13 BSPC Report

13th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conferencereport1ContentsVoices from the conference p 3The Impact of EU Enlargement p 5The State of Affairs in Baltic Sea Cooperation: Environment p 7The State of Affairs in Baltic Sea Cooperation: Cohesion and Trade p 9Civil Society in the CBSS Member Countries p 10Civil Society and Regional Cooperation p 12Public Health and Social Well-Being p 14Environmental Challenges:Pollution, Risk for Oil Spills, Eutrophication p 16Recent Developments and Concrete Projects in Environmental Politics p 18The Future of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference p 21Adopting the Conference Resolution p 24Programme of the 13th BSPC p 26List of Participants p 28213th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference:Sustainable Development – Shared Concerns and Responsibilities in theBaltic Sea RegionBergen, 29–31 August 2004This year’s Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference showed two superficially contradictorytrends in the cooperation: continuity and change. Continuity, because the parliamentarianshave already met 13 times since 1991, and the regional cooperation is now well establishedand its key players have gained a lot of experience in working together. Change, because thiswas the first conference after the enlargement of the European Union in May 2004. The factthat the Baltic Sea is now almost an EU inland water will change the form and to some extentthe content of Baltic Sea cooperation.Hence, the theme of change and continuity ran vertically through all the discussions at theconference, but was most clearly visible in the discussion about the future of the Baltic SeaParliamentary Conference (BSPC) itself. There was a clear consensus among the participantsthat even in future there would be a need for parliamentary cooperation, not only at theEuropean level, but also at a regional level. Everybody agreed that under the new geopoliticalcircumstances the BSPC should be strengthened and turned into a true parliamentarydimension of the Council of Baltic Sea States (CBSS), though there was some dissent as tohow this ought to be accomplished.Another, though less obvious, theme of the conference was that of consensus and dissension.In the past years it had become quite clear where the common interests lie and in which areasjoint efforts are possible, and a lot of successful endeavours were mentioned by theparliamentarians, as for example in reducing the load of heavy metals discharged into the sea.But also the objects of disagreement have become somewhat of a tradition, slowing downprogress for example in the area of maritime safety.The location of the conference in Bergen proved to be a stroke of luck: After the often heateddiscussions the former Norwegian capital with its Hanseatic past and its strong economic,political and cultural ties across the Baltic Sea served to remind the participants of the longhistory of cooperation common to them all. The ties across the sea may not always have beenof a peaceful nature, and the relationships at times stormy, but during times of cooperation allpartners profited. The performance of a local rock band playing a modern interpretation of acomposition by Edvard Grieg at the very start of the conference on Monday morning not onlyshook the participants thoroughly awake but also reinforced this connection between past andpresent in the minds of all. At the end of the conference, the resolution was passedunanimously despite the often heated discussions.The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference has no mandate yet to make binding decisions. Itsstrongest point is in bringing together so many different voices from Sweden, Finland, Russia,Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Norway and Iceland: more than 60parliamentarians from ten national and seven regional parliaments around the Baltic Seaattended the 13th BSPC, many of them representing at the same time regional organisationslike the Baltic Assembly or the Nordic Council. This year, the chorus was enriched by thevoices of two representatives from the Adriatic Ionian Initiative and from the Black Sea3Economic Cooperation, reminding the Baltic Sea parliamentarians of the model function oftheir region for other regional initiatives in Europe.Other observers at the conference included representatives of civil society organisations likethe Baltic Sea Youth Forum, the NGO Forum, the Baltic Sea Trade Union Network(BASTUN) and the Federal Union of European Nationalities (FUEN), as one of the maintopics this year was the role and status of civil society and especially NGOs in the Baltic Seaarea. The two environmental organisations HELCOM and Baltic 21 were represented for thesession on environment, as were, of course, many regional organisations such as the CBSS,the Baltic Sea States Sub-regional Cooperation and the Union of Baltic Cities. The observersfrom the Council of Europe and the European Commission served to connect the BSPC withEurope outside of the Baltic Sea area.The non-binding resolutions of the conference and wide reach of the topics of Baltic Seacooperation mean that most of the issues discussed are long term projects. Therefore, evennext year’s BSPC in Lithuania will in all probability take up the issues of, for example, theenvironmental situation in the Baltic Sea area and the reform of the BSPC. As manyparticipants suggested, it would be highly interesting to hear reports from different countrieson the implementation of this year’s resolution. And maybe already the 14th BSPC will see are-structuring of the conference, so that the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference will in futurebe a powerful parliamentary dimension to intergovernmental cooperation in the Baltic Seaarea.4Voices from the conference“On the 1st of May we experienced a big change in the map of the Baltic Sea region when the number of the EU members of the area wasdoubled from four to eight. Eight out of the eleven Baltic Sea countries are members of the EU. At the same time almost one third of the EUmember countries are Baltic Sea states.”Kent Olsson, Chairman of the BSPC Standing Committee“What we need is a ‘Parliamentarian Partnership for Northern Europe’ as an overreaching structure for our geographical area, to be a sourceof inspiration and a driving force vis à vis our governments and the EU Commission.”Jørgen Kosmo, President of the Norwegian Storting“There is a saying about Bergen and this North-Western part of Norway that we have our backs to the mountains and our faces to the sea –and to the lands beyond it. This is as true today as it was a thousand years ago.”Herman Friele, Mayor of the hosting city of Bergen“In the heyday of the Hanseatic League our host city of this year, Bergen, was the symbol of a strong and uniform economic area inNorthern and Eastern Europe. (...) The old Hanseatic buildings in the district of Bryggen in Bergen city which have been restored in animpressive manner today still remind us of the wealth and flourishing trade of those times.”Franz Thönnes, German MP and Parliamentary State Secretaryat the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Security“Particular attention should be focused on the development and effectiveness of the transportpotential of the Baltic Sea region. There are a number of issues which need to be solved asquickly as possible (...) and which will then serve the economic interests of all the countriesinvolved. I am talking here about promising transcontinental transportation projects such asfrom Europe to the Far East: Europe-Japan, Europe-China, Europe-India and Europe-South-East-Asia. And it is worth mentioning at this point that the annual volume of trade turnoverbetween Europe and Asia has reached a level of more than a trillion Euros, and just 5 % ofthis flow of goods goes through the Baltic Sea, which means that there is a seriousopportunity here.”Prof. Dr. Vladimir Gusev, MP Council of Federationof the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation“An effective cooperation between people’s elected representatives and the civil society is ana priori condition for the democratic development of the region and its citizens’ well-being.”Outi Ojala, MP from Finland and rapporteuron legislation regarding NGOs“I am very happy that you chose this very important subject [of public health] at the conference, especially it is good that we address this inBergen, the city, where the first Norwegian public medical officer was hired 400 years ago by the Danish king...”Bent Høie, MP from NorwayOn the geographical mobility of patients: “For example, (...) there will be German citizens who travel to Poland for a dental treatment ...[as] Norwegian citizens have been coming to receive treatment at hospitals in the most northern Federal Laender of Germany for some yearsalready...”Franz Thönnes, German MP and Parliamentary State Secretaryat the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Security“I call upon the audience to continue to exert political pressure for increased maritime safety, as the forecasts for the Baltic Sea areasuggested that the volume of maritime traffic and therefore also the risk for serious accidents would double or triple in the next ten years”5Sylvia Bretschneider, Speaker of the Mecklenburg-VorpommernLandtag“Although the 85 million people living in the drainage area of the Baltic Sea have learned torespect the sea and are no longer using it as a dumping ground of waste, human activities arestill a constant threat to its fragile and unique eco-system. In spite of measures taken duringthe past 30 years, environmental degradation is still severe.”Jan-Erik Enestam, Finnish Minister of the Environment“Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, though we have heard a lot of speeches and many good ideas here in the conference, unfortunately,the environmental problems of the Baltic Sea remain mostly unchanged. (...) We have real and severe problems now, right now, that’s whywe need concrete decision also now and not after years and years. Otherwise we will loose our beautiful Baltic Sea.”Antti Kaikkonen, MP from Finland6The Impact of EU EnlargementThe impact of EU enlargement was not scheduled for separate discussion but wascontinuously part of the debates on the present and future of Baltic Sea cooperation. As themost important aspects of the enlarged Union for regional cooperation in Northern Europe,the following points were repeatedly mentioned:• the possibility of additional EU funds for projects in the Baltic Sea area,• the importance of the region for Brussels as a common ground with Russia,• the task of the BSPC of “softening up” the borders of the EU with the rest of Europe,• the necessity of a parliamentary accompaniment of the Northern Dimension,• the advantages of together speaking for regional interests in Brussels,• the need for future participation of the European Parliament in the BSPC.Adam Rotfeldt, Polish Secretary of State at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, spoke on behalfof the Polish presidency of the CBSS, Poland having taken over from Estonia in June 2004.He argued that the accession of the Baltic Countries and Poland to the European Union couldwell be a chance to find the funds needed for the implementation of some of the ambitiousideas developed in the region. But Mr Rotfeldt also saw a potential problem in the everincreasing number and intensity of organisations and structures in the region and advised towork towards a clearer division of labour between them. A similar idea seemed to be in themind of Mr Enestam when describing the overlapping political institutions:“In future, there will be issues that should be discussed by the EU member states in ourregion. Some issues will be most likely suitable for discussion between the countries ofthe Baltic Sea or between Nordic countries, etc. What ever is the combination of agents, itis important to find the most appropriate forum for each issue.”At the same time, Mr Rotfeldt continued, closer cooperation between the CBSS and theEuropean Commission would lead to better implementation of EU policies like the NorthernDimension and the European Neighbourhood. The Baltic Sea region should keep remindingthe EU member states that Europe does not end at the European Union’s borders. Theregional institutions of Northern Europe could contribute to soft security in Europe by sharingtheir experience with countries like the Ukraine and Belarus. The Ukraine already being anobserver country at the CBSS, Mr Rotfeldt suggested observer status for Belarus, providedthat the necessary reforms were implemented in that country. He assured the participants ofthe 13th BSPC that one of the priorities of the Polish presidency of the CBSS would beencouraging a more active participation of the Russian regions like Kaliningrad,St. Petersburg and Pskov.Kent Olsson, Swedish MP and Chairman of the BSPC Standing Committee, agreed with MrRotfeldt that EU enlargement offered many good opportunities but also reminded theauditorium that the centre of gravity in the EU had not moved north, meaning that there is acontinued need for cooperation in the Baltic Sea region. The EU members of the regionshould therefore form an alliance within the EU in matters concerning regional interests. MrOlsson reported on behalf of the BSPC Standing Committee on its four meetings during thelast year in Brussels, Tallinn, Oslo and Tanums Strand. The Standing Committee, whose taskit is to represent the BSPC outside of the annual meetings, had during this past yearconcentrated on concrete political activities, e.g. the Northern Dimension, EU enlargement7and the New Neighbours (now European Neighbourhood) policy. The Standing Committeehad also for the first time in its history visited Brussels in November 2003 to discuss theseissues. The outcome was positive and the committee will therefore continue this practice.Aivars Lapins, member of the cabinet of the Latvian EU Commissioner Sandra Kalniete,gave a brief talk on the European Commission’s view of Baltic Sea cooperation and theCommission’s initiatives in the area. Mr Lapins expressed his opinion that Baltic Seacooperation in the health sector and in the fight against organised crime would be especiallyappreciated in Brussels. He emphasised the importance of the region for Brussels as a placewhere the EU and Russia come most together, as neighbours as well as strategic partners.Continuing on the subject of Russia, he named the four common topics, the so-called spaces,most important to the Union and Russia, as last discussed at the summit on the 21st of May2004 on supporting Russia’s accession to the WTO: a common economic space, a space ofsecurity, a space on external security, and a space on research, education and culture.Gennady Khripel, MP from Russia and member of the BSPC Standing Committee, remindedthe audience that Russia and the EU had recently signed a protocol to the Partnership andCooperation Agreement which extended this agreement also to the 10 new member states ofthe European Union (April 21, 2004). He expressed his hope that by the end of this year newguidelines on cooperation would be available and some of the barriers to cooperation beremoved.Antti Kaikkonen, MP from Finland, reflected on the advantages and dangers of theoverlapping responsibilities of the different organisations in Northern Europe. His words,expressing both hope and caution, may serve to sum up the discussions on the impact of EUenlargement for cooperation in the Baltic Sea area:“Now that the Baltic Sea is practically an internal water within the European Union, thereare new possibilities. We have to make sure that the European Union takes a strong rolewhen financing different environmental projects in the Baltic Sea area, but still, the majorand most important role and responsibility for the sea belongs to us, the countries who liearound the Baltic Sea.”8The State of Affairs in Baltic Sea Cooperation: EnvironmentThe success of the joint application to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to grantthe Baltic Sea the status of a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) was seen by many as lastyear’s biggest success of Baltic Sea cooperation. At the same time, the application was a jointeffort only of most Baltic Sea countries, while Russia remained strictly opposed to the idea.Russian parliamentarians, however, had supported the idea in the final resolution of the 12thBSPC in Oulu.The concept of a PSSA is contained in the International Convention for the Prevention ofPollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78), the main international convention coveringprevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships. A PSSA is granted specialprotection because of its ecological significance and because it may be particularly vulnerableto damage by international maritime activities. When an area is approved as a particularlysensitive sea area, specific measures can be used to restrict traffic in that area.The International Maritime Organization (IMO) had declared the Baltic Sea as a one of tenParticularly Sensitive Sea Areas on April 2, 2004. The new PSSA status applies to all parts ofthe Baltic Sea, with the exception of Russian territorial waters at the eastern end of the Gulf ofFinland and off the enclave of Kaliningrad. Russian ships will still have to abide byinternational rules in other parts of the Baltic Sea. The special status is to take effect in abouttwo years.The dispute about the PSSA status of the Baltic Sea broke out also at the 13th BSPC, whereboth the draft resolution and an amendment by the German delegations called for specificmeasures to support the designation by the IMO. But Vladimir Grachev, Russian MP andChairman of the State Duma Ecology Committee, stated very clearly why this might be aproblem for Russia:“We believe that the resolution which is going to be approved today should not refer to[the PSSA] the way it’s set out in lines 43/44 of the draft resolution. We don’t think weshould mention the creation of the PSSA in it. (...) We have to say that while [giving theBaltic Sea area PSSA status] might make environmental sense, it is not economicallyviable for Russia. It is as simple as that.”Mr Grachev’s remarks naturally caused protest among those who had supported thedesignation of the Baltic Sea as a PSSA. Ole Stavad, Danish MP and member of the Danishdelegation to the Nordic Council, who emphasised the need for close cooperation with theRussian Duma, said it most clearly: “And I want to say to our colleague from the State Dumathat I was very upset to hear his comments in his speech about the PSSA.” Sverker Thoren,MP from Sweden, demanded that a call for Associated Protective Measures (APMs) shouldbe added to the conference resolution.For the final resolution, a compromise had to be found, as the original text calling for thegovernments, the CBSS and HELCOM to “continue to work in order to designate the wholeBaltic Sea as a PSSA” was not supported by all participants. Instead, the formula “supporteffective associated protective measures with respect to relevant provisions in all theresolutions of the BSPC on the protection of marine environment” was chosen. With thissentence, the 13th BSPC declares that it stands behind all its previous resolutions and therebyalso by its support for the PSSA designation.9Jagya Vatanyar, MP from St. Petersburg, felt that the Northern Dimension wasn’t workingas efficiently as it could be because it lacked funding. On the other hand he saw progress, forexample through the environmental fund of the ND, which right now helps building treatmentfacilities in St. Petersburg. Progress was also described by Marek Maciejowski, SecretaryGeneral of Baltic 21. Baltic 21 is the Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea region agreed upon by theCBSS Foreign Ministers in 1998. Baltic 21 provides the region with common goals for thenext 30 years of environmental politics, combining national and local initiatives for thesectors of agriculture, energy, forests, fisheries, industry, tourism and transport. The latestBaltic 21 report “Five Years of Regional Progress Towards Sustainable Development”recommends four areas of action for the organisation’s future work, among them supportingthe CBSS in the pursuit of sustainable development and adopting a set of lighthouse projectsdesigned to demonstrate sustainable development in action. Mr Maciejowski reported that theHeads of Government, for whom this report had been prepared, had expressed interest in thelong-term project proposed by Baltic 21 of turning the Baltic Sea region into an Eco-Regionfor Sustainable Development.Mr Maciejowski expressed his hope that the parliamentarians would cooperate closely withBaltic 21 and try to ensure that the principle of sustainability would one day be upheld in allsectors of politics and administration (sustainability mainstreaming). He stressed the pointthat the Baltic Sea region still has a long way to go to reach sustainability and named severalworrying trends that must be reversed, such as the rapid increase in automobile densityoffsetting gains in energy efficiency and renewable energy adoption.Sylvia Bretschneider, President of the Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, gave a statement on behalf of the delegation of theParliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, reporting on the BSPC’s exercise of observer status last year at the Baltic Marine EnvironmentProtection Commission, also known as the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM). She called upon the audience to continue to exert politicalpressure for increased maritime safety, as the forecasts for the Baltic Sea area suggested that the volume of maritime traffic and thereforealso the risk for serious accidents would double or triple in the next ten years:More specifically, the BSPC should call upon governments, HELCOM and the Councilof Baltic Sea States to adopt additional measures in the fields of port state controls andports of refuge, continuous training and education of ships officers and crews, thestandardisation of the bridge architecture of ships, the compulsory use of AIS [AutomaticIdentification Systems], the reduction of harmful emissions, stricter application of the‘polluter pays’ principle, as well as measures designed to support the Baltic Sea’s PSSAstatus.Dr. Monika Schaal, MP from the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, supported hercolleague from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. She spoke in favour of compulsory pilots for themore difficult routes and for compulsory routes for oil tankers, particularly in the KadetFairway south of Gedser. She appealed to the members of the conference to act now and putpressure on their governments instead of waiting until a big catastrophe had taken place. Themeasures needed for more safety and better environmental protection had been known sincemany years, she said, but what was needed now was more progress in implementing them, insupervising and enforcing environmental regulations like liability and stricter port controls.10The State of Affairs in Baltic Sea Cooperation: Cohesion and TradeOn the question of social cohesion the parliamentarians at the 13th BSPC saw both progressand stagnation. Kent Olsson described some of the successes, but mentioned also the socialand economic differences among the littoral states. As rapporteur on Kaliningrad he had theperfect example at hand: on one hand, Kaliningrad has experienced a considerable growthrate, but on the other hand there are still around 180.000 inhabitants of the Oblast livingbelow the poverty level. Mr Olsson also reminded the audience that although the city ofKaliningrad was making considerable progress both economically and with regard to theenvironment, most of the other 22 towns and municipalities of the Oblast seem to have beenalmost forgotten and are still very poor. Mr Olsson also expressed his regret that norepresentatives of the regional Duma of Kaliningrad were in Bergen to participate in the 13thBSPC.Prof. Dr Vladimir K. Gusev, Member of the Council of Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, reported on the stateof economic cooperation in the Baltic Sea area. He pointed out that the regional cooperation really is a success in the field of trade, withmore than 37 billion Euros per year between Russia and the Baltic Sea states. Mr Gusev suggested four areas where economic cooperationought to be improved for the benefit of all the citizens and for a Europe without dividing lines:First, cooperation in the area of the environment and the efficient use of natural resources,such as water pollution, efficiency of treatment installations, conventional arms waste andindustrial emissions. Mr Gusev listed some positive examples for this kind of cooperation,one of them being the Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Programme in the RussianFederation (MNEPR) with the aim of protecting the environment from Russian atomic waste,signed in Stockholm 2003 by the Russian Federation, the US and the EU.Second, cooperation in the energy sector: Mr Gusev reminded the audience that Russia ownsa large part of the world’s natural resources, for example 40 % of natural gas and 30 % of oil,as well as 40 % of the world’s reserves of nickel. An important step towards increasedeconomic cooperation should therefore be the creation of a regional highly integrated energysystem for supplying Europe with Russia’s natural resources (e.g. through the Northern-European gas pipeline). Another area of cooperation could be in the extraction of Arctic shelfmineral deposits.Third, transport and communication within and through the Baltic Sea region: Again, MrGusev recited concrete examples, as the high speed train connection between Helsinki andSt. Petersburg. He also saw a need for new ports in the Eastern part of the Finnish Gulf.Particular attention, though, should be focused on the development of the transcontinentaltransit potential in the Baltic Sea region. Even though the trade turnover between Europe andthe Far East is growing, only 5 % of the goods are transported across the Baltic Sea. MrGusev identified a valuable opportunity here to take over more of this transport business.Fourth, border and customs cooperation: Mr Gusev emphasised the need to align tariffregulations and non-tariff limitations as well as the ideal of visa free systems, renderingfurther measures of trust between Russia and the EU necessary.11Civil Society in the CBSS Member CountriesOuti Ojala, Finnish MP and rapporteur of the BSPC on the legislation regarding NGOs,reminded her colleagues that civil society is not a rival but complementary to representativedemocracy:“An effective cooperation between people’s elected representatives and the civil societyis an a priori condition for the democratic development of the region and its citizens’well-being.”Ms Ojala had during her research sent questionnaires to all and visited most of the countries in the region. Her report was delivered not onlyto the BSPC, but also to the NGO Consultative Committee and the CBSS. She asked that some answers be given before the holding of thefifth NGO-Forum in Poland in 2005.Ms Ojala stressed the fact that the status of the non-profit sector differs very much betweenthe Baltic Sea countries. Therefore, also the need for reforms varies, but some reforms areneeded in all countries in order to facilitate the active participation of the civil society sectorin all stages of governance: local, regional, national and international.Regarding the freedom of association in the region she saw no problems at all, and in respectto registration procedures no major problems. But most of the NGOs in the region face theproblem of surviving, are struggling to cover administrative costs, which hinders theirpossibility of long-term planning. And while in some countries NGOs are automaticallyexempted from paying most of the taxes, in others they are treated like business corporations.Ms Ojala therefore recommended providing NGOs with stable funding and tax exemption. Insome countries the financial declaration requirements should also be simplified.A second big concern for civil society organisations is access to information. In manycountries minorities are disadvantaged by the non-availability of the information in their ownlanguages. Moreover, publication on the Internet often does not allow smaller NGOs, whichcannot afford to use the new technologies, to access the information. The key words for thework of NGOs are transparency, availability and accessibility.The civil society’s participation in the decision making process was another issue raised byMs Ojala. While some countries recognise the role and expertise of the NGO community andinvite NGOs to partake in the discussions, others leave the civil society no possibility to getinvolved. Ms Ojala demanded that all NGOs, without any discrimination, be allowed to givetheir expertise from the very beginning of the public policy process. The planning andpreparation stage are particularly concerned, as NGOs are too often left outside the door atthat stage.Helmut Hallemaa, Chairman of the Baltic Sea NGO Consultative Committee and Chairmanof the Organising Committee of the IV Baltic Sea NGO Forum (2003–2004), asked on behalfof the region’s NGOs that the development of civil society be given political priority. Heagreed with Ms Ojala that providing more secure financing for the NGOs would greatlystrengthen their possibilities. The Estonian Civil Society Development Concept adopted byParliament at the end of 2002 was cited as an example for progress in NGO legislation.Rigmor Duun Grande, Head of Department at the Nordic Council of Ministers, pointed outthat the danger with such a close relationship between governmental and non-governmentalorganisations lies in the fact that the NGOs tend to lose their independence and often changetheir character. They become less “non-governmental” but instead “semi-governmental” and12lose thereby some of what made them attractive partners from the beginning. Therefore it isessential that public support of NGOs goes hand in hand with efforts to keep a distance andleave the NGOs the freedom they need to really provide a participatory aspect to democracy.“At the same time you should have an arm’s length distance and not only accept, but alsowant the NGOs to make trouble and argue with us and make demands on us.”Ms Duun Grande reminded the audience of the time when the Norwegian NGO Bellonaoccupied the Minister of Environmental Affairs’ office. The occupiers were finally thrownout, but continued to receive public funding.Heidi Hautala, MP from Finland, expressed her agreement with Ms Ojala’s report andsuggested that the report should be sent to the civil society communities in all countries,asking them to prepare reports on their actual working conditions and the state of NGOlegislation in their respective countries. She referred to the Aarhus-Convention (1998) whichgrants three kinds of rights to civil society organisation in the area of environmentalprotection: access to information, participation in decision-making and access to justice. MsHautala also made a point of another paradox of close cooperation between governmental andnon-governmental organisations, again citing the example of Bellona, which had been used bythe Norwegian government as a diplomatic instrument for calling attention to urgentenvironmental problems on the Kola Peninsula.Hans-Heinrich Hansen, the Danish Vice-President of the Federal Union of EuropeanNationalities (FUEN), brought the first-hand view of a real NGO to this discussion on civilsociety. He first introduced his organisation briefly, saying that FUEN was both an NGO forthe rights and interests of national minorities and an umbrella organisation for 76 NGOs in thesame field. Mr Hansen asked the assembled deputies to implement the points made by MsOjala’s report, as they were all important and urgent concerns.13Civil Society and Regional CooperationAmbassador Hannu Halinen, Director of the CBSS Secretariat, defined the role of civilsociety as both a resource and a prerequisite for democracy. He assured the parliamentariansthat the CBSS puts great value in supporting regional cooperation also at the civil societylevel. He pointed out that the Baltic Sea network of NGOs offers the decision makers a uniquesource of information. In collecting this information from the different players in the region,“...the CBSS Secretariat is like a spider in the net”. Also, the non-governmental organisationsare valuable partners in implementing cross-border cooperation and cooperation with theCBSS neighbour countries. As an example for the CBSS’s involvement with civil society MrHalinen cited a new initiative currently assisted by the CBSS Secretariat to enhancecooperation in crime prevention and rehabilitation of former criminals. In this case, theSecretariat and the WGDI Expert Group on Pre-Trial Detention work closely together withNGOs from the region.One of the main challenges for the CBSS will be to improve its information work to increasethe involvement of people and non-governmental organisations. Mr Halinen suggested amongothers the creation of an integrated forum similar to the Barents Regional Council. He evenhinted that cooperation not only between states but also with and within the civil societymight be incorporated into the CBSS mission statement during the Polish presidency of theCBSS.However, the differences between the countries in the Baltic Sea region in respect to NGO legislation create barriers to regional cooperation,as Ms Ojala pointed out. It is of utmost importance for NGOs to have the possibilities to cooperate regionally and internationally, and suchcooperation should be actively supported. With regard to regional cooperation, the rapporteur on NGO legislation suggested the following:The Baltic Sea NGO-network and -forum should be recognised as a partner to the CBSS:the Baltic Sea NGO consultative committee should apply for, and be granted the status ofspecial participants, or at least an observatory status.(...) I would like to express myprofound wish for a closer and more structured cooperation in the future between thethree cooperation levels in the Baltic Sea Region (...): the governmental level representedby the CBSS, the parliamentary dimension level represented by the BSPC, and thecitizens and civil society level represented by the NGO-forum.The Baltic Sea NGO Forum that Ms Ojala talked about was instigated by the CopenhagenNGO initiative in 2001 and consists mainly of annual conferences for Baltic Sea NGOs underthe auspices of the CBSS presidency. It serves not only as a meeting point for NGOs, butoffers an opportunity for dialogue between NGOs and public authorities. Helmut Hallemaa,Chairman both of the Baltic Sea NGO Consultative Committee and of the OrganisingCommittee of the IV Baltic Sea NGO Forum, reported on the efforts to further institutionalisethe Baltic Sea NGO Network by or at the next NGO Forum in 2005. He told theparliamentarians that an application for the status of Special Participant in the CBSS for theNGO Forum had been posted in May 2004. Mr Hallemaa suggested establishing a Baltic SeaCivil Society Development Foundation to help NGOs financially. He invited all participantsof the BSPC to the fifth Baltic Sea NGO Forum in Gdynia, Poland, in May 2005 (theme ofthe forum: “Non-governmental sector of the Baltic Sea region a year after enlarging theEuropean Union – Good Practices”).Ms Duun Grande brought up the status of NGOs in the Nordic countries and the cooperationbetween them as a positive example for the future development of civil society cooperation inthe Baltic Sea area. She pointed to the fact that non-governmental organisation have played an14important role in the development of our modern societies and ensured the popular acceptanceof the solutions found for the problems of these societies, first in the form of popularmovements and later, after World War II, of interest groups. Recognising this fact, the NordicCouncil developed guidelines for the cooperation between the Nordic Council of Ministersand the “voluntary sector”, as it is called in Scandinavia. The contact between these two sidesis therefore intensive and generally good and has resulted in the integration of some of theNGOs from the respective countries in “Nordic” umbrella organisations. It also deeplyembedded the Nordic cooperation in the societies of the participating countries, which shouldalso be the aim for Baltic Sea cooperation:Within the framework of these guidelines we do have close liaisons with different (...)bodies in the complex voluntary sector. Like the parliamentarians and the governments atNordic level the NGOs have set up a closely knit Nordic network and in many cases youhave Nordic overreaching central organisations and all these formal and informalnetworks explain (...) the strong popular basis of this Nordic cooperation.Kristen Touborg Jensen, MP from Denmark, named one example for the efforts made toencourage regional cooperation also on the civil society level, stating that half a millionDanish Kronors in next year’s Nordic budget were set aside for cooperation between youthorganisations in the Nordic countries and in North-Western Russia. In this context, heexpressed his worries about the limited access to information for NGOs in Russia, referring toMs Ojala’s report.Lars Rise, MP from Norway, used the moment to step out from the Baltic Sea horizon andlook at the wider world, telling his colleagues that even on the UN level the question of civilsociety was on the agenda. Kofi Annan and his working group for structural reform had thissummer, according to Mr Rise, come to the conclusion that the United Nations needed betterand formalised contacts with the NGOs in the field. Mr Rise suggested that in many cases itmade more sense to spend money on NGOs than employing people in the public sector, asNGOs often worked more effectively.Finally, Ole Stavad called on the Standing Committee to also think about cooperation withthe NGOs in the context of re-structuring the BSPC.The results of the discussion were included in the Conference Resolution as a call on thegovernments and the CBSS to:“...promote the basic idea of a Civil Society by involving NGOs, when appropriate, inthe decision-making process and to strengthen the cooperation between NGOs in theregion, for instance by giving economic support to international networking of NGOs”.15Public Health and Social Well-BeingBaltic Sea cooperation in the field of health and social well-being is no new idea. On thecontrary, it has long been a reality in the form of different initiatives and working groups. TheNordic-Baltic cooperation project No-TB-Baltic has, for example, provided technical andfinancial support to help the Baltic States in applying the WHO-recommended tuberculosiscontrol strategy known as DOTS. Other examples include the Barents Health CooperationProgramme, the CBSS Working Group for Cooperation on Children at Risk and the CBSSTask Force on Communicable Disease Control.Katrin Saluvere, Director General from the Estonian Ministry of Social Affairs, praisedespecially the cooperation within the Task Force on Communicable Disease Control. TheTask Force had been established by the Heads of Government and the President of theEuropean Commission at the Baltic Sea States Summit in 2000. Its mandate was limited to thesummer of 2004. The Task Force had combined political commitment, strategic planning, aclear framework and transparent processes with respect for and attention to the rights andneeds of the receiving countries. From the point of view of her country, Ms Saluvere said, theTask Force should therefore serve as a model for future cooperation in the field of health.As a result of the successes of this older reality of cooperation in the field of public health andsocial well-being, a new stage was reached in Oslo in October 2003 with the establishment ofthe new Northern Dimension Partnership in Public Health and Social Wellbeing. Hopefully,the cooperation will now be intensified and further improved. As Franz Thönnes, GermanMP and Parliamentary State Secretary at the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Security,pointed out:“The mutual exchange of experiences should not be restricted to individual events andmeetings. We have to conduct a continuous dialogue on the development of health andsocial policy in the Baltic Sea littoral states.”The Partnership on Public Health and Social Wellbeing was founded on a Finnish-Norwegian initiative and connects partners from thenational level, from international institutions like the European Commission and the World Health Organisation (WHO) as well as fromregional organisations such as the CBSS and the Nordic Council of Ministers. Among the priorities of the Partnership there are the reductionof major communicable diseases such as HIV/AIDS and TB, the prevention of drug abuse and the promotion of healthy lifestyles. The NDPartnership in Public Health and Social Well-being established a small permanent secretariat in September 2004, financed for this year byFinland. A joint database will soon facilitate coordination.Ewa Persson Göransson, State Secretary in the Swedish Ministry of Health and SocialAffairs, reported on the new Partnership in Public Health and Social Well-being and asked theBSPC to support it by mentioning it in its resolution. As she reminded the participants:“We always have to bear in mind what should be the focus of our efforts: to make lifebetter, safer and healthier for the peoples of Northern Europe.”Mr Thönnes gave a comprehensive picture of the envisaged future cooperation in the field ofhealth and social well-being. In order to render less significant the social differences betweenthe CBSS member countries especially in the fields of wages, GDP and social infrastructure,and to fight “trans-national dangers such as HIV/AIDS”, Mr Thönnes suggested taking thefollowing actions:• Learning from the Nordic countries how to combat unemployment,• Applying the European growth strategy, the Lisbon Strategy, together and jointlyimplementing its far-reaching social and labour market reforms,• Granting more freedom for services,16• Encouraging the geographical mobility of patients and health care workers,• Joining efforts for cross-border preventive health care and health promotion in theframework of the ND Partnership in Public Health and Social Wellbeing,• Cooperating to prevent drug-related crimes, addiction and trafficking in human beings.Gabriel Romanus, MP from Sweden and President of the Nordic Council, reminded theparliamentarians that in Northern Europe with its privileged position alcohol and not drugs isthe most serious threat to the health and well-being of its inhabitants. According to the WHO,alcohol accounts for almost 10 % of lost years (disability years) in the Western world, andapproximately 75 % of violent crimes are alcohol related. With regard to the number ofpeople concerned, alcohol is about ten times as big a problem as illegal drugs.Prevention being cheaper and more humane than repairing the damage once it has occurred,Mr Romanus pleaded for the Baltic Sea countries to work jointly within the European Unionfor increased minimum taxation of alcohol and for giving back to countries control overprivate imports. Mr Romanus cited studies proving the taxation of alcohol and the limitationof its availability as the most effective preventive measures.In addition to the general discussion, the participants of the 13th BSPC were also treated to aspecific case study on recent progress in the field of health. Ms Saluvere reported on newsolutions to health challenges in Estonia. Using WHO statistics, she compared Estonia’snumbers in the fields of life expectancy, neonatal deaths, heart disease, death by externalcause, cancer, mental disorder, outpatient contacts and total health costs with other countries.In some areas, like for example life expectancy at birth, Estonia still has to catch up a lotcompared to its neighbours from around the Baltic Sea, while in others, as e.g. neonatal deathsper 1000 live births, Estonia has almost caught up already. With respect to total health coststhe Estonian health system seems to be rather efficient.During the open discussion at the end of this session, the dependence of health also on theeconomy (Pehr Löv), on development and knowledge (Bent Høie) and on the environment(Berndt Sköldestig) was pointed out. Börje Vestlund, MP from Sweden, suggested that theNGOs could and should be used in the fight against HIV/AIDS, thereby connecting thediscussion on public health with the earlier topic of civil society in the Baltic Sea region.17Environmental Challenges:Pollution, Risk for Oil Spills, Eutrophication... and TerrorismThe environmental cooperation in the Baltic Sea area goes back to 1974, when the HelsinkiCommission (HELCOM) was founded to implement the "Convention on the Protection of theMarine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area" (Helsinki Convention). HELCOM has the task ofprotecting the marine environment from pollution and to restore the eco-system and preserveits balance. Arturas Daubaras, Chairman of HELCOM, was present at the 13th BSPC. Bothhe and Jan-Erik Enestam, the Finnish Minister of the Environment, reported on the state ofthe environment in the Baltic Sea area.The Baltic Sea is a brackish water sea, which pushes many species to the edge of their livingconditions. This is also the reason for the relatively low variety of species found in the BalticSea. It has also quite cold water, especially in the winter when important parts of the sea maybe covered by ice. Only the narrow Danish Straits allow a total exchange of the waters of theBaltic Sea every thirty years. This together with the low water temperature means thatwhatever substance is released into the sea will impact the sea area for a long time. The threemost important and urgent challenges for the Baltic Sea eco-system therefore areeutrophication, the fast growing oil transport and the occurrence of persistent harmfulsubstances.Oxygen depletion is a natural problem in the Baltic, but eutrophication induced by nutrientpollution (nitrogen, phosphorus) has considerably worsened this threat to marine eco-systems.Biodiversity and fish stocks have been affected as well, and exceptional algal blooms havebecome more common. Recent results of the Helsinki Commission show that major portions(over 50 %) of losses and discharges of total nitrogen and total phosphorus originate fromdiffuse sources. The large catchment areas with big rivers such as the Neva, Vistula, Oder,Nemunas and Daugava, are the main sources of nutrient inputs.According to the Fourth Pollution Load Compilation, 738,000 tonnes of nitrogen and 34,100tonnes of phosphorus entered the Baltic Sea waterborne in the year 2000. Agriculture is themain contributor, but scattered dwellings and storm water overflows also play an importantrole, as well as point sources in Russia and especially in Poland. Progress in reducing nutrientloads from point sources such as municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants hasbeen good, with the 50 % reduction target for phosphorus achieved by almost all thecontracting parties of the 1988 Ministerial Declaration regarding nutrient load reductions. Butmeasures to reduce nutrients from agriculture have fallen short of their aims.The growing (oil) traffic is of course accompanied by a growing risk for oil spills. But it hasalso increased the amount of ballast water changed in the Baltic Sea harbours. Therefore,introduction of invasive species is among the most serious environmental issues.Persistent harmful substances (dioxins etc) usually are not intentionally produced, but formedas a by-product of several different processes as well as from most combustion processes. Theloads of some hazardous substances have been reduced considerably during the past 20 to 30years by almost all the contracting parties, in particular discharges of heavy metals. The bestnews is the clear decreasing lead concentrations in herring observed in most areas, mostprobably due to heavy reduction in the use of leaded fuel. Several persistent organic pollutants18(POPs) have also decreased significantly, probably due to strict HELCOM regulations. Thesame is true for dioxins, but dioxin concentrations in fish still exceed the EU food safetylimits. Some concern is also caused by the fact that many organic contaminants are stillunknown and day by day new unknown substances may enter the Baltic Sea.Vladimir Grachev, Russian MP and Chairman of the State Duma Ecology Committee, addeda rather unexpected topic for Baltic Sea environmental cooperation. He gave a meaning to theword “safety” that was somewhat surprising in the context of environmental politics:“The main threat for humanity in the recent years has been terrorism. (...) Unfortunately,one of the targets could be the Baltic Sea. And the impact of such a terrorist attack couldbe simply monstrous. This puts the area around the Baltic Sea into real danger, it could beimpossible to live here. There are chemical weapons, bombs, explosives and all types ofother weapons that may explode in the Baltic Sea. Chemical weapons mean that wecannot accurately predict how they will affect the environment. But we can be assuredthat they would destroy the marine environment and the eco-system.”Both weapons left behind from World War II and chemical and other toxic weapons stored byBaltic Sea countries were mentioned by Mr Grachev who was clearly still shaken by theterrorist attack on two Russian aeroplanes that had occurred only a few days earlier. He hadapparently already raised the same issue as a proposed resolution at the ParliamentaryAssembly at the Council of Europe.19Recent Developments and Concrete Projects in Environmental PoliticsMr Enestam listed some of the recent measures undertaken by Finland in the framework of itsown environmental programs: The Programme for the Protection of the Baltic Sea aims tohalve Finland's nutrient emissions over the next 10 to 15 years, and the Finnish Agri-Environmental Programme aims at more efficient nutrient removal. Furthermore, Finlandfinancially supports the construction of the south-western wastewater treatment plant inSt. Petersburg (to be completed in 2005).In cooperation with Estonia and Russia, Finland introduced the Vessel Traffic Management and Information System for the Finnish Gulf inJuly 2004. In order to improve Finland’s preparedness for accidents one new oil combating vessel was set in operation, two more are beingmodernised and will be in operation next year. One multipurpose oil and chemical combating icebreaking vessel will also be ordered.Furthermore, the Finnish Environment Institute recently developed MARIS (Maritime Accident Response System), a system to map out risksfor oil spills and the capacity to combat them. The project was initialised and funded by the Nordic Council. On Finland’s nextenvironmental priorities for the Baltic Sea, Mr Enestam declared:”We are still working towards an early entry into force of the ban on single-hull tankers.The International Maritime Organisation has already decided to designate in principle alarge part of the Baltic Sea as PSSA, but we must make sure that also the final decisionwill be made and appropriate Associated Protective Measures will be identified.”The administrative fine for oil spills from ships was named as another example from Finlandby Antti Kaikkonen:“The Ministry of Justice of Finland is finalising a proposal on fining oil spills from shipsnavigating on the Baltic Sea near Finland. The idea is to make the fine high enough tohave a deterrence effect. The coast guard would be authorised to fine, thus avoidingexcessive bureaucracy. Evidence of spills would be gathered during coast guard controlflights.”Mr Kaikkonen spoke of his wish that a common way of handling this could be found by theBaltic Sea littoral states.Mr Daubaras talked about HELCOM’s actions to combat pollution. HELCOM has decidedthat all future decisions will be based on the eco-system approach, for which EcologicalQuality Objectives will be developed. These are tools to describe the desired level of theBaltic Sea eco-systems Within this approach the following priorities are set: eutrophication,hazardous substances, safety of navigation and response activities.A study shows that the agricultural production will grow after EU enlargement, which willprobably lead to increased discharge of nutrients into the water. Thus, there is a need tostrengthen efforts to reduce the input of nutrients from agriculture. In order to come up withconcrete proposals to reduce inputs of nutrients, HELCOM has initiated an activity wherecurrent modelling tools may be used to simulate the impact of the implementation of the EUCommon Agriculture Policy and other policies in the Baltic Sea area.With regard to hazardous substances the goal is to phase out discharges and emissions by2020. HELCOM has started a project on the development of a strategy to collect data on theoccurrence of hazardous substances in markets and uses in the Baltic Sea region.“Decision-making for protection measures have to be based on a holistic view and bycreating a balance between the health of the sea we want and the human influences thatwe will accept. Here we need to bring together the views of all of us, including the publicand scientists. This also requires efforts from parliamentarians around the Baltic Sea –there is no chance to step back and take a rest.”20Mr Grachev also came to speak about the environmental concerns raised by previousspeakers and agreed that they needed to be taken seriously and were shared by Russia. Heparticularly mentioned the oil platform off the shore of Russia, near the Kaliningrad region,that had caused a wave of public concern. Having personally been there to inspect theplatform, Mr Grachev assured his colleagues that some of the best institutes were involved inthis project and that particular attention had been devoted to fulfilling the HELCOMrecommendations and standards:“As a result the oil extraction is taking place with waste-free technology and underextremely tight controls here. I myself was involved with some of the controls takingplace with this project and I went to the oil platform myself and I can assure you thatthere is not a single drop of oil that leaks into the Sea from this project. It is all highlyenvironmentally compatible and safe. (...) And if there should be an accident, whichseems highly unlikely, they have taken steps to ensure that no oil actually gets into theBaltic Sea. So let me just say that in terms of industrial waste it is possible to worktowards waste-free industry.”Thor Gunnar Kofoed, MP from Denmark, lives on the island of Bornholm in the middle ofthe Baltic Sea and daily sees the environmental problems and also the oil tankers going past.He argued somewhat against his Russian colleagues optimistic view of technology, feelingthat even the most modern technology cannot rule out human error. Mr Kofoed mentioned theexample of a recent collision where one ship sank. That time the accident luckily ended wellbecause it was not an oil tanker.Ole Stavad, MP from Denmark and member of the Danish delegation to the Nordic Council,called for the following priorities: phase out single hull tankers immediately, allow onlysuitable ships during winter, make pilots compulsory.Lars Rise, MP from Norway, lamented the non-binding character of the BSPC resolutions:“It will be one of 500 international resolutions on the environment. (...) It’s only two ofthe approximately 500 that are binding: the Kyoto protocol and the protocol on biologicaldiversity. The rest are only good wishes.”Mr Rise suggested also introducing the polluter-pays-principle also for states, whereby a statewould be liable for the pollution it causes:“We are not an NGO that should only come up with proposals and suggestions, we arelegislators, so we should implement these things in legislations and we should support asystem where states may be brought to courts and where they have to pay compensation.”Sverker Thoren, MP from Sweden, spoke of his worry about the implementations of BSPCresolutions and the need to monitor them:“Protecting the Baltic Sea against pollution from maritime traffic and preventingaccidents have to continue to be a maritime, environmental and transport policy priorityfor all Baltic Sea countries. This must be clearly reflected in the resolution from thisconference as it was in the draft version number 12 of August 29th, and so it must be inthe final version.”21The Future of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceAlready at the 12th BSPC in Oulu in 2003 the need for reform and the wish to strengthen theBSPC had surfaced repeatedly. This was the case even more so at the 13th BSPC, where thetask of making concrete proposals on the restructuring of the parliamentary conference wasfinally handed to the BSPC Standing Committee. As it says in the Conference Resolution, theStanding Committee is supposed to:“...elaborate a proposal how to develop the parliamentary dimension in cooperation withthe CBSS and the participating parliaments and the relevant inter-parliamentary bodies.”In the discussions it could be seen that the goal of strengthening the BSPC seemed to beshared by all members of the Standing Committee and the BSPC but that there weredisagreements on how to do it. The model of Nordic Council and Nordic Council of Ministerswas mentioned a couple of times, as well as the example set by the colleagues from SouthernEurope with the establishment of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly.Josef Wiejacs, Polish Ambassador-at-large and Chairman of the Committee of SeniorOfficials of the CBSS, assured the participants of the conference that the CBSS is fully infavour of strengthening the BSPC, but that it is up to the BSPC itself to decide on the form ofthe parliamentary dimension:“You have to answer the question whether you want to have a parliamentarian dimension,what kind of representation of the national parliaments, proportional or not, the questionof the regional parliaments...”.Seven main aspects of the future parliamentary cooperation in the Baltic Sea area were put onthe agenda by the participants of the 13th BSPC:• Enlarging the BSPC to encompass all national and regional parliaments of the regionas well as the European Parliament,• Building a closely knit network between the BSPC and the other regionalorganisations,• Broadening the mandate of the Steering Committee,• Making decisions in the Drafting Committee more transparent and democratic,• Securing better financing for the BSPC by sharing the costs between all participatingcountries,• Establishing the post of an ombudsman for democratic development and minorityrights,• Formally monitoring the implementation process for measures decided on by theBSPC.Jørgen Kosmo, President of the Norwegian Storting, called for a geographical extension ofthe existing parliamentary cooperation to create a “Parliamentarian Partnership for NorthernEurope” that would connect the Baltic Sea with the Barents Sea and the Arctic Regioncooperation as well as other regional parliamentarian organisations. He also suggested that theparliaments of all cooperating countries as well as the European Parliament should in futurebe represented in the Standing Committee of the extended BSPC. In his view, a first steptowards the “enlarged” cooperation could be the Barents Parliamentary Meeting organised bythe Norwegian Storting in Bodø in June 2005, to which he invited also the members of theBSPC Standing Committee. Already the 14th BSPC in Lithuania could be the turned into afounding conference for the envisaged Parliamentarian Partnership for Northern Europe.22Mr Kosmo’s proposal was greeted with approval by Kent Olsson, who said that similardiscussions are taking place in the BSPC Standing Committee and even in the NordicCouncil. Mr Olsson, member of the Nordic Council Presidium and Chairman of the BSPCStanding Committee, added:“The problem is that the Standing Committee has no mandate from the parliamentariansto act as a steering political body. Consequently, the Standing Committee cannot take anyposition in a single issue if this issue is not mentioned in the resolutions.”That is as problem as the Standing Committee attends so many conferences and meetings etc on diverse topics as during the past year. Hespoke in favour of a broad mandate for the Standing Committee. The second problem is financing the activities of the conference as therange of them grows: “...the Nordic Council is financing the work of the conference ...but this has to be discussed in the future.”Anke Spoorendonk, member of the state parliament of Schleswig-Holstein and chairman ofthe South Schleswig Voters' Committee (the Danish minority’s party in Schleswig-Holstein),stressed the importance of not stopping at building democratic structures but going further tofill them with life, to live democracy. Ms Spoorendonk suggested creating the office of anombudsman for democratic development and minority interests in the Baltic Sea area, similarto the office Helle Degn had held before. This ombudsman should report back to the BSPC.Ms Spoorendonk asked the Standing Committee to draw up proposals for such an office.With respect to a reform of the BSPC Jagya Vatanyar from St. Petersburg pleaded forfurther participation of the parliaments beneath the national level, as especially the Germanstate parliaments had contributed to a large degree to the success of Baltic Sea cooperation.Also Heinz-Werner Arens from Schleswig-Holstein stressed the importance of the regionalaspect of the conference, which should rather be strengthened in future to provide closerlinkage to the people and to the actual problems.Kimmo Kiljunen, Finnish MP, assured the audience that the Finnish delegation supported theefforts to strengthen the BSPC. He also supported Mr Kosmo’s earlier proposal for aParliamentary Partnership for Northern Europe, but suggested taking it one step further to turnthe BSPC into a Baltic Sea Parliamentary Assembly to coordinate the parliamentary work inthe whole region and to support the Northern Dimension issues. Mr Kiljunen also showedhimself in favour of involving the European Parliament in the BSPC and proposed to invite itsmembers already now as observers to the BSPC.As to the structure of this new Baltic Sea Parliamentary Assembly, representatives shouldcome directly from the national parliaments, all national parliaments should be represented atthe BSPC and also in the Conference’s Standing Committee. Resources should in future comefrom all participants, not only from the Nordic Council. And Mr Kiljunen went so far as todevelop the idea of a more politically organised BSPC, with political groups turning it into areal political body.Franz Thönnes, from the German Bundestag and Parliamentary Secretary in the FederalMinistry for Health and Social Security, spoke in favour of including both all the regional andall the national parliaments in the BSPC. He wished for more continuity in the representativesattending the BSPC, maybe by giving them a mandate for the time of their respectivelegislative periods. Also, the European Parliament should be involved, as Mr Kiljunen hadalready made clear. A better coordination with the CBSS should lead to the formulation ofcommon regional interests which should then be jointly pursued in Brussels. Mr Thönnes also23asked whether it wasn’t time for some critical self-evaluation with regards to theimplementation of previous BSPC resolutions. He proposed that the delegations should infuture be asked to report on the implementation process in their countries at every BSPC.Lars Rise, MP from Norway, who noted that his own amendment had not been included inthe draft resolution, suggested also a reform of the work done by the Drafting Committee:“It’s a little difficult for us. We are in a democratic assembly and we don’t know whichproposals have been deleted, we don’t have a list of the proposals, and we cannot evensee on the desk outside which proposals have been forwarded to the Committee, whichhave been recommended and which have not been recommended. So since we arepromoting democracy, my proposal would be that in the next assembly we should at leastdistribute these proposals on the table outside.”24Adopting the Conference ResolutionMr Olsson reported from the Drafting Committee, which had met three times for constructivebut not easy discussions. In spite of the many different proposals, the Committee finallysucceeded in reaching a consensus and preparing a draft which all involved parties couldsupport. One of the central compromises is the sentence stating that the 13th BSPC standsbehind all previous resolutions and thereby also by its support for a PSSA designation andAssociated Protective Measures. As Mr Stavad made clear: “If we adopt the resolution weconfirm the decisions we reached together last year, namely that we want to strive to make theBaltic Sea a PSSA-area.”Another important change in the resolution was that the mandate for working on the furtherdevelopment of the BSPC towards a parliamentary dimension of the CBSS had gone to theDrafting Committee instead of a working group as originally planned. The resolution wasadopted unanimously by the participants of the 13th BSPC.Conference ResolutionAdopted by the 13th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC)The participants*, elected representatives from the Baltic Sea States, assembled in Bergen,Norway on 30–31 August 2004, to discuss sustainable development, protection of the marineenvironment, and shared concerns and responsibilities related to the Baltic Sea Region and thefuture of the parliamentary co-operation in Northern Europe,Convinced thata common focus on Baltic Sea issues among Parliaments is indispensable for identifyingpractical areas where actions can be taken by CBSS, HELCOM, other regional organisationsand national governments and that this will be to the benefit of not only individual countriesbut to international co-operation and to the region itself,Notingthe gradual development of strengthening of the parliamentary dimension in the Baltic SeaRegion and achieving the position of parliamentary co-operative partner in the CBSS,the Northern Dimension and the European Neighbourhood Policy promoting furtherdevelopment of regional and sub-regional co-operation,Taking into accountthat co-operation among governments and parliamentarians recognise and draw on experiencefrom NGOs in ensuring popular grass-root participation in political, social and economic life,Call on governments in the Baltic Sea region and the CBSS tosupport the Partnership in Public Health and Social Wellbeing thereby improving cooperationand co-ordination in the prevention of major public health problems,support the establishment of a Partnership in Education on Environmental Effects on PublicHealth,25promote the basic idea of a Civil Society by involving NGOs, when appropriate, in thedecision-making process and to strengthen the co-operation between NGOs in the region, forinstance by giving economic support to international networking of NGOs,Call on governments in the Baltic Sea Region, the CBSS and HELCOM totake action to reduce the pressure on the marine environment and to combat eutrophication ofthe Baltic Sea in order to promote a well-balanced ecological system,take into account the need to implement the results of the commemoration of 30 years of the Helsinki Convention, and to develop commonproposals under the umbrella of HELCOM for supplementary measures to achieve further improvements of maritime safety and security inthe Baltic Sea and to submit these proposals to the IMO ́s Maritime Safety Committee (NAV),to support effective associated protective measures with respect to relevant provisions in allthe resolutions of BSPC on the protection of marine environment of the Baltic Sea,Ask the Standing Committee toelaborate proposals on how to develop the parliamentary dimension in co-operation withtheCBSS and the participating parliaments and the relevant inter-parliamentary bodies.Furthermore,the Conference welcomes and accepts with gratitude the kind invitation of the LithuanianParliament to hold the 14th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference on 28–30 August 2005 inVilnius.*Baltic Assembly, City of St. Petersburg, Denmark, Estonia, Federal Assembly of the RussianFederation, Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, Free and Hanse City of Bremen, Free and HanseCity of Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Nordic Council, Norway,Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein, Sweden, Åland.26Programme of the 13th BSPCSunday, 29 August13.00 – 15.30 Standing Committee meeting16.00 – 17.45 Sight-seeing20.00 Reception at Fløien Folkerestaurant hosted by Mr Jørgen Kosmo, Presidentof the Norwegian Parliament StortingMonday, 30 August09.00 – 10.00 Opening of the ConferenceChair: Mr Kent Olsson, MP, Sweden, Chairman of the Standing CommitteeOpening address by Mr Jørgen Kosmo, President of the StortingAddress by Mr Herman Friele, Mayor of BergenGreetings by parliamentary organisations:Adriatic Ionian Initiative (AII)Mr Milorad Drljevic, Vice-President, Parliament of Serbia andMontenegroParliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation(PABSEC)Mr Salih Kapusuz, MP, Turkey, Vice-President of the PABSEC10.00 – 12.30 1st SESSION: A) Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region, includingthe Northern Dimension and New NeighboursChair: Mr Gennady Khripel, MP, Russia, Member of the BSPC Standing CommitteeCBSS after EU enlargement – challenges and opportunitiesReport on behalf of the CBSSMr Adam Rotfeld, Deputy Foreign Minister, Secretary of State, PolandReport on behalf of the Standing CommitteeMr Kent Olsson, Chairman of the Standing CommitteeSome of the current questions of economic cooperation in the Baltic SearegionProf. Dr Vladimir K. Gusev, Member of the Council of Federation of theFederal Assembly of the Russian FederationAddressMr Aivars Lapins, Member of the Cabinet of the Commissioner Ms Kalniete(European Commission)Baltic 21 – a useful tool to promote sustainable development in the BalticSea RegionMr Marek Maciejowski, Baltic 21, Secretary GeneralPlenary discussion13.00 – 14.00 Drafting Committee14.00 – 15.30 2nd SESSION: B) Civil SocietyChair: Inge Lønning, Vice-President of Storting, Norway, Member of theStanding Committee27Legislation regarding NGOs in the Baltic Sea RegionMs Outi Ojala, MP, Finland, rapporteur on the legislation regarding NGOsCivil society development and NGO cooperation in the Baltic Sea region:Baltic Sea NGO Network and IV NGO Forum 2004Mr Helmut Hallemaa, Chairman of the Baltic Sea NGO ConsultativeCommittee (2003/4) and Chairman of the Organising Committee of the IVBaltic Sea NGO ForumEngaging human resources in the Baltic Sea regionMr Hannu Halinen, Ambassador, Director, CBSSNGOs in the Nordic CountriesMs Rigmor Duun Grande, Head of Department, Nordic Council of MinistersPlenary discussion16.00 – 18.00 2nd SESSION: Public Health and Social Well-beingChair: Ms Arja Alho, MP, Finland, Member of the BSPC Standing CommitteeNew Opportunities for cooperation in the Baltic Sea regionMs Ewa Persson Göransson, State Secretary, Ministry of Public Health andSocial Services, SwedenHealth challenges in Estonia – are there new solutions?Ms Katrin Saluvere, Director General, Ministry of Social Affairs, EstoniaHow to overcome social and health policy challenges – joint efforts in theNorthMr Franz Thönnes, Secretary of State, MP, GermanyThreats against public health and social well-being in the Baltic SearegionMr Gabriel Romanus, President of the Nordic CouncilPlenary discussion18.00 – 19.00 Drafting Committee20.00 Dinner at Håkonshallen hosted by the City of BergenTuesday, 31 August08.30 – 09.30 Drafting Committee09.30 – 12.00 3rd Session: Environmental Challenges – Pollution andEutrophicationChair: Mr Jānis Reirs, MP, Latvia, Member of theBSPC Standing CommitteeBaltic Sea – a shared responsibility for further protectionMr Jan-Erik Enestam, Minister of the Environment, FinlandHELCOM – taking action in the Baltic to combat pollutionMr Arturas Daubaras, Chairman of HELCOMEnvironmental safety in the Baltic Sea regionMr Vladimir Grachev, MP, Chairman of the State Duma Ecology CommitteePlenary discussion12.00 – 12.30 Adoption of the Resolution and Closing of the ConferenceChair: Mr Heinz-Werner Arens, Speaker of Landtag Schleswig-Holstein,Member of the Standing Committee28List of ParticipantsSpeakers and chairpersonsAlho, Arja MP, Parliament of FinlandArens, Heinz-Werner MP, President of the Parliament of Schleswig-HolsteinDaubaras, Arturas Chairman of HELCOM, LithuaniaDrljevic, Milorad Vice-President, Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro, AIIEnestam, Jan-Erik Minister of the Environment, FinlandFriele, Hermann Mayor of Bergen, NorwayGöransson, Ewa Persson State Secretary, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, SwedenGrachev, Vladimir MP, Chairman of the State Duma Ecology Committee, RussiaGrande, Rigmor Duun Head of Department, Nordic Council of MinistersGusev, Vladimir MP, Council of Federation, RussiaHalinen, Hannu Director, CBSS, SwedenHallemaa, Helmut Chairman of the Baltic Sea NGO Consultative Committee andChairman of the Organising Committee of the IV Baltic Sea NGOForum, EstoniaKapusuz, Salik MP, Vice-President of PABSEC, TurkeyKhripel, Gennady MP, Council of Federation, RussiaKosmo, Jørgen, MP, President of the Parliament of NorwayLapins, Aivars Member of the Cabinet of the Commissioner Ms Kalniete, EULønning, Inge MP, Vice-President of the Parliament of Norway (Storting)Maciejowski, Marek Secretary General, Baltic 21, SwedenOjala, Outi MP, rapporteur on the legislation regarding NGOs, FinlandOlsson, Kent MP, Chairman of the Standing Committee, SwedenReirs, Jānis MP, President of the Baltic Assembly, LatviaRomanus, Gabriel MP, President of the Nordic Council, SwedenRotfeld, Adam Secretary of State, Deputy Minister, Ministry of ForeignAffairs, PolandSaluvere, Katrin Director General, Ministry of Social Affairs, EstoniaThönnes, Franz MP, Secretary of State, GermanyParliamentary Delegations and OrganisationsBaltic AssemblyAndriukaitis, Vytenis P. MP (representing also Lithuania)Golde, Silva MP (representing also Latvia)Linde, Väino MP (representing also Estonia)Pietkevičs, Mihails MP (representing also Latvia)Purvaneckiené, Giedré MP (representing also Lithuania)Solovjovs, Igors MP (representing also Latvia)Taimla, Andres MP (representing also Estonia)Velliste, Trivimi MP (representing also Estonia)Zommere, Ērika MP (representing also Latvia)Federal Assembly of the Russian FederationState DumaGubkin, Anatoly MPLeontiev, Georgy MPMalchikhin, Valery MPNikitin, Vladimir MPOrgolaynen, Aleksandr MPThe Nordic CouncilAlho, Arja MP, FinlandJohansson, Anita MP, SwedenKristoffersen, Asmund MP, Norway29Lønning, Inge MP, Vice-President of the Parliament of NorwayLöv, Pehr MP, FinlandOjala, Outi MP, rapporteur on the legislation regarding NGOs, FinlandOlsson, Kent MP, Chairman of the Standing Committee, SwedenRannveig Gudmundsdottir MP, IcelandRomanus, Gabriel MP, President of the Nordic Council, SwedenSaarikangas, Martin MP, FinlandStavad, Ole MP, DenmarkParliament of AalandEhn, Johan MPErlandsson, Ragnar MPParliament of DenmarkJensen, Kristen Touborg MPKofoed, Thor Gunnar MPMøller, Anders MPSindal, Niels MPParliament of EstoniaLinde, Väino MP (representing also the Baltic Assembly)Taimla, Andres MP representing also the Baltic Assembly)Velliste, Trivimi MP (representing also the Baltic Assembly)Parliament of FinlandHautala, Heidi MPKaikkonen, Antti MPKiljunen, Kimmo MPParliament of the Federal Republic of GermanyAdam, Ulrich MPJaffke, Susanne MPLucyga, Dr. Christine MPParliament of the Free and Hanseatic City of BremenArnhold-Cramer, Ursula MPGünthner, Martin MPMohtes, Dr. Karin MPPflugradt, Helmut MPParliament of the Free and Hanseatic City of HamburgHarlinghausen, Rolf MPRöder, Berndt MPSarrazin, Manuel MPSchaal, Dr. Monika MPParliament of the Karelian RepublicMakarov, Nicolai Ivanovitch MPStepanov, Vladimir Nikolaevitch MPParliament of LatviaGolde, Silva MP (representing also the Baltic Assembly)Pietkevičs, Mihails MP (representing also the Baltic Assembly)Solovjovs, Igors MP (representing also the Baltic Assembly)Zommere, Ērika MP (representing also the Baltic Assembly)Parliament of LithuaniaAndriukaitis, Vytenis Povalis MP (representing also the Baltic Assembly)30Purvaneckiené, Giedré MP (representing also the Baltic Assembly)Parliament of Mecklenburg-VorpommernBretschneider, Sylvia MPCaffier, Lorenz MPHolznagel, Renate MPJarchow, Hans-Heinrich MPSchwebs, Birgit MPParliament of NorwayBrørby, Berit MPHøie, Bent MPRise, Lars MPWoldseth, Karin Ståhl MPParliament of PolandAriszewska-Mileewczyk, Dorota MPCzaja, Gerard MPKalinowski, Stanistaw MPPiekarska, Katarzyna MPSieńko, Jan MPParliament of the City of St PetersburgJagya, Vatanyar MPParliament of Schleswig-HolsteinArens, Heinz-Werner MP, PresidentAschmoneit-Lücke, Christel MPBöhrk, Gisela MPMatthiessen, Detlef MPSpoorendonk, Anke MPParliament of SwedenBohlin, Sinikka MPDanielsson, Peter MPSköldestig, Berndt MPThoren, Sverker MPVestlund, Börje MPObserversAII Adriatic Ionian InitiativeDrljevic, Milorad Vice-President of the Parliament of Serbia and MontenegroBaltic Sea CommissionMälly, Marko Executive SecretaryBaltic Sea Youth ForumGrothe, Thies Special Advisor, ChairmanSkeltina, Laura LatviaThise, Vegard Board Member, The Norwegian Youth CouncilWeidemann, Sandra International Advisor, GermanyBaltic Sea States Sub-regional Cooperation BSSSCSynak, Brunon Chairman, PolandBaltic Sea Trade Union Network BASTUNVaigur, Kristjan Senior Advisor, Sweden31Council of Baltic Sea States CBSSCios, Stanislaw Counsellor, the European Department of the Polish MFAHalinen, Hannu Director, Ambassador, SwedenTinde, Gry Tina Senior Advisor, SwedenWiejacs, Josef Ambassador-at-large, Chairman of the CSO, CBSS, PolandCouncil of EuropeBlankenborg, Haakon MP, NorwayEuropean CommissionLapins, Aivars Member of the Cabinet of the Commissioner Ms KalnieteTalvela, Tuomo Second Secretary, NorwayFUEN- Federal Union of European NationalitiesHansen, Hans Heinrich Vice-President, DenmarkHelsinki Commission HELCOMHallemaa, Helmut Chairman of the Baltic Sea NGO Consultative Committee andChairman of the Organising Committee of the IV Baltic Sea NGOForumNGO ForumLimyr, Randi Secretary General, NorwegianWomen’s Voluntary DefenceAssociation, NorwayLohikoski, Mikko Director, Communication and External Affairs, City of Turku,FinlandPtaszynska, Lucja M. Sc. Ing., Foundation Regional Information and Support forNon-Governmental Organisation in Gdansk, PolandThuen, Gretha President, Norwegian Women’s Voluntary Defence Association,NorwaySLLF- State Legislative Leaders’ FoundationSchöps, Alfons Director, GermanyUnion of Baltic CitiesLisicki, Maciej PolandEmbassiesAder, Erik Ambassador, Embassy of the Netherlands, NorwayBerger, Elisabeth Program Coordinator, US Embassy, DenmarkJaroszyński, Andrzej Ambassador, Embassy of Poland, NorwayKotkajärvi, Johanna Charge d’ Affairs, Embassy of Finland, NorwayRusakov, Andrey First Secretary, Embassy of Russia, NorwayTeige, Tor Andreas Honorary Consul, German Consulate in Bergen, NorwayTrumkalns, Edgars Deputy Head of Mission, Embassy of Latvia, NorwayOgnjenović, Vida Ambassador, Embassy of Serbia and Montenegro, NorwaySecretariatsBaltic AssemblyJankauskaité, Renata SecretaryLaizane-Jurkane, Marika Project ManagerRöngelep, Ene SecretaryTihonova, Dina SecretaryBSPCLevasseur, Sophie Assistant to the rappporteur on NGOs32Lindroos, Päivikki Senior AdvisorPedersen, Susanne Scharbau SecretaryEuropean ParliamentOlsen, Henrik Head of Secretariat, EP DelegationFederal Assembly of the Russian FederationCouncil of FederationDakhova, Nadezda CounsellorMangush, Kirill ConsultantState DumaIvanova, Elena InterpreterZaytseva, Arina ConsultantNordic CouncilBroman, Kenneth Senior AdvisorHenriksen, Merete Senior SecretaryJensen, Mikkel J. Hyldbrandt Party Group SecretaryNikolajsen, Mads Party Group SecretaryNokken, Frida Secretary GeneralStenarv, Gunnar Party Group SecretarySørensen, Torkil Advisor, InformationWidberg, Jan Senior AdvisorParliament of DenmarkHagemann, Henrik Secretary GeneralVestergaard, Mette Secretary of DelegationParliament of FinlandHuurinainen, Katarine SecretaryZilliacus, Patrick Head of SecretariatParliament of the Federal Republic of GermanyMeier, Silke Delegation SecretaryParliament of Free and Hanseatic City of BremenKrause, Walter Higher Executive OfficerParliament of Free and Hanseatic City of HamburgWagner, Reinhard DirectorParliament of Mecklenburg-VorpommernBahr, Bodo Vice-DirectorGutzeit, Gerald Head of DivisionTebben, Armin DirectorParliament of NorwayAndreassen, Bjørn Delegation SecretaryBrun, Sølvi AdvisorBraaten, Else-Marie Senior Executive OfficerMyhre-Jensen Head of SecretariatNess, Synnøve SecretaryRobstad, Bjørn Willy Executive OfficerParliament of PolandJanuszewski, Andrzej Secretary33Parliament of Schleswig-HolsteinSchöning, Jürgen DirectorSchmidt-Holländer, Jutta Head of DivisionSchmidt-Hübsch, Brita SecretaryParliament of Serbia and MontenegroKaludjerovic, Maja InterpreterSibalic, Vladimir Chief of Cabinet of Vice-PresidentParliament of the City of St.PetersburgTerkhovsky, Sergey Chief of DepartmentParliament of SwedenHjelm, Eva International SecretarySmekal, Eva Head of SecretariatParliament of TurkeyKerimogolu, Hüseyin InterpreterMinistriesBjelland, Anne Sofie Assistant Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, NorwaySiem, Harald Ambassador, Secretariat, Task Force on Communicable DiseaseControl, NorwayPressClasen, Alf Schleswig-Holstein ZeitungsverlagRapporteurSchechinger, AnnikaInterpretersFleischhacker, KarinHenderson, KarinJohnson, CathrineLarsen, SteinRepin, AlexeiRusch, GabrieleTurganova-Lööw, AlexandraVigeland, Svetlana34