-ing competition between maritime sectors needed to be funnelledinto an integrated planning and management approach. In the BalticSCOPE project, experts and policy-makers such as parliamentariansand members of the executive were brought together to balance theneeds of the sectors.The last part of his presentation referred to the Nord Pool powermarket and the electricity system price.Session three 67CommentsSilja Dögg Gunnarsdottir, Member of the Islandic Parliament,wished to clarify that 70 % of Iceland’s energy production camefrom hydro power and less than 30 % from geothermal sources. Onthe other hand, 70 % of consumption was covered by geothermalenergy since it was used to heat buildings. In general, she said that99 % of Iceland’s energy came from renewable sources, and effortswere underway to implement wind energy. In that, she consideredMr Schalin’s presentation interesting since Iceland could benefitfrom the demonstration project on Åland.Prof. Jānis Vucāns, Member of the Latvian Parliament, referred tothe Nord Pool map and asked for the reason behind the price diver-gence between Norway and the other nations of that market.Mr Āboltiņš replied that the primary reason was that Sweden andFinland were more closely connected with the Baltic states; in ad-dition, the energy portfolio and the availability of energy resourcesalso played a role. He pointed out that the north of Sweden set theprice for the rest of the Baltic Sea countries, with the exception ofNorway. Any change in the north of Sweden affected all the im-mediately connected regions, while Norway was more energy-inde-pendent in this respect. Moreover, the dry season had not impactedNorway as much as Sweden since more snow – or water – was gen-erally available in Norway. Therefore, the Norwegian prices weregenerally lower than in the rest of the market, although Mr Āboltiņšpointed out that the prices in the four subdivisions of Norway alsodiffered from each other. In the Oslo price area (Norway 1), theprices were often similar to those of the Swedish price areas Sweden3 and Sweden 4. The prices in the remaining Norwegian regionsgenerally were lower than those of Norway.Prof. Jānis Vucāns conceded that the Baltic Sea Region was not thesunniest area in Europe or the world and noted that solar power hadnot been listed as a major source of energy for any of these nations.Nonetheless, in Lithuania, more and more fields were covered bysolar panels rather than being farmland.In response, Mr Āboltiņš stressed that his presentation had been de-scribing the current situation rather than drawing up the prospectsof future power supplies. He agreed that solar energy was beingresearched intensively, not least by Nordic Energy Research, basedin Oslo, which was investigating the efficiency of solar panels withthe goal of generating enough power even in Scandinavia. He not-ed that the angle of sunlight was different, so the panels had to be68 Session threemore efficient to produce the same amount of electricity. He alsoconfirmed that Lithuania had indeed set up plenty of solar energyparks, adding that a similar process was going on in other nations,such as Scandinavia. This was less true of Latvia and Estonia. MrĀboltiņš concluded by saying that the general wisdom said that so-lar power was part of the future of the energy mix, also in the BalticSea Region. The use of solar energy would match that of the rest ofEurope in the future.Kolbeinn Óttarsson Proppé, Member of the Islandic Parliament,noted the interconnectedness of the EU energy grid, including theEU member states among the Baltic Sea states, and wondered howthat complication affected the analysis.Mr Āboltiņš said that all the production units only made sense whenconnected to the grid, and the power grid only made sense when itwas well connected nationally and internationally. Accordingly, thegrid had to be as smart as possible. Technologically, it should be soadvanced that it could react in real time to changes in demand anduse the benefits of demand-side management. In the future, thehouseholds – not just industrial consumers – would probably havean agreement with the grid operator – or the distribution systemoperator – regarding potential energy sources in their homes. Withthe respective agreement, the operator could manage these as wellSession three 69to ease peak demand situations. Mr Āboltiņš underlined that thebest energy was the one we did not use rather than the one we didproduce. All these issues had to be considered: energy efficiency,smart management of power grids and effective incorporation ofall sources of consumption and production in the smart grid. Itwas complex in terms of technology and management. He pointedout that the EU energy policy was clearly steering towards imple-menting such a smart grid. It was only a matter of time until thisbecame real, and that would also affect energy markets, leading toless volatile and more linear pricing, with changes mostly related tothe respective season.Ulrike Sparr, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg, wasconsidering the divergent regulations in the various nations andstated that there should be a unification of these policies, directedtowards more renewable energy in the grid. She considered the po-litical side more important since there was a basic understanding ofhow the technological side should work.Mr Āboltiņš responded that this issue fell under the legal challengeshe had outlined in his presentation. He also pointed out that theEU was moving towards a more unified approach to the regulatoryframework for the functioning of energy systems. The EU, he stat-ed, already had a coordinating organisation in this field that was al-70 Session threeready working on the regulatory principles of the member states. Inhis mind, the picture was not too bleak, with a lot of work alreadyhaving been done. While he could not foresee a homogeneous reg-ulatory framework across all of Europe, a set of common principleswould be implemented, allowing consumers to get the best out ofthe European energy market, in terms of prices and the availabilityof energy.General DebateWith this debate, the BSPC has tried out a new format, a general de-bate without any restrictions on content, to give parliamentarians theopportunity to address those issues which they consider to be particularlyimportant at the moment .Atis Lejiņš, Member of the Parliament of Latvia, took the floor tospeak on international rights and Crimea. He stated that he feltforced to make a statement of his own in light of previous state-ments supporting criminal actions going against everything the UNstood for. For the record, he said that Crimea had not always beena part of Russia. Today, it was de facto part of Russia but not dejure. Only eight states had recognized the annexation, among themNorth Korea, Syria, Venezuela. He also called it a risky prophe-cy to state that Crimea would stay in Russia forever. The speakermentioned that Stalin had said something like that about the Balticstates. Now, the Soviet Union had disappeared. Russia, in the Buda-pest Memorandum of 1994, had stated that “Russia [would] respectBelarussian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence, sovereignty andthe existing borders forever”. The speaker noted that another Rus-sian government might return to the Budapest Memorandum andoffered his hope that this would come sooner than it had for theBaltic states.Chair-woman Valentina Pivnenko offered the comment that onthe previous day, it had not been Russia that had started this discus-sion but rather that it had been the statement put forward by Chris-tina Gestrin who had spoken of the Russian invasion in Crimea.She thanked the head of the Åland parliament for tending to histo-ry. She considered it interesting to see the Russian memorials thatwere being looked after here. The tour guide had mentioned thatthe Crimean war had started in Åland in the mid-nineteenth centu-ry; the resulting war had led to Crimea becoming Russian. This wasSession three 71her comment on the historical side. Otherwise, she noted that itwas correct to talk about international right, but she also raised thepoint that nobody had responded to the state revolution in Ukrainewhich had led to the deaths of many people in Odessa. When thereferendum had been carried out, Russia had faced a choice: eitherto allow a war there or to protect its population, and Crimea hadalways been Russian. Russians had lived there all the time, the BlackSea Fleet had been stationed there, yielding a great deal of moneyfor Ukraine. In 1956, Khrushchev had signed a law – which didnot adhere to any international laws – saying that Crimea wouldbe given to Ukraine. Ms Pivnenko underlined that this was histo-ry, and without history, no one could understand the future. Sheconceded that the Latvian speaker had a right to his own opinion,but Russia had the right to protect Russian citizens wherever theylived. In addition, Ms Pivnenko noted that at one prior conference,there had been a very hot debate about Russia’s involvement in thewar with Georgia. At that time, she had said that they had not beenright and would be forced to apologize, and now, all the interna-tional organisations were aware of this: The war had been started byGeorgia. Georgia had admitted it themselves, and so had other in-ternational organisations, but nobody had apologized for the thingsthey had said. Ms Pivnenko said the time would come when theywould apologize for Crimea as well.Oleg Nilov, Member of the State Duma, noted that their discussionssometimes raised tempers which might be a good thing because itwas better to discuss openly rather than to just feel unhappy andsuddenly end up in an argument when discussions were no longerpossible. Even in the Russian parliaments, any kind of discussion72 Session threetook place directly. Any member of the public could get involvedin this live debate. Still, there was too little of that in his view. Hesuggested live-streaming these discussions so that anyone could getinvolved. The speaker asked for a video recording and noted that hehad been informed this was not possible. In his mind, that shouldbe possible, he insisted. As subtle as these issues were, live-stream-ing and video recording would allow a more open debate. It shouldbe possible to be critical occasionally. He noted that there were nomicrophones in the gallery; to be heard, one had to sign up for thespeakers’ list. He underlined that a general debate was important,and this should be set out in their standards. If they wanted to talkabout political issues, about history, about international law, thenthat should be discussed. But that should be done with a workinggroup organizing the discussion. The issue could be prepared fromvarious points of view, with diverse questions. As participants inthe group, they could then either interject some concepts, come upwith resolutions and vote on them, as was being done in the parlia-ment in Mariehamn. The speaker mentioned the bee problem as anexample of what was happening and what might happen. He notedthat a well-known scientist had stated that with the bee populationdisappearing, all of humanity’s dreams of a wonderful future wouldjust die with the bees. The speaker mentioned an experiment thathe had conducted. There was a flower beloved by bees, like clover.The speaker said that bees didn’t want to pollinate genetically mod-ified seed-based plants and were avoiding these. There were specialadaptations to increase the plant harvest. Farmers were buying ge-netically modified seeds to get a better harvest, but that was a hugeproblem for the bees, the speaker claimed. Accordingly, he suggest-ed speaking about agricultural production the next time – technol-ogy and the consequences of what was supposedly progress, but theSession three 73speaker saw huge disadvantages to it. This issue should be debated,and he reiterated that for matters of international law, any debaterequired preparation in a working group setting. Furthermore, thespeaker insisted that there were double standards being appliedhere. International law, in his view, was only valid if it was defend-ed equally. He conceded that Russia was also affected by doublestandards in some respects. The speaker called for double standardsto be abandoned or at least not to apply them in these circles. Re-garding the previous Latvian speaker, he mentioned that Finlandand Åland had demonstrated the mechanism of bilinguality. Manyproblems in Ukraine, he said, were started by Russian being bannedas an official language. They needed to learn from the local exampleand having national leaders come to Åland to see a demilitarizedplace where Swedish was the official language, the flags were Finn-ish. He reiterated that this was a role model that would serve whendiscussing different conflicts which were multi-layered – languageconflicts, cultural conflicts and many others. The speaker also sug-gested having a meeting in Crimea to find out what the locals werethinking. This could be discussed at length but at another time.With that, he yielded the floor back to the chair.Britt Lundberg, Member of the Åland Parliament and the NordicCouncil, introduced herself as both a member of the Åland parlia-ment and a former president of the Nordic Council. Together withthe Icelandic delegate, she was representing the Nordic Council andnoted that both of them came from Nordic islands, known for theirpeaceful nature. In her mind, equality and inclusion together withhigh levels of openness and trust as well as low levels of corruptionwere important reasons for economic success. She further pointedout the Nordic Council’s international strategy to strive to ensurethat democracy, the rule of law, equality and human rights werealways high on the international agenda. Said strategy also statedthat the Council wished to pay particular attention to areas whereNordic countries were leading the way and could make a difference.As examples, she mentioned the rights of children, women, sexualminorities, people with disabilities as well as indigenous people. Shewas very pleased that societies in the Baltic Sea region were based ondemocracy, human rights and equality, but she believed there wasalways room for improvement. Therefore, she suggested that every-body ask themselves if they were doing enough for equality in theirsocieties, enough for women’s rights, enough to protect vulnerableminorities and if there was a way to learn from each other and to dobetter. One important aspect to support democracy was to alwaysquestion if those affected by a decision had been engaged. Anotherway to ensure equality was to consider who would be happy aboutthat decision.74 Session threeShe also spoke of the environment in the Baltic Sea, a topic im-portant to all attendees. She noted that environmental problemssometimes seemed overwhelming, but not all solutions had to bethat complicated. She cited a low-key example from Copenhagencalled “the Green Kayak”, a concept offering tourists and residents afree trip in kayaks in exchange for collecting waste from water sur-faces and sharing these experiences on social media. This concept,she stated, had proved highly effective and was very flexible, allow-ing hard-to-reach areas to be cleared of waste. In 2017, more than800 volunteers had used green kayaks in Copenhagen, and morethan 3.5 tonnes of waste had been collected from the harbour. Sincethen, the Green Kayak had expanded to Aarhus and held a series ofactivities focused on collecting waste from nature and water areas.She suggested that this could be easily transferred to other Baltic cit-ies – one might simply rent a kayak, gather trash and share this onFacebook. No money was needed, she claimed. Ms Lundberg alsonoted that the Nordic Council was happy to join the conference ofthe BSPC and thanked them for the interesting days. Moreover, theCouncil was always open for cooperation with their friends in theBSPC. Together, she concluded, they could do better.Annette Holmberg-Jansson, Member of the Åland Parliament,considered it a very positive aspect of the BSPC that it allowed peo-ple from small places like Åland or from large countries such as Ger-many to realize that they were still facing the same problems. Oneof those was demographic change, i.e., society getting older. She re-peated the previous day’s suggestion that people would have to workuntil older age. Furthermore, new methods had to be found to carefor the elderly. The speaker also pointed out that new challengeswould arise in areas that had not been problematic earlier. Here, shementioned loneliness. This was a serious problem as a great numberof elderly people mentioned that they were feeling lonely. Lone-liness, the speaker went on, could lead to psychological illnesses.20 % of the elderly were suffering from loneliness. With an agingpopulation, this would become one of the most common diseases.New ways were needed to activate the elderly and help them to feelpart of the society. She noted an example from Åland, remote elder-ly care. Elderly people had screens allowing them to easily contactother elderly people. There was also a conference room for activities,such as a music quiz or playing bingo together, to visit an art ex-hibition via the screen, do gymnastics or simply talk to somebody,like a pharmacist, a priest, a politician etc. One old lady had toldthe speaker that she and her new friend would call each other everyday at 2 o’clock and drink coffee together via the screen. Accordingto the people in charge, feelings of loneliness were decreased. Thespeaker stressed that they had to share more best practice examplesSession three 75with each other. Åland had the oldest population of Finland, andFinland itself was among the countries with the oldest populationsin Europe. Accordingly, action was needed right then and there.Next, the floor was taken by Carola Veit, President of the Ham-burg Parliament. Referencing the previous statements by Mr OlegNilov, she stressed that political correctness should not deter themfrom pointing out problems and disagreements. After all, politicalorganisations were forums to discuss political disagreements. Thelatter, in democracies, was rather the norm than the exception. Shesaid that the official position of the Kremlin should be heard butpolitical minority opinions should also be given the floor, despitepast and present modi operandi in Ukraine not being understand-able or acceptable for the majority. She offered her thanks for theorganisation of the conference which had provided space for opendiscussions and noted that the place for new suggestions or newtechnical features was the Standing Committee.Kolbeinn Óttarsson Proppé, Member of the Islandic Parliament,pointed out that although Iceland was not technically part of theBaltic Sea, he was very proud to take part in the conference. Ona personal note, he mentioned that he had arrived on Friday aftermeetings in Norway and Sweden and then had been able to sit on apier and had had a euphoric moment about the work in the BSPC.They had come together to speak about the environment, the peo-ple living together in the countries around the Baltic Sea. For him,not history was the most important aspect but rather the future.With all the problems they were facing, it was the commitment76 Session threeand will of the participants to tackle these issues. They discussedthe problems and cooperated in trying to find solutions. The speak-er considered this the best way to deal with the greatest problemsfaced by human beings. He noted that they were all privileged to beable to travel, meet other people and discuss the problems of theircountries. Referring back to a statement of the previous day, hepointed out that their international efforts were proceeding well butthat there were some difficulties in implementing measures on thenational level. He said that he would work on promoting the issuesand recommendations from the conference back home in Iceland.BSPC President Jörgen Pettersson referred to Kalevi Sorsa, thespeaker of the Finnish parliament who had been instrumental informing the BSPC, a social democrat and also an internationalistwho had seen the need for a meeting place for those who did notnecessarily agree with each other. Mr Pettersson noted that humanbeings did not always understand each other. That might be a goodthing: if you did not understand the one you were speaking to,you yourself tried to do convey your meaning better. The presidentstated that he believed the Finnish parliament’s speaker of that timewould have been proud to see the debates at the conference, tosee that people were actually talking to each other. Mr PetterssonSession three 77reiterated that the moment people stopped communicating witheach other was when real problems had begun. He mentioned thathe was inspired by Mr Oleg Nilov. While Mr Pettersson did notagree with all the points made by Mr Nilov, he appreciated the waythese had been expressed. The president noted that some of thestatements made about Åland were unfortunately incorrect – suchas that everyone was free to come to the islands – but that meantthat Mr Pettersson had the opportunity to clarify these elements.That was how dialogue could evolve into something much better.Telling the truth and making someone cry, he stated, was betterthan telling a lie and making someone smile. This was an old sayingthat the speaker suggested people should heed in future discussions.Mr Pettersson went on to note that the participants of the BSPCcame from extremely different backgrounds; some had experienceddemocracy for many years while others were relatively new to de-mocracy, but all of them were the same kinds of people – peoplewho wanted to be loved, to be respected, to feel safe; people whowanted a tomorrow that was better than today. That, he pointedout, was the basic reason for the attendees having come together.Mr Pettersson underlined that the Åland Islands were a good ex-ample of crisis management. In the early 1900s, Åland had beensandwiched in-between Finland and Sweden which might have led78 Session threeto severe problems. Instead, a peaceful situation had been found,giving the islands their autonomy, and in 2022, Åland would turn100 years old. He noted that it would be very nice if all the attend-ees would come to the islands for that occasion. Returning to aprevious point, Mr Pettersson said that differences of opinion, evenif they were painful, made the world a little better. In the future, theBSPC would be even more transparent. As parliamentarians, it wasimportant for their voters to see these debates and what they weresaying. As such, the BSPC would look into the possibility of vid-eo-streaming the debates, and the president stressed that it was aninspiring idea. Furthermore, he added that this would put pressureon people to carefully consider what they were going to say, whethertheir words would actually move things forward. The president be-lieved that they had indeed moved forward on many fronts, such asenergy, peace, the environment and many other questions essentialfor their governments and people. His humble wish, he said, wasthat everybody would take these ideas and suggestions back hometo tell their governments that there were ideas around the BalticSea that were not necessarily their own but were still very valid forthem.Mr Pettersson went on to quote a saying that the winner wrote thehistory books. That might have been true in ancient days, he con-ceded, when information had sometimes been kept secret. Thesedays, everything was transparent in a completely different world.That world should be taken opportunity of and be aware that youcould always be listened to and seen. Mr Pettersson considered thisa good development because it was no longer the winner who wrotethe history books but rather, it was the truth that did. That shouldbe borne in mind during their meetings and discussions. He con-cluded by thanking everybody for their input and wishing them thebest for their future.The floor was next yielded to Mr Johannes Schraps from the Ger-man Bundestag. He noted that he had become – as a newly electedrepresentative of the Bundestag and successor to Franz Thönnes -head of the delegation from the Federal Republic of Germany tothe BSPC. Much like Mr Óttarsson from Iceland, this was the firsttime he attended the annual conference. As such, he considered ita huge responsibility to be the head of his delegation, in particularconsidering the deep involvement of his predecessor in the BSPC’sdevelopment. Mr Schraps noted how much he had benefited fromthe advice of more experienced colleagues, as should be commonfor younger politicians. Nonetheless, he stressed that one learnedthe most from one’s own experiences. He considered this confer-ence an impressive learning experience. One approach of his wasto imagine what such proceedings, such debates would look likeSession three 79to outsiders with no experience in the parliamentary process. InGermany, he noted, there was a saying: “Die Wahrheit liegt im-mer im Auge des Betrachters.” (“Truth is always in the eye of thebeholder.”) Mr Schraps pointed out that truth was always chang-ing, depending on the environment and the possible angles fromwhich certain situations were observed. Witnessing the manifoldangles manifested by the attendees, Mr Schraps noted he had of-ten thought of another famous line: “United in diversity.” This, hesaid, truly described the strength of the conference, that they hadfound common ground despite their differences, through the unan-imous adoption of the conference resolution. Mr Schraps agreedwith President Pettersson’s words that they were meeting as friends.He said that, despite their different angles, they were meeting anddiscussing issues with respect, based on their shared values of de-mocracy, human rights and equality, based on dialogue, strength incooperation and peace. Even though there were issues that dividedthe attendees, the speaker stressed that they should focus on whatthey had in common. So, positive signals should continue to be sentto their home countries and regions. Instead of signs of divisions,signs of togetherness should be sent out.Chair-woman Valentina Pivnenko concluded the debate on thispositive note and suggested moving on to consider the resolutionthey were about to adopt.80 Opening of the ConferenceThe Closing of the Conference 81The Closing of the 27th BSPCBSPC President Jörgen Pettersson stated that the time for the con-clusion of the 27th BSPC Conference on the Åland Islands in Ma-riehamn had come. With him was Jorodd Asphjell, the next BSPCPresident, at the podium. Before handing over the presidency, MrPettersson noted that the resolution of the current conference hadto be adopted by unanimous consent and asked the conference ifthey would first adopt the work strategy and work programme for2018/19.The conference agreed unanimously to adopt the work strategyand work programme for 2018/19 .Turning to the actual resolution, BSPC President Jörgen Petters-son underlined that this was the most important document fromthe conference. He thanked all the delegations for their hard work,especially the members of the drafting committee. As always, henoted, coming to an agreement had not been an easy feat but hadbeen worth the effort. Through the discussions, everybody hadlearned something new.82 The Closing of the ConferenceThe conference agreed unanimously to adopt the 27th Resolutionof the BSPC.BSPC President Pettersson referred to Vice-President Carola Veit’sreport on the follow-up to the resolution and said that the gov-ernments’ interest in the resolution was increasing. Governmentssaw the value in parliamentarians having discussed the contentsof policies and daily life for their citizens. Reading the resolutionswould give them new angles and perspectives on different matters.Mr Pettersson underlined that this was the BSPC’s task – they werea think tank, producing ideas and discussing them together, even-tually coming up with a joint resolution. As such, he reminded theparticipants, when they went back to their parliaments and theirministers, that the resolution was not just fiction but the real prod-uct of real people’s discussions.Mr Pettersson went on to note the true honour he had experiencedin the past year as BSPC president and in a good BSPC tradition,passed the baton on to Jorodd Asphjell from the Norwegian Par-liament.The incoming BSPC President Jorodd Asphjell thanked everyonefor their trust. As a member of the Norwegian Olympic Commit-tee, he promised that he would indeed take good care of the baton.He thanked Mr Pettersson and Åland for having hosted the 26thBSPC and admitted that he was looking forward to the next con-ference to be hosted by Norway.Mr Asphjell underlined that the Baltic Sea countries were Norway’sneighbours and friends, and their most important trading partners.Peace and cooperation in the Baltic Sea were also very importantto Norway. The country was a member of the Nordic Council, andthe Baltic Sea region had always been of a great importance to theCouncil.Mr Asphjell emphasized that he was looking forward to the comingyear when the BSPC would work on several important issues. TheWorking Group on Migration and Integration would continue itsimportant work on an issue that mattered to everyone. Anotherprospective matter was the future of working life, including factorssuch as digitalization, integration and labour mobility in the BalticSea region. He considered this an important topic, crucial for allcitizens, to know how technology would affect working life in theirregion in the future. New opportunities but also challenges wouldbe raised. This was another area where the countries of the BalticSea region were performing within the UN Sustainable Develop-The Closing of the Conference 83ment Goals, but there was still work to be done, according to arecent report by the governments in the CBSS. Mr Asphjell statedhis belief that the BSPC should consider how to contribute to thisimportant work.Next, a film about Oslo and Norway – the host of the 28th BSPCConference - was presented to the audience.In his closing remarks, Jörgen Pettersson thanked everyone in-volved in the preparation and organisation of the conference. Healso thanked the parliamentarians, the experts, the government rep-resentatives and guests for their active involvement. Moreover, hestated his gratitude to the staff of Åland’s lagting, Sten Erikssonand Maj Falc and everyone else who had created a very efficientorganisation for this conference. Furthermore, the speaker thankedhis colleagues within the BSPC delegation. He also thanked MrBodo Bahr who, he said, had taught him a lot about internationaldiplomacy.He appreciated the efforts of the interpreters and technicians incharge of the smooth course of the Conference.Addressing his fellow parliamentarians, Mr Pettersson expressed hishope that cooperation and friendship had been deepened and po-litical decisions of the BSPC delegates would contribute to makingthe world a better place. With that, Mr Pettersson declared the 27thBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference closed.84 AnnexANNEXAnnex 85Annex 1Conference ResolutionAdopted by the 27th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference(BSPC)The participants, elected representatives from the Baltic Sea RegionStates*, assembling in Mariehamn, Åland, 26-28 August 2018,- renew the expectation that all Baltic Sea States make every effort toensure the Baltic Sea Region continues to be a region of peaceful andclose neighbourliness and intense cooperation based on democraticvalues, the rule of law, human rights and equal opportunities for all.To this end, they will pursue all the opportunities of parliamentary,governmental and social exchange and democratic dialogueamong neighbours. For this reason, they welcome the StockholmDeclaration of the Council of Baltic Sea States and in particular theRoadmap for Reform. They furthermore welcome the resumption ofthe Council of Baltic Sea States (CBSS) Foreign Ministers meetingsincluding under the Swedish Presidency but additionally call for aresumption of the Baltic Sea States Summits. This will foster thedialogue, strengthen cooperation and manifesting peace;- welcome the comprehensive implementation statements andreports by the governments of the Baltic Sea Region on the 26thBSPC Resolution and the progress made to implement the BSPC’scalls for action;- welcome the efforts of the Swedish CBSS Presidency 2017/2018 toimprove coherence in Baltic Sea regional cooperation, acknowledgethe progress of the CBSS - based on the priorities of sustainability,continuity and adaptability under the umbrella of the UN 2030*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 .86 Annexgoals - and recognise the achievements in areas of SustainableDevelopment, Youth, the Fight Against Trafficking in HumanBeings, Child Protection and Civil Protection;- encourage the Latvian CBSS Presidency 2018/2019 to continueefforts within its three priorities: Integrity & Societal Security,Dialogue, Responsibility;- share the vision of the CBSS Vision Group, that the Baltic SeaRegion shall become a role model of ecological, economic, socialand security standards and policies, with a vibrant regional civilsociety and will take into account the report of the Vision Group intheir further discussions on future developments in the Baltic SeaRegion;- underline again the need for political exchange among youngpeople and will proceed to establish a Baltic Sea Parliamentary YouthForum based on the youth projects of their member parliamentsand parliamentary organizations but also effect efforts to establishcloser cooperation between youth organisations in the BSR andformats such as ‘Regeneration 2030’ involving young people in thedeliberation of issues to be discussed in the BSPC;- welcome all efforts to move towards a healthy and clean Baltic Sea;- establish a way, as a first step within the framework of a progressiveforeign and trade policy to address the issue of plastic litter on a globalscale;- strongly welcome all concrete actions and all regulations in banningor reducing the use of single-use plastic products that are foundmost often on beaches and in oceans, along with fishing equipmentlost or left behind at sea, and intend to help raise awareness of thenegative impact of plastic waste among consumers;- discuss Cooperation, the Vision of a Healthy Baltic Sea, SustainableEnergy as well as Migration and Integration;call on the governments in the Baltic Sea Region, the CBSS andthe EUAnnex 87Regarding Cooperation in the Region, to1. intensify the interaction between the Northern Dimensionpolicy and the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea and the RussianStrategy of social and economic development of the North-West federal district;2. extend the scope of transnational programmes covering thewhole Baltic Sea area and anchor this possibility and thecorresponding funding in all macro-regional strategies on aformal level to improve relations between neighbouring coun-tries;3. strengthen cooperation in the field of migration and integra-tion, involving all countries bordering the Baltic Sea, to bettermeet similar tasks;4. intensify programs in the scope of visits and multinationalmeetings of youth in view of meeting each other, fosteringmutual understanding and developing relations;5. actively support – referring to the Ministerial Declarationadopted by the CBSS Labour Ministries in June 2017 – inthe field of labour and employment in the Baltic Sea Region,the work of the “CBSS/BSLF Coordination Group on Labourand Employment” (CG) – focused on the cross-cutting andtopical issues pertaining to the new qualifications requiredfor future work patterns, and their linkage to education andthe needs of the labour market, life-long learning and com-prehensive labour market forecasting and research, includingdemographic challenges; guarantee equal opportunities formen and women;6. meet the challenges of an ageing population, social cohesionand sustainable development in the Baltic Sea region throughincreased cooperation on incentives and practical systems forlife-long learning and adult education, adaptation of job con-ditions and workplaces to the needs of older persons, anti-agediscrimination policies, measures to promote good health andflexible and gradual retirement schemes;88 AnnexRegarding the vision of a Healthy Baltic Sea – a call for more action,to7. – as the BSPC supports the HELCOM Ministerial Declara-tion of 6 March 2018 in Brussels and shares its critical viewon the state of the Baltic Sea under various aspects – vigor-ously implement the decisions contained in the MinisterialDeclaration;8. establish effective coordination processes and policies to sup-port the Implementation Strategy for the sustainable BlueGrowth Agenda for the Baltic Sea Region;9. enhance consultations and cooperation regarding a spatialmaster planning in the Baltic Sea region, considering all inter-ests and aspects of economy (shipping, fishing, energy, tour-ism, etc.), environment and the neighbours;10. considering that, depending on the country, only 25 to 60percent of the targets of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Planto be implemented by 2021 are currently met at the nationallevel – urgently intensify efforts at the national and regionallevel to set appropriate policy priorities so as to achieve theobjectives of the BSAP by 2021 as far as possible on schedule;11. hold regular HELCOM Ministerial Meetings – including allresponsible ministers of each member state in the meetings –and come to binding rules under international law – as wasthe case with the measures to increase maritime safety withthe involvement of the transport ministers –, thus bringingthe issue of a clean Baltic Sea more strongly into the politicaldebate of each nation and region and to achieve a more bind-ing enforcement of the agreements reached;12. develop or enhance both joint and additional national andregional sustainability strategies to achieve the UN-Agenda2030 goals and realise the vision of a clean Baltic Sea free frommarine litter whilst promoting sustainable agricultural practices,more sustainable shipping and tackling eutrophication and un-derwater noise;13. prepare for and help shape the “Decade of Ocean Science forSustainable Development” from 2021-2030 proclaimed bythe United Nations, in order to reach the goal of deliveringthe ocean we need for the future we want;Annex 8914. further strengthen the relationship between the UN Sustain-able Development Goals and human rights whilst recognisingtheir close relationship and mutual reinforcement;15. take preventative measures and immediate actions to improvethe quality of waste-water effluents and halt untreated dis-charges without delay and to show determination to clean upthe heavily polluted sea;16. take urgent efficient action on the worrying levels of plas-tics and micro-plastics in the seas; support and implementthe regulations on reducing or banning single-use plastic asquickly as possible; promote public awareness of microplasticpollution throughout the Baltic ecosystem and encouragecustomers to avoid personal care products containing plasticmicrobeads;Regarding Sustainable Energy, Smart energy distribution plat-forms, to17. enhance and efficiently use cross-border transmission connec-tions by building and expanding fluent electricity networks toenable new energy markets and new forms of energy servicesand products to better integrate renewable energies, as well asuse undersea electrity connection to integrate grids;Regarding Migration and Integration, to18. acknowledge objective differences in the political system aswell as in the historical and cultural background due to thescars of the Second World War, continue discussions andreflections about flight and migration, and share best gover-nance practices to raise awareness in our societies;19. initiate a Baltic Sea-wide data basis on integration conditionsand measures to improve the public discussion on a factualbasis;20. intensify the dialogue on migration and integration betweenthe countries bordering the Baltic Sea;90 Annex21. increase the offer of migration-specific advisory services andlanguage training in order to intensify integration efforts;22. enlarge projects for advising and supporting volunteers, localinstitutions and civil society organizations working in thefield of integration and taking into account the unifying andintegrating role of sports;23. consider migration and security perspectives in relevant otherpolitical agendas such as trade, labour rights and environmen-tal preservation;24. seek holistic and multi-facetted solutions to the challengesposed by current refugee and migration policies which in-clude a well-coordinated combination of migration manage-ment, humanitarian assistance, political solutions, Europeanand international collaboration, fair trade agreements anddevelopment assistance;Regarding Economic development and growth in the Baltic SeaRegion25. support the Implementation Strategy for the sustainable BlueGrowth Agenda for the Baltic Sea Region;26. acknowledge, that the Baltic Sea is a crucial line of sea trans-portation (a motorway of the sea) for all its neighbours, aresource for nutrition (fishing) and energy (oil, gas, windand wave) as well as a recreation area for millions of tourists,therefore use all opportunities of Baltic Sea cooperation toenable managing and considering all interests and aspects ofeconomy, environment and the neighbours;27. further develop the Trans-European Networks for transportin the Baltic Sea region, take initiatives to synchronize tollsystems in Europe, in particular the Baltic Sea neighbours, tomake transport via sea and rail most economic compared totrucking;28. aim to make the Baltic Sea a pioneer area for automatic ship-ping.Annex 91Furthermore, the Conference decides towelcome with gratitude the kind offer by the Parliament of Nor-way to host the 28th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Osloon 25-27 August 2019.92 AnnexAnnex 2List of ParticipantsMember Parliaments and Parliamentary OrganizationsPresident of the Republic of Finland1. Mr. Sauli NiinistöÅland Parliament2. Gun-Mari Lindholm, Speaker of the Åland Parliament3. Veronica Thörnroos, Deputy Speaker of the Åland Parliament4. Jörgen Pettersson, President of the BSPC, Member of the ÅlandParliament5. Sara Kemetter, BSPC-delegation, Member of the ÅlandParliament6. Annette Holmberg-Jansson, BSPC-delegation, Member of theÅland Parliament7. Ingrid Johansson, BSPC-delegation, Member of the ÅlandParliament8. Johan Ehn, Member of the Åland Parliament9. Harry Jansson, Member of the Åland Parliament10. Mikael Staffas, Member of the Åland Parliament11. Tony Wikström, Member of the Åland Parliament12. Tage Silander, Member of the Åland Parliament13. Roger Nordlund, Member of the Åland Parliament14. Pernilla Söderlund, Member of the Åland Parliament15. Susanne Eriksson, Secretary General of the Åland Parliament16. Sten Eriksson, Secretary of the Delegation of the ÅlandParliament17. Maj Falck, Assistant to the Delegation of the Åland ParliamentBaltic Assembly18. Valerijus Simulik, President of the Baltic Assembly, Member ofthe Parliament of Lithuania19. Prof. Jānis Vucāns, Vice President of the Baltic Assembly,Member of the Parliament of Latvia20. Prof. Aadu Must, Vice President of the Baltic Assembly, Memberof the Parliament of Estonia21. Marika Laizane-Jurkane, Secretary General of the BalticAssemblyAnnex 93Bremen22. Sülmez Dogan, Member of Parliament of the State Parliamentof Bremen23. Antje Grotheer, Member of the State Parliament of BremenDenmark24. Karin Gaardsted, Member of the Danish Parliament25. Kamilla Kjelgaard, Secretary of the Delegation of the DanishParliamentEstonia26. Johannes Kert, Member of the Estonian Parliament27. Ulle Must, Staff of the Delegation of the Parliament of Estonia28. Ene Rongelep, Secretary of the Delegation of the Parliament ofEstoniaEuropean Parliament29. Jørn Dohrmann, Member of the European Parliament30. Ausra Rakstelyte, Secretary of the Delegation of the EuropeanParliamentFaroe Islands31. Páll á Reynatúgvu, President of the Parliament of Faroe Islands32. Kári P. Højgaard, Member of Parliament of the Faroe Islands33. Johnhard Klettheyggyj, Director of the Parliament of the FaroeIslandsFinland34. Kari Kulmala, Member of the Parliament of Finland35. Saara-Sofia Sirén, Member of Parliament of Finland36. Mika Laaksonen, Secretary of the Delegation of the Parliamentof FinlandGermany37. Enrico Komning, Member of the German Bundestag38. Petra Nicolaisen, Member of the German Bundestag39. Johannes Schraps, Member of the German Bundestag40. Peter Stein, Member of the German Bundestag41. Nicole Tepasse, Secretary of the Delegation of the GermanBundestagHamburg42. Carola Veit, President of the State Parliament of Hamburg43. Kurt Duwe, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg44. Dania lIkhanipour, Member of the State Parliament ofHamburg45. Stephan Jersch, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg94 Annex46. Jörn Kruse, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg47. Ulrike Sparr, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg48. Michael Westenberger, Member of the State Parliament ofHamburg49. Johannes Düwel, Director of the Parliament of Hamburg50. Friederike Lünzmann, Secretary of the Delegation of theParliament of HamburgIceland51. Kolbeinn Óttarsson Proppé, Member of the Parliament ofIceland52. Helgi Thorsteinsson, Secretary of the Delegation of Parliamentof IcelandKaliningrad53. Evgeny Mishin, Member of the Parliament of the KaliningradRegional Duma54. Marina Prozorova, Secretary of the Delegation of theKaliningrad Regional DumaKarelia55. Antonia Zherebtsova, Member of the Parliament of the KareliaLegislative AssemblyLatvia56. Romualds Razuks, Member of the Parliament of Latvia57. Atis Lejiņš, Member of the Parliament of Latvia58. Juris Viļums, Member of the Parliament of Latvia59. Ingrida Sticenko, Secretary of the Delegation of the Parliamentof LatviaLeningrad60. Regina Iilarionova, Member of the Leningrad RegionLegistlative Assembly61. Dmitrii Puliaevskii, Member of the Leningrad RegionLegistlative Assembly62. Dmitrii Voronovskikh, Member of the Leningrad RegionLegislative Assembly63. Zoya Rodina, Secretary of the Delegation of the LeningradRegion Legislative AssemblyLithuania64. Kęstutis Bartkevičius, Member of the Parliament of Lithuania65. Renata Godfrey, Secretary of the Delegation of the Parliament ofLithuaniaAnnex 95Mecklenburg-Vorpommern66. Ralf Borschke, Member of the State Parliament ofMecklenburg-Vorpommern67. Dirk Friedriszik, Member of the State Parliament ofMecklenburg-Vorpommern68. Karsten Kolbe, Member of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern69. Nikolaus Kramer, Member of the State Parliament ofMecklenburg-Vorpommern70. Beate Schlupp, Vice-President of the State Parliament ofMecklenburg-Vorpommern71. Jochen Schulte, Member of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern72. Georg Strätker, Secretary of the delegation of the StateParliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern73. Julien Radloff, Secretary of the delegation of the State Parliamentof Mecklenburg-VorpommernNordic Council74. Silja Dögg Gunnarsdottir, Member of the Parliament ofIceland and the Nordic Council75. Britt Lundberg , Member of the Åland Parliament and theNordic Council76. Arne Fogt Bergby, Secretary of the delegation of the NordicCouncil77. Hrannar Arnarsson, Secretary of the Socialdemocratic PartyGroup in the Nordic CouncilNorway78. Jorodd Asphjell, Member of the Norwegian Parliament79. Hanne Dyveke Søttar, Member of the Norwegian Parliament80. Thomas Fraser, Secretary of the delegation of the NorwegianParliamentPolandSejm of the Republic of Poland81. Dorota Arciszewska-Mielewczyk, Member of the Sejm,Parliament of Poland82. Jerzy Borowczak, Member of the Sejm of the Republic ofPoland83. Jerzy Materna, Member of the Sejm of the Republic ofPoland84. Grzegorz Matusiak, Member of the Sejm of the Republic ofPoland85. Miroslaw Suchoń, Member of the Sejm of the Republic ofPoland96 AnnexSenate of the Republic of Poland86. Andrzej Mioduszewski, Member of the Senate of theRepublic of Poland87. Slawomir Rybicki, Member of the Senate of the Republicof Poland88. Piotr Koperski, Secretary of the Delegation for International andEuropean Union AffairsRussian FederationCouncil of the Federation89. Igor Fomin, Member of Council of the Federation90. Anna Zhiltsova, Councilor of the Committee forForeign Affairs of the Council of the F .State Duma91. Valentina Pivnenko, Member of the State Duma92. Oleg Nilov, Member of the State Duma93. Yulia Guskova, Secretary of the Delegation of InternationalRelations at the State DumaSaint Petersburg94. Dmitry Tugov, Member of the Saint Petersburg LegislativeAssembly95. Vatanyar Yagya, Member of the Saint PetersburgLegislative Assembly96. Said Yagya, Secretary of the Delegation of Saint PetersburgLegislative AssemblySchleswig-Holstein97. Rasmus Andresen, Member of the State Parliament ofSchleswig-Holstein98. Wolfgang Baasch, Member of the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein99. Hartmut Hamerich, Member of the State Parliament ofSchleswig-Holstein100. Stephan Holowaty, Member of the State Parliament ofSchleswig-Holstein101. Regina Poersch, Member of the State Parliament of Schelswig-Holstein102. Volker Schnurrbusch, Member of the State Parliament ofSchleswig-Holstein103. Jette Waldinger-Thiering, Member of the State Parliament ofSchleswig-Holstein104. Aminata Touré, Member of the State Parliament of Schleswig-HolsteinAnnex 97105. Jutta Schmidt-Holländer, Secretary of the Delegation forInternational Affairs of the State Parliament of Schleswig-HolsteinSweden106. Jonas Jacobsson Gjörtler, Member of the Swedish Parliament107. Per-Ingvar Johnsson, Member of the Swedish Parliament108. Pyry Niemi, Member of the Swedish Parliament109. Emma Nohrén, Member of the Swedish Parliament110. Suzanne Svensson, Member of the Swedish Parliament111. Hans Wallmark, Member of the Swedish Parliament112. Ralph Hermansson, Staff of the Swedish Parliament113. Petra Sjöström, Secretary of the Delegation of the SwedishParliamentBSPC and ObserversBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference114. Bodo Bahr, Secretary General of the BSPCBaltic Sea Region University Network (BSRUN)115. Kari Hyppönen, President of the BSRUNBaltic Sea States Sub-regional Co-operation (BSSSC)116. Roger Ryberg, Chairman of the BSSSC117. Ann Irene Saeternes, Secretary General of the BSSSC118. Janne Tamminen, Advisor, Region of Uusimaa119. Ossi Savolainen, Director, Region of UusimaaCouncil of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS)120. Hans Olsson, former Chair of the Committee of SeniorOfficials of the CBSS, Ambassador of Sweden121. Juris Bone, Chair of the Committee of Senior Officials of theCBSS, Ambassador at Large, Government of Latvia122. Sergey Petrovich, Committee of Senior Officialsof the CBSS, Deputy Director at the Ministry ofForeign Affairs of the Russian Federation123. Maira Mora, Director General of the CBSS124. Daria Akhutina , Senior Adviser98 AnnexCPMR Baltic Sea Commission125. Jari Nahkanen, President of BSC126. Hanna Honkamäkilä, Advisor127. Åsa Bjering, Executive SecretaryThe Government of Finland128. Kimmo Tiilikainen, Minister of Energy- and Environment129. Paula Lehtomäki, State Secretary, Prime Minister’s Office130. Kristina Pingoud, Ministry for Foreign Affairs131. Taru Savolainen, Senior Advisor, Ministry for EnvironmentHelsinki Commission (HELCOM)132. Dmitry Frank-Kamenetsky, SecretaryNorthern Dimension Partnership in Public Health and SocialWell-being (NDPHS)133. Silvija Geistrarte, Senior Adviser134. Ulla-Karin Nurm, DirectorParliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea EconomicCooperation (PABSEC)135. Prof. Asaf Hajiyev, Secretary General of the PABSECSkåne Regional County Council136. Anders Karlsson, Chairman, Region Skåne137. Maria Lindbom, Senior Advisor, Region SkåneUnion of the Baltic Cities (UBC)138. Mikko Lohikoski, Strategy CoordinatorÅland Government139. Camilla Gunell, Deputy Prime Minister of the ÅlandGovernment140. Wille Valve, Minster of the Åland Government141. Helena Blomqvist, Senior Advisor of the Åland Government142. Johnny Lindström, Advisor of the Åland GovernmentÅland delegate to the Finnish Parliament143. Mats Löfström, Member of Parliament of FinlandAnnex 99Consular Corps144. Mikhail Zubov , Consul, the Russian Federation145. Nils-Erik Eklund, Honorary Consul, IcelandLecturers and guests146. Bernt Schalin, Managing Director of Clic Innovation Ltd,Lecturer147. Christina Gestrin, Former President of the BSPC, Lecturer148. Reinis Aboltins, researcher Riga Technical University, Lecturer149. Simon Holmström, ReGeneration 2030150. Hanna Salmén, ReGeneration 2030151. Malgorzata Ludwiczek, Secretariat for Youth of theWestpomeranian Region152. Franz Thönnes, Former BSPC-President, Baltic Sea LaborForum153. Rita Thönnes, guest154. Anders Bergström, guest, The Norden Association in Sweden155. Ottilia Thoreson, WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme156. Marc Klaus, Director of the Race for the Baltic/Baltic Sea CityAccelerator157. Gun Rudqvist, Head of Policy, Baltic Sea Center, StockholmUniversityOther ParticipantsWikipedia154. Olaf Kosinsky, Photographer155. Ralf Roletschek, PhotographerInterpreters156. Elena Almaas157. Maria Hemph Moran158. Aleksandr Jakimovicz159. Catherine Johnson160. Piotr Krasnowolski161. Stein Larsen162. Aleksei Repin163. Aleksandre Tchekhov164. Gyda Thurow165. Martina WürzburgAdministrative staff from the Åland parliament100 Annex166. Tommy Bärdén, Member of Staff of the Åland Parliament167. Marina Eriksson, Member of Staff of the Åland Parliament168. Hans Grönvall, Member of Staff of the Åland Parliament169. Ulla Johansson, Member of Staff of the Åland Parliament170. Christoph Neymeyr, Member of Staff of the Åland Parliament171. Hans-Erik Ramström, Member of Staff of the Åland Parliament172. Carina Strand, Member of Staff of the Åland Parliament173. Marina Wikstrand-Andersson, Member of Staff of the ÅlandParliamentSpeakers· Jörgen Pettersson, MP Åland, President of the BSPC· Reinis Aboltins, Professor, Adviser on Energy in Latvia· Daria Akhutina, Senior Advisor CBSS· Juris Bone, Chairman of the CBSS· Marc Klaus, Race for the Baltic· Karin Gaardsted, Member of WG on Cultural Affairs· Christina Gestrin, Former BSPC-President· Camilla Gunell, Deputy Prime Minister of the Åland Government· Prof. Asaf Hajiyev, Secretary General of the PABSEC· Simon Holmström, Regeneration 2030· Sara Kemetter, BSPC Rapporteur on Sustainable Tourism· Jari Nahkanen, Chairman CPMR Baltic Sea Commission· Pyry Niemi, BSPC Rapporteur on Labour Market and SocialWelfare· Hans Olsson, Outgoing Chair of the CBSS Committee of SeniorOfficials· Roger Ryberg, Chairman of the BSSSC· Gun Rudqvist, Head of Policy, Baltic Sea Center, StockholmUniversity· Hanna Salmén, Regeneration 2030· Bernt Schalin, Clic Innovation Ltd· Jochen Schulte, BSPC Rapporteur on Integrated Maritime Policy· Saara-Sofia Sirén, BSPC Observer at HELCOM and BSPCRapporteur on Eutrophication· Kimmo Tiilikainen, Minister of the Environment and Energy· Franz Thönnes, Baltic Sea Labor Forum· Ottilia Thoreson, WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme· Hans Wallmark, Chairman of the BSPC WG on Migration andIntegration· Carola Veit, President of the Hamburg Parliament· Karmenu Vella, EU Commissioner, Participation throughvideomessageAnnex 101Annex 3ProgrammeRegistration, Plenum and other meetings will take place in theParliament buildingÅlands Lagting, Strandgatan 37, MariehamnSaturday, 25 August12.00-15.00 P articipants registration and information deskavailable at the Entrance Hall, Ålands LagtingSunday, 26 August08:30-15.00 P articipants registration and information deskavailable at theEntrance Hall, Ålands Lagting10.00-12.00 Meeting of the BSPC Drafting CommitteeÅlands Lagting, Plenary Hall12.00 Coffee break / snacks12.30-14.00 Meeting of the BSPC Standing CommitteeÅlands Lagting, Plenary Hall102 AnnexExcursions on the following themes:12.30-17.00 E xcursion No 1: Daily life in the Archipelago, visiton the small island and municipality of Föglö in thearchipelago (Incl . 25 min trip with a ferry)14.00-17.00 E xcursion No 2: Åland history and politicalbackground to the present Autonomy (Bustrip on themain island and a visit to the Bomarsund Fortressarea)All buses leave from Ålands Lagting, Strandgatan 37,Mariehamn19.00-22.00 Reception and Dinner hosted by Ålands lagtingVenue:Badhusparken PavillionMonday, 27 August8.30-9.30 M eeting of the BSPC Drafting Committee (if necessary)Ålands Lagting, Plenary Hall09.30 OPENINGChair: Jörgen Pettersson, MP, President of the BSPCVice-Chair: Carola Veit, MP, Hamburg, Vice-President of the BSPCÅlands Lagting, Plenary HallJörgen Pettersson, MP, President of the BSPCIntroductionJMs. Gun-Mari Lindholm, President of ÅlandsLagting, “Welcome address”JQuartett of young musicians from ÅlandJ . Sibelius: Andante festivoJH.E. Mr. Sauli Niinistö, President of the Republicof Finland Opening speechJMs. Paula Lehtomäki, State Secretary to thePrime Minister of Finland “ Finlands Strategy forthe Baltic Sea Region “10.05 Family photoInside the Plenary HallAnnex 10310.20 FIRST SESSIONCooperation in the Baltic Sea RegionChair: Jörgen Pettersson, MP, President of the BSPCVice-Chair: Jorodd Asphjell, MP, Norway, Vice-President of the BSPCReport by Mr. Jörgen Pettersson, MP, President ofthe BSPCReport by Ms. Carola Veit, President of theHamburg Parliament,Vice-President of the BSPC – “Implementation ofthe 26th BSPC Resolution”Report from the Council of the Baltic Sea States(CBSS)• Mr Hans Olsson, Outgoing CBSS Chair,Ambassador of Sweden• Mr Juris Bone, Chairman of the CBSSCommittee of Senior Officials Ambassador-at-Large of LatviaMr. Hans Wallmark, MP, Chairman of the BSPCWorking Group on Migration and Integration –Midway Report of the WGMr. Simon Holmström and Ms. Hanna Salmén,representatives of the Youth Event: Regeneration2030Debate12.30-13.15 Lunch outside the Plenary Hall13.15 THE FIRST SESSION continues Cooperation inthe Baltic Sea RegionMs. Christina Gestrin, former MP FinnishParliament and BSPC President “EnvironmentalCooperation in the Baltic Sea region”104 AnnexReport on the work of the CBSS/BSLFCoordination Group on Labour andEmployment, joint report by:• Mr. Franz Thönnes, former MP GermanBundestag and BSPC President, Baltic Sea LabourForum (BSLF)• Ms. Daria Akhutina, CBSS Senior Advisoron Economic Issues, coordinator for Baltic SeaLabour Forum’ and secretary to CBSS ExpertGroup on maritime issues.• Mr. Pyry Niemi, BSPC-Rapporteur on LabourMarket and Social Welfare, Member of theSwedish ParliamentBriefings from BSPC Rapporteurs• Mr. Jörgen Pettersson and Mr. Jochen Schulteon Integrated Maritime Policy• Ms. Karin Gaardsted on Cultural Affairs• Ms. Sylvia Bretschneider and Ms. SaraKemetter on Sustainable Tourism• Ms. Sylvia Bretschneider and Ms. Saara-SofiaSirén on HELCOM• Ms. Saara-Sofia Sirén on EutrophicationAddresses by the Representatives of otherParliamentary Assemblies and InternationalGuestsBaltic Sea States Subregional Co-operation(BSSSC)• Mr. Roger Ryberg, Chairman of the BSSSCNorthern Dimension Partnership in PublicHealth and Social Well-being• Ms. Ulla-Karin Nurm, Director of the NDPHSBaltic Sea Center, Stockholm University• Gun Rudquist, Head of Policy, Baltic Eye,“Bridging the gap between science and policy – anexample from Stockholm University Baltic SeaCenter“15.00-15.30 Coffee breakAnnex 10515.30 -17.30 SECOND SESSIONThe Vision of a Healthy Baltic Sea –A Call for more ActionChair: Prof Jānis Vucāns, MP, Latvia,Co-Chair: Dorota Arciszewska-Mielewczyk, MP,PolandMr. Karmenu Vella, EU Commissioner forEnvironment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries“Protecting our environment while maintaining ourcompetitiveness in regards to the UN 2030 goalsfor our oceans and the Baltic Sea Action Plan“Video-messageMr. Kimmo Tiilikainen, Minister of theEnvironment, Energy and Housing of Finland“The Priorities of the Finnish HELCOMChairmanship and the future of the Baltic SeaAction Plan”Ms. Camilla Gunell, Deputy Prime Ministerof the Åland Islands and Minister for Trade,Environment and Energy.“Sustainability Strategy of the Åland Islands as abest-practice example for the Baltic Sea Region”Ms. Ottilia Thoreson, Director, WWF BalticEcoregion Programme„Baltic Sea Scorecard and the need for stringentaction“Mr. Marc Klaus, Race for the Baltic, Baltic SeaCity Accelerator“Private Engagement for a healthy Baltic Sea and abetter Environment”Mr. Jari Nahkanen, Chairman CPMR Baltic SeaCommission, “Co-operation among Regions in theBaltic Sea”Panel Debate moderated by Mr. SimonHolmström from ReGeneration 2030.106 Annex17.30-18.30 M eeting of the BSPC Drafting Committee(if necessary)Ålands Lagting, Plenary Hall19.00 Cultural Event and Dinner hosted by thePresident of the Åland LagtingVenue: Ålands sjöfartsmuseum (Åland MaritimeMuseum), Hamngatan 2• Cocktail in the Museum hosted by the Town ofMariehamn, represented by the chairman of theTown Board Mr. Tage Silander• D inner in Restaurant Nautical (above the Museum)(The museum is open from 18 .30 and dinner startsat 19 .30)Tuesday, 28 August09.30-12.00 THIRD SESSIONSustainable Energy, Smart energy distributionplatformsChair: Valentina Pivnenko, MP, Russian FederationCo-Chair: Karin Gaardsted, MP, DenmarkNext generation electrical grids – Pilot projects inBaltic Sea Region• Mr. Berndt Schalin, Senior Advisor,Government of Åland “The Future Fossil FreeEnergy System on Åland”• Mr. Reinis Āboltiņš, Senior Adviser on Energy,Latvia “Challenges to Sustainable Energy in theBaltic Sea Region”Coffee BreakGeneral DebateOpen forum for speeches from the parliamentarianswith possibility for discussions.Annex 10712.00 CLOSING OF THE 27th BSPCChair: Mr Jörgen Pettersson, MP, Åland, Presidentof the BSPCCo-Chair: Mr Jorodd Asphjell, MP, Norway, Vice-President of the BSPC• Administrative matters• A doption of the Conference Resolution• A ddress by the incoming President of the BSPC2018-2019• P resentation of Next Year’s Host Country13:00 Lunch outside the Plenary HallTransfers to the Airport or Ferry terminal110 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