Vision 2030: Acting for the Future of the Baltic Sea Region 29th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference

29 BSPC29YEARSBaltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceVision 2030:Acting for the Future of theBaltic Sea Region29th Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConference2929th Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConferenceDigital - 24 August 202029 BSPCYEARSBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference2Vision 2030: The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC)Acting for the Future of the Baltic Sea Region was established in 1991 as a forum for politicaldialogue between parliamentarians from the Bal-29th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference tic Sea Region. BSPC aims at raising awarenessand opinion on issues of current political interestand relevance for the Baltic Sea Region. It pro-motes and drives various initiatives and efforts toText: Marc Hertel and Bodo Bahr support a sustainable environmental, social andLayout: Produktionsbüro TINUS economic development of the Baltic Sea Region.It strives at enhancing the visibility of the BalticSea Region and its issues in a wider Europeancontext.BSPC gathers parliamentarians from 11national 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 and strengthendemocratic institutions in the participatingstates; improve dialogue between govern-ments, 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 guideBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference political activities in the Baltic Sea Region,Bodo Bahr endowing them with additional democraticSecretary General legitimacy and parliamentary authority.+49 171 5512557 The political recommendations of thebodo.bahr@bspcmail.net annual Parliamentary Conferences arewww.bspc.net expressed in a Conference Resolution adoptedby consensus by the Conference. The adoptedResolution shall be submitted to the govern-BSPC Secretariat ments of the Baltic Sea Region, the CBSS andSchlossgartenallee 15 the EU, and disseminated to other relevant19061 Schwerin national, regional and local stakeholders in theGermany Baltic Sea Region and its neighbourhood.3ContentsThe Opening of the Conference ........................... 5Session oneVision 2030: Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region,Safe and Prosperous Development – Common Effectiveand Sustainable Solutions for the Future ................. 19Session twoVision 2030: Safeguarding our Environment,Seas and Oceans for Future Generations .................. 33Session threeVision 2030: Migration and Integration:Finding Common Solutions Based onMutual Information and Best Practices ................... 51Reports by the BSPC Rapporteurs ................... 67Addresses by observers and guests of the BSPC ......... 77The Closing of the Conference ........................... 82List of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89Photos .......................................... 1004 Opening of the ConferenceOpening of the Conference 5The Opening of the ConferenceBSPC President Valerijus SimulikBSPC President Valerijus Simulik began by noting that it was agreat pleasure for him to open the 29th Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConference. The parliamentarians had come together to discuss thecooperation in the Baltic Sea region. It was also important to reviewthe cooperation in order to revise what had been achieved. It waseven more important to discuss what issues were yet to be solvedand what were the main reasons for the absence of a giant debt level.On behalf of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference, the presidentexpressed his deep gratitude for their devotion to Baltic Sea cooper-ation to H.E. Mr Gitanas Nausėda, President of the Republic ofLithuania, H. E. Mr Viktoras Pranckietis, Speaker of the Seimas ofthe Republic of Lithuania, and Mr Virginijus Sinkevičius, Euro-pean Commissioner for the Environment, Oceans and Fisheries.He yielded the floor to Mr Sigitas Mitkus who would speak on behalf ofthe President of the Republic of Lithuania.6 Opening of the ConferenceMr Sigitas MitkusSpeech by Mr Sigitas Mitkus, On Behalf ofH. E. Mr Gitanas Nausėda, President of theRepublic of LithuaniaMr Mitkus said it was a great honour and privilege for him to readthe opening speech of His Excellency, Mr Gitanas Nausėda, Presi-dent of the Republic of Lithuania.In the president’s name, he stated that it was a great privilege toopen the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference at this challengingbut highly important time for the Baltic Sea region as a whole. On1 July, Lithuania had taken over the annual rotating presidency ofthe Council of the Baltic Sea States from Denmark. In order tomeet regional challenges, they had decided to pursue the GreenEconomy, greater visibility of the region, growth and jobs, peo-ple-to-people contacts, environmental issues of the Baltic Sea andthe vision of the Baltic Sea until 2030.But it was very difficult to talk about the agenda of the nation’s pres-idency on this day while all of them had been watching with greatconcern the developments in Belarus following the presidentialelection on 9 August. They had seen brutal repression by the Bela-rusian authorities against peaceful demonstrators and journalists.They had seen testimonies of their released detainees and mass vio-lations of human rights. Thousands had been detained and impris-oned, hundreds tortured, several killed. It mobilised the Belarusianpeople to aspire to freedom and change in their country. Then thou-Opening of the Conference 7sands and hundreds of thousands of people had spilled into thestreets across the country. Their freedom, their free and democraticwill should not meet silence. Sanctions against those responsible forviolence, repression and falsification of election results must beintroduced. All those responsible for torture and brutality must beprosecuted. All countries should establish independence and sover-eignty from others, fair and free elections with the presence of inter-national observers, the right of people to protest peacefully, theright of people not to be beaten, tortured and imprisoned.These are the values that should be defended. The people of the Bal-tic States – Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians – remembered per-fectly well that thirty years ago, they had been looking forward toevery word or action of support from the free world. The day beforethe conference, more than fifty thousand people had joined ahuman chain stretching from the Lithuanian capital Vilnius to theborder with Belarus, stressing their support for the Belarusian peo-ple. The people of Belarus had made it clear that the popular votewent to its national leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya. Belarus wasnow on its way to freedom, just as the Baltic countries had beenthirty years earlier, - freedom from fear, lies and manipulation.Finally, on the vision of the Baltic Sea region, the Lithuanian presi-dency of the Council of the Baltic Sea States had already offered anassessment of the implementation of the vision for 2020 which hadbeen adopted ten years before. Said assessment was planned to befollowed by a new Vilnius declaration of a vision for the Baltic Searegion until 2030.Speaking for the president, Mr Mitkus said that he would like tobelieve that this would include a free and democratic Belarus.BSPC President Simulik thanked Mr Mitkus and asked him to conveytheir best wishes to the Lithuanian president. He went on to invite theSpeaker of the Seimas of Lithuania to take the floor.8 Opening of the ConferenceSpeech by H.E. Mr Viktoras Pranckietis, Speaker ofthe Seimas of the Republic of LithuaniaMr Pranckietis opened by noting his happiness at addressing the29th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference, which he extolled asexceptional. That was because it marked the first time that it washeld in a remote format instead of meeting directly. Even thoughthe speaker could not shake the hands of the attendees in Vilnius,he stated his belief that this remote meeting would be no less con-structive in terms of fruitful debates.He noted that the COVID-19 pandemic was posing enormous chal-lenges to parliaments. The same huge challenge was also faced by theextremely important inter-parliamentary cooperation. Nevertheless,it was particularly essential now to maintain the cooperation betweenparliaments and governments at as intensive a level as possible. In thistime, especially, it was necessary to ensure that the representativeselected by the people continued to work closely together in a spirit ofconfidence, providing the necessary energy for future action.In this year, the Speaker of the Seimas went on, the Baltic Sea Par-liamentary Conference would discuss safe and successful coopera-tion and development in the Baltic Sea region, with a view to over-coming the COVID-19 pandemic. Preservation of the environ-ment, seas and oceans for future generations, migration and inte-gration, mutual exchange of information, search for common solu-tions based on best practices were the issues common to all of them.Debate on this issue would lead the participants to a better mutualunderstanding, enabling them to build a safer, more stable andprosperous Baltic Sea region.He further underlined the importance of basins and rivers feedinginto the Baltic Sea. Here, he referred to the rivers Niemen andDaugava. The full cooperation of Belarus was fundamentally impor-tant. In light of the situation in the latter country, it was necessaryto highlight the urgent need and expectation that all the Baltic Seastates would continue to make every effort to ensure that the BalticSea region remained a peaceful region, with close neighbourlinessand intensive cooperation. These days, a particularly high premiumwas placed on the foundation of their cooperation, namely demo-cratic values, the rule of law, human righs and equal opportunitiesfor all. They had to make every effort to ensure that the Baltic Searegion continued to be a peaceful region with close neighbourly tiesand active cooperation. To this end, full use had to be made of theopportunities offered by parliamentary, governmental and socialcooperation and democratic dialogue.Opening of the Conference 9Mr Viktoras PranckietisMr Pranckietis stated that the decisions taken at the Baltic Sea Par-liamentary Conference related to the expectations of bringing theirregion closer to a better future. In his mind, this conference wouldgive new parliamentarians, ministers and experts from other coun-tries the opportunity to get to know each other. In October, he men-tioned, Lithuania would be holding parliamentary elections, but hewas sure that his country would continue its presidency in the best way.He offered his belief that all of them – parliaments, parliamentaryorganisations, the Council of the Baltic Sea States, and all gov-ernments and partners – would further develop a unique Baltic Searegion by generating ideas, showing commitment, and offeringcooperation and friendship.BSPC President Simulik thanked the Speaker of the Seimas for his con-tribution and then opened the floor for the European Commissioner forEnvironment, Oceans and Fisheries, Mr Virginijus Sinkevičius.10 Opening of the ConferenceMr Virginijus SinkevičiusSpeech by Mr Virginijus Sinkevičius, European Com-missioner for Environment, Oceans and FisheriesMr Sinkevičius appreciated the setting of the conference and thevery high level of participaton which should enable great discus-sions of quality and fruitful debate. The setting represented a uniqueparliamentary bridge between all the EU and non-EU countries ofthe Baltic Sea region and an important guide for political actions. Itcould play an important role in achieving a clean, healthy and pro-ductive Baltic Sea, which was a core objective of the EU’s work forthis regional sea.The state of the Baltic Sea was one the Commission was paying par-ticular attention to. Much was being said about its condition, henoted, but little was being said about what was being done. As out-lined in the Commission’s recent report adopted in June of thepreceding year, the picture portraying the state of our seas was rathermixed. There were some positive stories, such as the white-tailedeagles here in the Baltic Sea. Other stories though were gloomier.The State of the Environment Report 2020 of the European Envi-ronmental Agency (EEA) and the 2018 HELCOM report on thestate of the Baltic Sea (HOLAS report) showed that there were stilltoo many nutrient run-offs choking the Baltic Sea. In unsustainablefishing practices, for example harbour purpoise were caught asbycatch; contaminants and other pollutants such as marine litterwere being dumped, all of this making the situation worse.Opening of the Conference 11Commissioner Sinkevičius stressed that biodiversity remained atrisk, and pollution was ever present. However, there were marinestrategies in place – thanks to EU legislation protecting and con-serving the marine environment. These had led to important pro-gress towards reducing marine pollution, in particular since theentry into force of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in2008.This directive had in fact been the first EU’s holistic tool to analysethe health of our seas and oceans and to take action where it wasmost needed. A unique tool across the world, it was often men-tioned as a best practice. A report published a few weeks ago on itsimplementation provided an honest assessment of both its achieve-ments and its challenges. The directive had improved regional coor-dination within and across the regional seas. It had helped deliverkey international commitments such as the Sustainable Develop-ment Goals. The speaker pointed out that thanks to the directive,an effective monitoring of ecosystems’ condition and pressures onthem was now in place.As a policy tool, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive hadmade significant inroads. But the Commission recognised thatactual implementation across the EU was lacking. The 2020 dead-line to achieve good environmental status in all our seas would notbe achieved everywhere. Accordingly, the Commission’s work we dowith the EU member states through the HELCOM was also animportant contribution to the implementation of the Marine Strat-egy Framework Directive. It was equally vital towards a good envi-ronmental status of the Baltic Sea as a whole. Both Commissionand the HELCOM shared the same objective, Mr Sinkevičiusunderlined.This served as an excellent example of ocean governance at theregional level. The coordinated regional work was particularly rele-vant now in light of the EU’s overarching European Green Dealguiding all the policy-making in the EU. As an example, he pointedout that work was being done at the regional level to reduce nutri-ent inputs in the Baltic Sea, for instance through launching a jointnutrient reduction scheme. Together with the countries borderingthe North Sea, the HELCOM had also contributed to better over-all air and water quality by creating some of the first Sulfur Oxidesand Nitrogen Oxides Emission Control Areas in European waters.12 Opening of the ConferenceOver the last decade, the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region(EUSBSR) had supported these efforts as well by mobilising andcoordinating public funding under EU Cohesion Policy as well asEuropean Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI).The work launched under the EUSBSR offered a good basis for fur-ther development of initiatives aimed at the preservation of themarine environment and climate change.In addition, The Sustainable Blue Growth Agenda for the Baltic SeaRegion, adopted by the European Commission in 2014, had high-lighted the extraordinary potential for developing a sustainable blueeconomy in the Baltic Sea Region. Thematic areas such as greenshipping, blue bio-economy, coastal and maritime tourism as wellas environmental and monitoring technology offered tremendousopportunities for new value creation which could benefit fromcoordinated action and joint investment to get new promisingdevelopment off the ground.Commissioner Sinkevičius noted that the latest HELCOM Minis-terial Declaration of March 2018, adopted under EU Chairman-ship, was currently being implemented along with the on-goingupdate of the Baltic Sea Action Plan. He highlighted the particularimportance of considering new issues that had not yet or only par-tially been tackled, such as marine litter, underwater noise, nutrientrecycling, and regional ocean governance. He added his hope to seethese issues reflected in the updated Baltic Sea Action Plan.For all of these reasons, he pointed out, it was necessary to acttogether. In that regard, the commissioner called on all coastal EUmember states to cooperate and coordinate their strategies moreclosely. In his mind, still more needed to be done. The Marine Strat-egy Framework Directive report, that he had mentioned earlier,showed that there was indeed need for will, ambition and dedica-tion to reach a good environmental status. This had to be doneacross the board – by reducing pollution and litter, by addressingunsustainable fishing and other extractive industries. Mr Sinkevičiusunderlined that the seas had to be treated with respect.Accordingly, he said he would organise a conference on 28 Septem-ber to tackle these issues together and gather support and commit-ments to reduce the pressures affecting the state of the Baltic Sea, inparticular eutrophication, fisheries and pollution. It would gatherEU Ministers from Fisheries, Agriculture and Environment, with aparallel stakeholder conference aimed at triggering substantial dis-cussions on the issues at stake and on the solutions to implement,based on existing policies and best practices. The commissionerOpening of the Conference 13hoped they would adopt an ambitious declaration aimed at present-ing the ways forward and commitments to accelerate efforts toachieve a clean and healthy Baltic Sea.This meant first of all that European policies such as the CommonAgriculture Policy (CAP) and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)should be used to reduce key pressures on the Baltic Sea. He consid-ered this his number one priority, as it fit very well with the EUobjectives set out in the European Green Deal, biodiversity strategy,zero pollution ambition, farm to fork, chemicals strategy, all ofwhich were relevant for the wellbeing of our seas and oceans.In particular, the new Biodiversity Strategy set out an ambitiousagenda for the protection of our seas and oceans. And it was a nec-essary ambition. Mr Sinkevičius underlined that they needed totackle the current biodiversity crisis in the marine environment. Itwas necessary to strengthen the efforts to protect and restore marineecosystems, pursuing an ecosystem-based approach.The Commission was about to adopt its proposal for fishing oppor-tunities in the Baltic Sea for 2021. As always, Mr Sinkevičiuspointed out, this proposal was based on the latest best available sci-entific advice and the legislation already in force. The proposalwould reflect the overall approach he had described earlier, alongwith a prudent approach for struggling stocks and additionalaccompanying measures to support the rapid recovery of the stocks.He stressed that all of them had a shared responsibility to protectthe Baltic Sea, through their agricultural practices, through theirfishing methods and through the way they took care of its environ-ment. Since these issues did not recognize any borders, it was impor-tant for EU and non-EU countries of the Baltic Sea region to workhand in hand. As an example, he cited the regional organisationsprotecting the marine environment or those managing fisheriesissues.A coordinated and comprehensive response was what the Balticneeds. Commissioner Sinkevičius promised that he would person-ally see to it that this would be done.14 Opening of the ConferenceMr Valerijus SimulikSpeech by BSPC President Valerijus Simulik on theLithuanian BSPC Presidency 2019 - 2020The BSPC President began his address by noting that it was a greathonour for him to welcome everyone online in this virtual ‘plenaryhall’. Of course, he and the Lithuanian side would very much havepreferred to welcome them in person at the parliament in Lithuaniaand to show their guests the beauty of their capital city, Vilnius – inits real rather than virtual form.The preparations for this physical conference had been well advancedby March of this year. The Lithuanian presidency and the activitiesof the BSPC had been overshadowed since March by the COVID-19 pandemic along with the restrictions and measures associatedwith it in all their countries. Nevertheless, they had succeeded inmainly realising the strategy and work programme that had been setout in August last year.COVID-19 had very much changed the way they worked, Presi-dent Simulik pointed out, in the framework of their conferencesand having direct exchanges and events with their partners andfriends. At first, that was because all physical events had been can-celled. Only gradually, via digital formats, did the opportunity forexchange become available once again in various different formats.The Standing Committee had held its planned meetings both inBerlin in November and Brussels at the beginning of March whereit dealt intensively with the topics it had set itself.Opening of the Conference 15This included the issue of ammunition dumps in the Baltic Sea inNovember in Berlin but also in March in Brussels. In the course ofthese discussions, the increased risk potential and the dimension ofthe problem had become evident to all of them. For that reason,they would also be dealing with this issue more intensively at thisconference, as the topic also played an increased role under the cur-rent HELCOM Presidency.In March, the Standing Committee had also dealt in-depth with theprotection and sustainable use of the oceans in Brussels. He wastherefore very grateful on a political level that this issue had beenaddressed today at the political level by EU Commissioner Virgin-ijus Sinkevičius. He thanked the Commissioner for his contribu-tion again.And even if there might be changes concerning the financial pack-ages currently underway and the budgetary discussions influencedby the pandemic, Mr Simulik stressed that it was and remainedimportant to look again at current developments and perspectivesin the field of European territorial cooperation and macro-regionalstrategies in Europe in greater depth and to hear from the CBSSabout its key issues. That is why the president was also very pleasedthat the conference would be hearing contributions from the previ-ous Danish CBSS Presidency and that the Lithuanian Vice-Minis-ter of Foreign Affairs, Mr Neris Germanas, would speak on behalfof Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius, currently representing theLithuanian CBSS Presidency.President Simulik said that they had deepend their collaborationwith their parliamentary partners in the Black Sea region in thepreceding autumn. The BSPC had also taken part in the conferenceof mediterranean parliaments as well as others of their events.The Working Group on Migration and Integration had continuedits work intensely. Despite the pandemic situation, the group haddrawn up its final report and several recommendations for action,even though the final meeting on the Åland islands could not havebeen held. The report would be presented afterwards by the chair-man of the Working Group, Mr Hans Wallmark from Sweden. Thepresident offered many thanks to all who had made this possible.He was also grateful for the initiative to set up this working group.The Standing Committee meeting planned for the end of May inVilnius had been cancelled, President Simulik noted. However, inmid-June, the Committee had met online to discuss all the variousissues at hand. There had been an intense exchange of views on the16 Opening of the Conferencedevelopment of the pandemic in their countries. Moreover, theyhad considered the work of their respective parliaments during thisperiod and the measures they had taken. Furthermore, the BSPChad received additional statements from the member parliamentsabout the developments of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thesereports, he noted, also provided information on the impact of thework of parliaments and inter-parliamentary organisations as wellas on legislative measures to deal with the consequences of the pan-demic. They had been published on the BSPC website, proving aunique compilation of the developments in the Baltic Sea countries.With great regret, the Lithuanian parliament had had to cancel the29th BSPC in Vilnius as an in-person event. At that time, the meas-ures taken in the various countries made it impossible for the con-ference to be held with the participation all and with great conse-quences looming over humanity from holding the conference inperson.He offered his deep gratitude to the organisations and speakers fortheir understanding. Against this background, the organisers haddecided, though, after discussing the issue at length in mid-June, tohold this conference in reduced form, compared to their usualannual conference in person. He was very grateful that, despite thevarious difficulties that this entailed, everyone was present at thismeeting today and that members of parliaments who had repre-sented their nations in previous years were still there. Moreover, heappreciated that a number of observers and fraternal organisationswere present, allowing them to discuss some of the core issues thatthe BSPC members would have liked to address in person in Vil-nius. He extended particular gratitude to representatives of his owncountry of Lithuania, first and foremost the president of the repub-lic, the president of their parliament and the vice-minister of for-eign affairs for their willingness to attend this conference at the levelinitially planned. Through their contributions on this day, theywere underlining and strengthening the parliamentary dimensionof international cooperation in the Baltic Sea region.Agreeing on a resolution and taking a clear position on importantissues, he went on, meant that they were emphasising said parlia-mentary dimension, even in times of crisis such as these. By doingso, they was showing that not only were their governments were act-ing but that the parliaments were continuing their work, despite thepandemic. This was a crucial factor in the overall structure of inter-national cooperation. At the beginning of the crisis, all countrieshad been focused first of all on combating the spread of the pan-demic and keeping the consequences as small as possible. That hadOpening of the Conference 17been damage management, President Simulik noted. Governmentshad targeted cushioning the economic impact by using financialvolume they never would have imagined before that they would benecessary. That had been the time of focusing their work on theirown countries: The work of the governments had been at the fore-front everywhere while parliaments had been called upon, above all,as budget legislators, so to speak, to provide the financial resourcesconsidered necessary to mitigate the crisis. In the meantime, inter-national cooperation had once again taken on a stronger role. It wasprecisely in this phase that it was fundamentally crucial that parlia-ments once again used their steering capacity more and made them-selves more visible again in international cooperation.For that reason, it was important that the World Conference ofSpeakers of Parliament had taken place digitally a few days earlier.It was equally important for the BSPC to hold its conference on thisday, focusing on the main questions of a Vision for 2030. Thatwould, of course, be very different from what one might have envi-sioned six months before. It was vital for them to ensure that theurgent issues and the aspects they thought appropriate were passedon to governments as guidelines for their actions. The fact that thegovernments in all of the member countries were responding to theBSPC’s resolutions and recommendations for action had beenunderlined once more by the governments’ statements on these res-olutions in Oslo.President Simulik called on the participants to work on this day ona vision for 2030, to talk about the development of the pandemicand ways out of this crisis, to highlight the importance of interna-tional parliamentary cooperation and to work on the priorities andfuture issues that had prevailed before the pandemic and whichwere still vital to move forward, regardless of the pandemic.In this difficult situation, as a result of the pandemic, it was impor-tant that they made even more substantial and faster progress thanpreviously planned in areas such as environmental protection andmaritime policy, migration and digital cooperation. The presidentwished all of the attendees that they would manage to do this asmuch as was possible in the few hours that they had. He hoped thatthey could return to direct meetings in person as soon as possible tocontinue their work, in the way they were more familiar with.Nonetheless, it was also important to use and expand the opportu-nities that had arisen from these current developments. In the end,overcoming all difficulties, they could achieve what they had beenstriving toward for years by 2030, namely a safe and prosperousregion, characterised by an intact environment. One of their goals18 Opening of the Conferencewas that the Baltic Sea would be restored as it was a key feature ofmany of their regions as well as home to many people. Another wasan intact environmental status that would be maintained as that.He called upon his audience to continue – as they hoped for in theBSPC resolution – to make every effort to ensure that the Baltic Searegion would remain a region of peaceful and close neighbourlinessas well as intense cooperation, based on mutual understanding,trust, democratic values, the rule of law, human rights as well asequal opportunities for all.At this point, BSPC President Valerijus Simulik came to the end of hisreport on the Lithuanian BSPC Presidency 2019 – 2020 and yieldedthe floor to the BSPC Vice President, Mr Pyry Niemi.First Session 19FIRST SESSIONVision 2030: Cooperation inthe Baltic Sea Region, Safeand Prosperous Development– Common Effective andSustainable Solutions for theFutureIncumbent, former and incoming CBSS Presidencies,i.e. Lithuania, Denmark and NorwayChaired by Mr Pyry Niemi, Vice President of the BSPCMr Niemi thanked the president for giving the session and confer-ence an excellent start. He added that he was happy that all of themcould be present in these difficult times for Europe and the rest ofthe world. With 150 people attending the virtual conference, thatshowed the good companionship in the Baltic Sea area.Mr Pyry Niemi20 First SessionHe welcomed his audience to the first session of the 29th BSPC withthe topic Vision 2030: Cooperation in the Baltic Sea region, Safe andProsperous Development, Common Effective and Sustainable Solu-tions for the Future. Mr Niemi introduced himself, noting that hewas the Vice President of the BSPC and a member of the Swedishparliament. He had the great pleasure of chairing this session whichwas shorter than their usual BSPC sessions. Nevertheless, he believedthat they would have a good meeting and a good discussion.A special welcome was extended to the honourable speakers of thissession, H. E. Mr Neris Germanas, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairsof the Republic of Lithuania, on behalf of H. E. Mr LinasLinkevičius, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithua-nia; H. E. Mr Ove Ullerup, Former Chair of the Committee of Sen-ior Officials of the Council of the Baltic Sea States Ambassador,Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Denmark; as well asMr. Dag Wernø Holter, Senior Adviser, Nordic-Baltic Section,Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Norway, represent-ing the upcoming Norwegian CBSS presidency in July of the fol-lowing year.The BSPC’s guests were representing the Council of the Baltic SeaStates – the hosting organisations natural counterpart on the execu-tive level. In May, the meeting that had originally been meant to beheld on the presiding Danish Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod’s nativeisland of Bornholm had taken place online. Mr Niemi was happy tohear more about the results of the meeting and the priorities of theLithuanian CBSS presidency with a special view to the headline ofthis conference: A Vision for 2030 in the Baltic Sea Region.In this context, Mr Niemi also welcomed the Deputy Director-Gen-eral of the CBSS Secretariat, Mr Bernd Hemingway, with whomthe BSPC had had a very close cooperation for years. In particular,Mr Hemingway had, among others, provided valuable input onseveral occasions at the meetings of the Standing Committee andthe Working Group on Migration and Integration.The vice president pointed out that the term of office of the formerDirector-General, Ambassador Maira Mora, had ended a few daysearlier. He thanked Ambassador Mora on behalf of the Baltic SeaParliamentary Conference for her exceptional commitment - also incooperation with the BSPC. He added the organisation’s best wishesfor her future. On behalf of the BSPC, he wished for the new Direc-tor-General, Ambassador Grzegorz Marek Poznanski from Poland,to have a successful term of office and hoped for an intensive con-tinuation of our cooperation.First Session 21On behalf of the Swedish delegation, Mr Niemi extended his grati-tude once again for the intensive briefing of the Swedish delegationat the CBSS secretariat a few months ago.The CBSS Secretariat had moved into a new office building a fewweeks before. But it could still be reached in the very heart of Stock-holm (on the island of Södermalm in the historical Momma Reen-stierna Palace).Mr Niemi noted that there would be time for discussion in the debate.He went on to yield the floor to Mr Neris Germanas.Speech by Mr Neris Germanas, Vice-Minister of For-eign Affairs of the Republic of LithuaniaMr Germanas began by mentioning that it was his pleasure to speakat a memorable event comprising the two Lithuanian presidenciesin the region, in the BSPC and in the CBSS. The CBSS was animportant player in the region. So, it was their task to ensure thatthe organisation had an opportunity to shape a united response andstrategy in the present challenging situation. It was their task todirect it toward concrete action in the areas where the CBSS wasuniquely suited to add value.The Bornholm Declaration adopted at the highest-level meetingduring the Danish presidency had given them a clear indication inwhat direction the Baltic Sea region should move. The revised termsof references of the CBSS and of the Secretariat adopted togetherwith the Bornholm Declaration had given them the necessary toolsto act.On 1 July, Lithuania had taken over the annual rotating presidencyof the CBSS from Denmark. In this challenging time, the presi-dency would seek ways of turning challenges into opportunities.The presidency would focus on developing green industry, includ-ing green and maritime tourism aimed at the reviving regionaleconomy; increase the region’s visibility; provide employmentopportunities to young people. In light of the current pandemic,the presidency would also attempt to boost civil protection in theregion and strengthen its resilience against major emergencies anddisasters. It would strive, through the effort of the CBSS expert22 First SessionMr Neris Germanasgroup, to find ways to protect those most vulnerable in their socie-ties, such as those at risk of human trafficking for labour exploita-tion and children at risk of violence. The presidency would also putspecial attention on the movement of young people in building thefuture of the Baltic region.It had been 10 years since the Vilnius Declaration, providing avision for the state of the Baltic Sea region by 2020, had beenadopted by the heads of government of the CBSS member states.The presidency had therefore already offered an assessment of theachievements in this region prepared by a group of regional expertsas well as an evaluation of the CBSS’ role in fulfilling the Declara-tion’s goals. This assessment was planned to be followed by a newVilnius Declaration on a vision of the Baltic Sea region until 2030.The Baltic Sea Region had long been recognized as a model of anadvanced socio-economic development and successful regionalcooperation in the European Union and beyond. Nonetheless, mul-tiple challenges remained that could be turned into opportunities.By 2030, the Lithuanian side would like to see the following in theregion.On the economic side, it should focus on sustainable economic(blue and green) growth and development, innovation, clean energyas well as the protection of the environment. On the governanceside, the region should be reaping the benefits of resilient econo-mies and societies, responsive public services and strong institu-tional frameworks for cooperation; striving for better inclusion,First Session 23prosperity, public health and social cohesion; improving the possi-bilities of digitalization for communication, accessible for all peo-ple; protecting the vulnerable. At the same time, the side of safetyand security should allow them to be able to tackle current andfuture challenges and crises through joint action where applicable.On the side of regional identity building, elements of a commonregional identity and common values should be promoted throughculture, research and education. Finally, the region should involveand enable the youth as well as build trust between its nations.Mr Germanas said that for this to be implemented, an even morecoherent framework for continued strong cooperative efforts andactions in the region in all policy areas was needed along with strongwillingness and continuous commitment by all regional actors. TheLithuanian side believed that such a declaration and its implemen-tation could be monitored more closely in the future. Such anannual report might be produced by the CBSS Secretariat andshared regularly with the BSPC and the public.Finally, Mr Germanas expressed his appreciation for the growingcooperation between the BSPC and the CBSS for the benefit of theregion. He wished the BSPC the best of success for the conference.Chairman Niemi thanked Mr Germanas for presenting the agenda ofthe current Lithuanian presidency in the CBSS.He moved on to introduce, Ambassador Ove Ullerup, Former Chair ofthe Committee of Senior Officials of the Council of the Baltic Sea States.Last year, the BSPC had received an outlook on the Danish CBSS Pres-idency during their annual conference in Oslo. The BSPC’s StandingCommittee had further been provided with an informative interimreport during its meeting in Brussels in March. They were now lookingforward to the results of the Danish Presidency.24 First SessionSpeech by Ambassador Ove Ullerup, Former Chair ofthe Committee of Senior Officials of the Council ofthe Baltic Sea StatesMr Ullerup thanked the vice president and president before sayingthat it was a great pleasure for him to share with his audience themain results of the Danish presidency and some reflections for thefuture. When his predecessor had updated the BSPC StandingCommittee on 2 March, she had been quite upbeat in her assess-ment of what could be achieved. Mr Ullerup was quite happy toconfirm that this assessment was well founded.On 19 May, the reform process had been successfully concludedwhen the Foreign Ministers of all 11 member states and a high-levelrepresentative of the EU had met in a video conference. This extraor-dinary level of participation was a strong sign of the political sup-port for the reform. The ministers had adopted revised terms of ref-erence for the CBSS and also for the CBSS Secretariat with thesekey objectives: The first was to create a stronger focus and to enhanceflexibility in the way the CBSS was working, with the other goals ofimproved cooperation with other regional cooperation for a andmaking better use of the unique strengths of the CBSS in the designand implementation of activities.In addition, ministers had discussed broad issues of relevance to theentire region, such as the COVID-19 outbreak, youth engagement,environment- and climate-related challenges as well as cross-borderorganised crime. The ministers had used the CBSS meeting as aplatform for a truly regional dialogue, a dialogue also relevant forcooperation in other regional cooperation formats. At the end ofthe discussion, they had adopted the Bornholm Declaration.Ambassador Ullerup considered this dialogue at the ministeriallevel successful not only because the participation was so strong butalso because the meeting showed that the CBSS platform can indeedbe used for a broader dialogue on issues facing our region ratherthan be limited to the activities of the organisation itself. The recentreflection paper on the Vilnius Declaration also notes this fruitfuland open exchange.As the CBSS was now moving forward, it would be important tomaintain this distinction between a broader regional dialogue oncommon challenges of the region and the specific tasks assigned tothe CBSS.First Session 25Mr Ove UllerupThe speaker pointed out that there were many regional challenges,of which COVID-19 has only proved to be one more. At the sametime, the CBSS had limited financial and personnel resources. Min-isters had agreed to focus its activities on the areas where the organ-isation was uniquely suited to add value for the region and its mem-bers. The new guiding documents for the CBSS work on traffickingin human beings and protecting children at risk adopted during theLithuanian presidency reflected this approach.They had also focused very much on regional coherence. Duringtheir presidency, the Lithuanian side had adopted orientations forthe CBSS role and engagement within the EU Strategy for the Bal-tic Sea Region and the Northern Dimension. Ambassador Ullerupunderlined that regional coherence required political leadership.Member states had a great responsibility for avoiding overlaps andduplication. If they wanted better regional coherence, it was neces-sary to create adequate incentives in the governance systems of theregional organisations.When a need arose, and COVID-19 was a point in case, he said,regional organisations typically saw an opportunity to gain increasedvisibility and funding and therefore proposed new initiatives. Often,this happened without much consideration of regional coherence.This led to parallel and often competing initiatives. It spread theactivities of each organisation, to the detriment of focus and quality.Moreover, he added, it reduced the impact and value for money,blurring the roles and mandates.26 First SessionWhile the regional organisations had to become more able to reactrapidly to new challenges, there was a need to ensure more systemiccoherence. Otherwise, increased flexibility could mean even moreoverlaps and duplication.The ambassador asked the question what could be done. In that, heoffered two concrete suggestions.They could work to insert similar wording in the governing docu-ments of the secretariats of the other regional organisations similarto the new Terms of Reference of the CBSS Secretariat which interalia pointed to the fact that they wished to promote enhanced dia-logue, cooperation and alignment with other regional actorsthrough a regular structured dialogue in the context of existingcooperation formats in the region. In addition, they could ask theheads of all the secretariats to regularly report to their governingbodies on such coordination efforts.Another suggestion by the ambassador was that they might alsorequire regional coherence checks. A secretariat proposal to addressa new challenge would have to outline how it fit with the role andmandate of other regional organisations. This would enable mem-ber states to ensure that overlaps were avoided, and decisions weremade that furthered regional coherence.Mr Ullerup mentioned that his side was very pleased that a newDirector General for the CBSS secretariat had been elected – adirector general with a reformed and updated job description. Hefurther underlined as very important that the Lithuanian presi-dency had been able to recruit the new Director General throughan open and transparent process. He offered their hope that thisopen approach would promote trust and help AmbassadorPoznanski to build the strong relations with all member states thatwould be crucial, in order for him and the secretariat to use itspotential in ensuring that they could all harvest the fruits of thereform.The ambassador concluded his presentation by informing his audi-ence that they had taken the initiative to reinforce cooperationwithin the CBSS troika. This was done in order to seek continuityin their work and effective follow-up of the CBSS reforms. Theywere happy to see the solid engagement of both Lithuania and Nor-way in this effort.Chairman Niemi thanked him in turn for his contribution. He wenton to introduce the next speaker, Mr Dag Wernø Holter, from theFirst Session 27Nordic-Baltic Section in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdomof Norway. Mr Holter would address some more general aspects of theBaltic Sea cooperation from a Norwegian perspective.Speech by Mr Dag Wernø Holter, from the Nor-dic-Baltic Section in the Ministry of Foreign Affairsof the Kingdom of NorwayMr Holter was grateful for being able to say a few words aboutcooperation in the region, seen from a Norwegian perspective. Nor-way was looking forward to taking on their responsibilities in thepresidency of the Council of Baltic Sea States as of next summer. Hehoped his audience would appreciate that he deemed it prematurefor him to enter into any concrete aspects of the nation’s prioritiesfor that presidency since the government had so far only reached thevery early stages of preparations. Accordingly, he said he’d limithimself to a few more general observations regarding regional coop-eration in their area.Regional cooperation in the Baltic Sea area had been – and remained– very important, with the vital characteristic that the cooperationhad a very broad and varied network of different cooperation struc-tures. Norway was participating in most of these structures, fromMr Dag Wernø Holter28 First Sessionthe CBSS and the Northern Dimension to the Barents RegionalCouncil, the Arctic Council and the Nordic-Baltic Cooperation.Of course, also of great importance was Norway’s participation inthe European Economic Area which in their region included eightEU member states and two other states, representing a very impor-tant framework for economic relations.In 2010, Mr Holter said, regional heads of state and governmenthad adopted in their Vilnius Declaration a vision for the develop-ment of the region by 2020. As had been shown in an interestingreport commissioned this summer by the Lithuanian presidencyof the CBSS, looking at the present situation compared to thevision: Much had in fact been achieved. But the report also under-lined that there was clearly room for strengthening the coopera-tion in many areas. They should therefore use the different coop-eration formats and structures to their full potential.The reform process in the CBSS, following the vision group reportand the Stockholm Declaration from 2018, had been successfullyconcluded at the Ministerial Meeting in May 2020, as had alreadybeen mentioned earlier. In this process, it had been emphasisedthat it was necessary to strengthen efficiency and not least toimprove synergies between the different cooperation structures. Inrespect to synergies, the CBSS secretariat had now received a veryclear mandate. Mr Holter pointed out that this was a very inter-esting and useful element. The governments obviously also carrieda strong responsibility to follow up. Furthermore, the Norwegianside believed that the parliamentary dimension of the regionalcooperation, represented in particular by the Baltic Sea Parlia-mentary Conference, was playing a very important role. TheBSPC’s discussions, assessments and inputs to the work of thegovernments contributed to defining objectives and challenges aswell as possible ways forward.Finally, he wished to conclude by underlining that Norway con-sidered the interplay between political dialogue and practicalcooperation to be an essential dimension of the regional coopera-tion. This was an important experience from many years of theiractive participation in different cooperation formats in the region.This would also prove important for Norway when they wouldserve as presidents of the CBSS starting the following year. Withthe CBSS, they had a very useful platform for political dialogueabout the challenges they were facing as well as the objectives themember states wanted to achieve together. The CBSS itself, as wellas the other regional formats, offered structures for practical coop-eration. It was for all of the involved parties, together, to make theFirst Session 29best use of the tools that were at their disposal. The Norwegianside, Mr Holter underlined, would do what they could to achievethese objectives.With that, he concluded his contribution.Mr Niemi thanked Mr Holter for his presentation and all the speakersfor their informative input. He noted that two requests to speak hadbeen registered, the first from Mr Wille Valve from the Åland Islands.Speech by Mr Wille Valve, MP of ÅlandMr Valve noted that in difficult times, in times of crises, it was moreimportant than ever that they did not stop talking, that their dia-logue continued despite tensions and border restrictions. He admit-ted that he was a bit sceptical towards a digital format for the Con-ference – and still was -, but the Drafting Committee Meeting theprevious Thursday, which he had the privilege to attend, had notonly been worthwhile but could also serve as a model for otherinternational organisations on how they could keep on talking.Mr Wille Valve30 First SessionIn this year’s draft resolution, Mr Valve said he would in particularlike to stress the points of continuing comprehensive and systemicefforts to strengthen the Baltic Sea cooperation and increasing resil-ience in a changing world.He went on to underline that in times of tension, mutual under-standing of each other’s motives was truly more important thanever. In fostering mutual understanding, he believed that this organ-isation could play a vital role. Therefore, he called on everybody notto stop talking with each other. What was needed was more actionbut also more conversation.Vice President Niemi thanked him for his contribution and introducedthe next speaker, the President of the Nordic Council, Ms Silja DöggGunnarsdóttir.First Session 31Ms Silja Dögg GunnarsdóttirSpeech by Ms Silja Dögg Gunnarsdóttir, President ofthe Nordic CouncilMs Gunnarsdóttir opened by saying that she wished to make a briefstatement in light of the grave situation in Belarus, a country withstrong ties to the Baltic Sea region. The Nordic Council was deeplyconcerned about the situation in Belarus. She strongly encouragedall of her listeners who were present at this Conference to do whatthey could to support the people in Belarus and the peaceful transi-tion to democracy in that country. She added that they were alldeeply concerned about the situation for the rule of law, humanrights and democracy, even with some of the member states of theEuropean Union. The situation might have become even worse inthe light of COVID-19. The Nordic Council was therefore verypleased that these elements had been included in the resolution thatthey would adopt later on that day.Mr Niemi offered his thanks to the speaker, segueing into the next con-tribution by the Vice President of the Nordic Council, Ms OddnýHarðardóttir.32 First SessionMs Oddný HarðardóttirSpeech by Ms Oddný Harðardóttir, Vice President ofthe Nordic CouncilThe speaker strongly supported the statement made by her col-league on Belarus. She also agreed that the Nordic Council was verypleased that these elements had been included in the resolution thatthey would adopt later that day. She underlined that the membersof the Nordic Council considered this issue very important and thatthey thought strongly about this.Mr Niemi thanked her for her contribution. At this point, he broughtthe first session of the conference to a close and offered his gratitude to allthe participants. He also mentioned that the speeches had been interest-ing and fruitful, offering a good outlook for their prosperous cooperationin the future.Second Session 33SECOND SESSIONVision 2030: Acting for theFuture of the Baltic Sea RegionVision 2030: Safeguarding our Environment, Seas andOceans for Future GenerationsChaired by Ms Valentina Pivnenko, Former President of the BSPCMs Pivnenko wished everyone a good morning. She was very gladto see all of them, even if only on her screen. Moreover, she was verypleased because this was indeed a difficult time during which theywere communicating, yet they were continuing on with the tradi-tion that they had created at the very beginning of their parliamen-tary conference here at the 29th Conference of the BSPC.The second session, she explained, was devoted to safeguarding theenvironment. This was almost a thread going through all of the con-ferences of the BSPC and all of their meeting. She mentioned thatshe had been lucky enough to come along to nearly everyone of theconferences since their parliamentary cooperation had first begun.It is her firm conviction that the statements made in their first ses-Ms Valentina Pivnenko34 Second Sessionsion underlined just how important dialogue and cooperation wereas well as what their priorities were to strengthen this cooperationin the period up until 2030. Nonetheless, based on the statementsthat had been made regarding the situation in Belarus so far, MsPivnenko wished to add that not long ago, the president of the Rus-sian Federation, Mr Vladimir Putin, had spoken with ChancellorMerkel and the foreign ministers of the European Council. TheRussian side had emphasised the inadmissibility of any foreigninterference in any other country’s activities. Such foreign interven-tion would be seen as an attempt to destabilise the country. Ms Piv-nenko noted for her parliamentarian colleagues that their coopera-tion was not political in its nature, and no such political intent hadbeen set out in their constituent documents. Furthermore, she saidthat Belarus was neither a member nor an observer of the BSPC.The Conference of the BSPC for over ten years at this point hadrefused the Belarus parliament the status of observer in their midst.Accordingly, the statement of the inadmissibility of foreign inter-vention in other states and attempts to destabilise the political situ-ation in Belarus had been made by the Russian leadership. Thestatements by the Belarusian presidency as well as representatives ofthe Belarusian assembly showed without doubt, in the view of theRussian side, that without foreign influence, the country of Belaruswould find its own way and indeed had to do so. In addition, shesaid that observers from the OECD had been invited to review theelections in Belarus but had not come in to do so, despite the invi-tation. No actual irregularities in the election had not in fact beenproven.After her comments on Belarus, Ms Pivnenko returned to the topic ofthe second session. She said that the first speaker would be Ms SvenjaSchulze, environmental minister of Germany, who would address theConference in a video message. In addition, Ms Schulze represented thechair of the HELCOM as well since Germany was currently holding thechairmanship of the HELCOM and the presidency of the EuropeanCouncil.After that, Mr Oleg Nilov, a member of the state duma of the FederalAssembly of the Russian Federation, would be speaking as well as MrPeter Stein, BSPC Rapporteur on sea-dumped ammunitions and mem-ber of the German Bundestag.Second Session 35Ms Svenja SchulzeVideo Message by Ms Svenja Schulze, FederalMinister for Environment, Nature Conservation andNuclear Safety, Germany, HELCOM Chairmanship,European Council PresidencyMs Schulze noted that the coronavirus pandemic and the immediateprotection of human health continued to dominate thoughts andactions. At the same time, it was becoming increasingly clear to manypeople just how dependent their lives and survival were on the generalstate of the environment. This also applied to marine protection,which is why this day’s discussions were so important.During Germany’s HELCOM Chairmanship, her side wouldactively shape the future of the Baltic Sea together with its partners.She then briefly outlined her goals: First was the overarching goal ofimproved protection of the Baltic Sea. The minister considered thisthe only way to secure the future of the Baltic Sea region as a whole.Her second point concerned the economic recovery ahead whichprovided an opportunity for social and ecological progress: specifi-cally, climate action and environmental protection – including, ofcourse, marine protection. She promised that she would work hardto achieve this goal. Next, she pointed out that the HELCOM Bal-tic Sea Action Plan was the scientific basis for their measures. It washer belief that they should develop this plan for the next ten yearsto enable it to respond to new challenges and lay down ambitioustargets and measures. Concerning her goal for the HELCOM Min-isterial Meeting next year, she expected that an updated plan would36 Second Sessionbe adopted. This would establish a more effective protection of theBaltic Sea at the political level, too. Moreover, significant improve-ments were needed regarding eutrophication and the conservationof marine biodiversity. This is why the German side would addressthis issue in detail. Finally, on the topic of munitions in the sea, allBaltic Sea countries had a shared responsibility. The minister’s goalfor this process was to lead to joint action. She appreciated that theBaltic Sea parliamentarians had clearly signalled their support.Another key issue for Germany’s HELCOM chairmanship wasglobal ocean governance. To achieve this, cooperation among all rel-evant players was needed, in and between regions. For that reason,the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference was such an importantinstitution, Ms Schulze underlined. She was delighted to have theBSPC as a partner by their side and by HELCOM’s side.Ms Pivnenko offered her gratitude to Ms Schulze, noting that the envi-ronment was very important to the BSPC. Next, she yielded the floor toMr Oleg Nilov from St Petersburg.Speech by Mr Oleg Nilov, member of the State Dumaof the Federal Assembly of the Russian FederationMr Nilov offered his greetings from St Petersburg. He noted that hewas near one of the most important waterways, in a building thatserved as its museum. The canals and the draining of St Petersburghad been a very important project and provided a very good exam-ple of cooperation in terms of financing. Most of the water of theBaltic Sea had been drained out of the city, as well as the wastewa-ter. In fact, there were only two districts in St Petersburg that werenot connected to the wastewater drainage system which had beenestablished with the help of international cooperation. In thatregard, he offered his gratitude to the Finnish colleagues whose sidehad provided financing. He further thanked his Swedish and Nor-wegian colleagues for their countries’ assistance. Mr Nilov under-lined that this wastewater system was working well, and its imple-mentation had gone ahead without any unnecessary comments orarguments about democracy.Second Session 37Mr Oleg NilovBeyond the immediate water concerns, the speaker pointed out thatwater was the basis of their conference as it encompassed the BalticSea states. He reminded his audience that air was equally importantto their lives, that the climate mattered. People should be able tolive without flooding, without overheating and without forest fires.He praised the efforts of so many colleagues in the BSPC in theframework of the Green Agenda, particularly in the area of greenenergy. Moreover, Mr Nilov wished to draw their attention to aglaring misbalance. Much discussion was devoted to climate change,global warming, carbon emissions. On the one hand, there waseutrophication which had to be looked at, but there was anotherarea that was not talked about enough. This aspect was forest fires.Forest fires were a major problem in Russia. As a matter of fact, itwas one of the greatest issues, if not right at the top of the list ofenvironmental problems. The same was true of the United States,Brazil and many other countries, such as Australia. Forest fires werenot only a disaster for these countries in themselves, but they alsoproved disastrous for the environment of the entire planet. That wasbecause the fire’s emissions were entering the atmosphere.As an example, he referred to climatologists’ reports from June: InSiberia, only 30 per cent of Russian forests remained. 59 milliontonnes of carbon had been emitted into the atmosphere throughforest fires. This was the equivalent of what Portugal was emitting inan entire year. 285 million tonnes of carbon had been emitted intothe atmosphere as a result of forest fires in recent years in Russiaalone. Considering all the other countries where such fires were38 Second Sessionmajor issues, the overall figure was immensely larger. Mr Nilovunderlined that this was a major problem. In the northernmost for-est fires in recorded history in the tundra, 50 kilometres before thenorthern ice sheet, the turf of the tundra had recently caught fire. Ifthis were to spread, it would prove impossible to ever put this fireout. The level of carbon emitted into the atmosphere, if that were tohappen, would simply be incredible. Ten to fifteen million hectaresof tundra were lost every year to forest fires. That equalled the sizeof Greece, each year, Mr Nilov underlined. He asked his listeners toimagine what might be left after 2030 in terms of forests, and whathuge amounts of carbon would be emitted through the conflagra-tion. That consideration did not even take into account that the for-ests in and of themselves ordinarily served as carbon sinks. If treeswere burning, they could no longer absorb carbon.The speaker pointed out that this was a massive problem and thatthe BSPC needed to discuss it. He believed they had to speak aboutwhat had to be done, that decisions had to be taken on how toaddress the problem of forest fires. At the very least, they shouldconsider if there were any budgets that could be put forward to thisend.He suggested that discussions should be raised, not only in theBSPC but also in other venues, on how to take the Kyoto Protocoland the Paris Accord further. Following in their footsteps, Mr Nilovcalled for a Baltic Sea Accord to mitigate carbon emissions throughforest fires, as one of the main sources of carbon emissions into theatmosphere on this planet. He said they should draw attention tothis issue and channel funding into mitigating losses in this area. Ifyou wanted to build a home, he proposed, you should have to planta tree. If you wanted to buy a car, you should have to plant a wholeforest. That would be necessary to compensate for the carbon emis-sions caused by your car or home.Mr Nilov asked the other countries to consider what options theysaw in this respect, particularly the nations suffering from this prob-lem. He emphasised again that millions of hectares were being dec-imated each year. This was an issue that they had to start talkingabout. The speaker also called for an international foundation to beset up to alleviate the consequences of this problem, to tackle forestfires both in poor and richer countries as well as in more remoteareas. Here, he mentioned Australia and the US as examples. Nei-ther of them seemed to be in a position to deal with this challengeon their own. Therefore, Mr Nilov believed there had to be a “greenarmy” of firefighters in order to tackle this problem in the nearfuture.Second Session 39If this problem was not resolved, he stated, then there was no pointto talking about burning carbon at all. Indeed, planes or cars, withall their contributions to global warming, were just one part of theclimate challenge, with forest fires responsible for much in theirown right.In conclusion, Mr Nilov pointed to California as a current example.In the US, hundreds of thousands of people were having to fleetheir homes because of the forest fires raging there. Billions of dol-lars were being lost at this very moment. Recent years had shownthat even in democracies, not everything was perfect. The life of theforest was far more important than elections, he suggested, or polit-ical fights or discussions about human rights. Therefore, he believedit was necessary to go back to the BSPC’s original agenda and talkabout what were the most important issues concerning the founda-tion of life – peace, the forests, the water and the quality of the air.These surely were more important than political discussions, heaffirmed. The latter were something they could talk about sepa-rately, in their parliaments and at the next in-person meetings.He concluded his speech by stating his hope that they could indeedmeet in person again very soon.Ms Pivnenko thanked him for his contribution, adding that Mr Nilovhad given them serious food for thought and promised that they wouldconsider his proposal in reworking the Baltic Sea agenda.Moving on to the issue of sea-dumped ammunition, she invited MrPeter Stein, member of the German Bundestag, to speak on this topic.As BSPC Rapporteur on this problem, he had elaborated an interimreport on ammunitions and unexploded ordinance in the Baltic Sea.40 Second SessionSpeech by Mr Peter Stein, member of the GermanBundestag and BSPC Rapporteur on sea-dumped am-munitionsMr Stein began by thanking the BSPC for having held the role ofRapporteur for sea-dumped ammunitions since November of thepreceding year, as had also been decided in Oslo. He went on tonote that during his work on this topic, he had realized quite clearlythat there was rather little information available on the subject.Accordingly, he had decided to report on this topic at the 29thBSPC.He offered his gratitude for the support he had received and the helpfrom the nation states in putting this report together, in response tothe resolution of the 28th BSPC. A statement had been made as aresult. Mr Stein further thanked the Geomar Institute in Kiel, theFraunhofer Institute and the State Assembly of Schleswig-Holstein,Mr Bahr and the HELCOM. They had made it possible for the reportto grow to such an estimable size. He noted that it was an interimreport, adding that they could be proud of the fact that the resolutionof the 28th BSPC had triggered a dynamism in the issue. They couldmake use of this dynamic movement which had triggered a numberof developments.Mr Stein wished to address three of those. The first was the EUInterreg project DAIMON which had been concluded very success-fully. The project had been extended into a sequel, DAIMON 2, aswell as the Soft Merge programme of HELCOM. Unfortunately, inthe attempts to remove ammunitions from the sea floor, 18 pilotwhales had been killed in the Baltic Sea. That had led to a severemedia response. As such, the public was being confronted with thisissue to a certain extent, although not as much as one might wish.At the moment, ammunitions on the sea floor were very much anissue for experts and specialists, but it needed to find a broader basisin the public’s awareness. Happily, there was the situation that theystill had time to look at the issues. In interviews, Mr Stein wouldsay, “The work ahead of us will take 20 years to complete, but webetter assume it will take 100 years.” In terms of technology andtrained staff, they had to become more efficient and faster.Mr Stein thanked Commissioner Sinkevičius with regard to theupdated Baltic Sea Action Plan. He would appreciate it if the issueof sea-dumped ammunitions could be included in that plan alongwith aiming for an improvement of the entire environmental statusof the Baltic Sea.Second Session 41Mr Peter SteinThe speaker suggested that they all work together through the goodconnections they had established and to move even closer together.One instance in which they should progress together was datastandardization. A standardized input of data into an expert groupwould be very helpful. He could imagine an expert panel as an out-lier of the DAIMON expert group. He mentioned very interestingapproaches using bio-indicators. Unfortunately, they were increas-ingly seeing toxins leaking from the ammunitions, particularlyTNT. It had become detectable in fish and mussel stocks. On theother hand, mussels could serve as a bio-indicator and provide amonitoring function through their intake of the toxins. Compre-hensive monitoring, well beyond such bio-indicators, was required.Technological approaches were equally required, all feeding into astandardized contribution to expert panels as he had suggested ear-lier. In addition, if so much understanding and research had beenbrought together in international cooperation, the question waswhether to launch a concerted approach to tackling this problem.One problem here was the historical responsibility, which was per-ceived differently in various nations; moreover, each countryapproached the issue individually, dealing with the responsibilitiesin divergent manners as well as the legal status. In other words, thenations sharing the Baltic Sea did not have a joint approach of howto deal with the topic. In that regard, Mr Stein suggested a volun-tary donation fund for the group of experts. For this fund, Mr Steinproposed 500 million euros as the target sum. While it could beunder the auspices of the EU, in the speaker’s estimate, the HEL-COM would be better suited.42 Second SessionMoreover, Mr Stein proposed focusing far more on the capacities ofthe private and maritime industries. If they were to only use stateorganisations, he did not believe they could succeed in resolving theproblem. He believed that potentials in terms of new technologiesand their development could be harnessed through cooperationwith the private maritime industry. The proposed fund along withthe expert group could call for tenders regularly, allowing maritimecompanies established in the Baltic Sea to access this value chain.Mr Stein noted that the way the BSPC had been dealing with theissue had been truly exemplary. He imagined that, starting from thecurrent resolution of the 29th BSPC, the Baltic Sea could become apioneer and model for how to resolve the problem of sea-dumpedammunitions all over the world.He cautioned that this approach also meant having to deal withsunken ships and ghost nets in particular. Mr Stein noted that hehad been quite shocked to hear that there were up to ten thousandghost nets and sections of fishing nets simply floating around thesea, causing negative impacts on the fauna. That was an adjacentproblem that had to be resolved along the dumped ammunitions.In summary, Mr Stein mentioned how pleased he was that they hadmade progress and joined forces. Commissioner Sinkevičius hadsaid that they were living a common dream – the dream of a cleanBaltic Sea. Mr Stein noted that this was also a shared duty.Finally, the speaker pointed out that he was a German who couldlive this dream and duty, 30 years after the peaceful revolution inthe former eastern part of his country. In that regard, he wishedtheir Belarusian friends that they should also have such a peacefuldevelopment, without outside intervention, and that democracyshould emerge from this process. When it came to preserving theenvironment, Mr Stein went on, the Belarusian people were indeedpart of the peoples around the Baltic Sea.With that, Mr Stein concluded his contribution.Ms Pivnenko thanked Mr Stein and offered her hope that they wouldcontinue cooperation within the framework of future presidencies totackle this issue. She then offered the floor to Ms Liz Mattsson, memberof the parliament of Åland.Second Session 43Speech by Ms Liz Mattsson, MP ÅlandMs Mattsson pointed out that the Åland Island was located in themiddle of the Baltic Sea, surrounded by the ocean. It was veryimportant for all of the island’s industries to think about how toprotect the environment, the seas and oceans for the future. Duringthe summer, when the weather is hot, blue-green algae could befound along the beaches – a sign of eutrophication. A very impor-tant subject was how they could all work together on these environ-mental challenges.The speaker said that she had been working with agriculture and ruraldevelopment in Åland. For that reason, she I chose to focus on sus-tainable agriculture. For Åland, the food industry was significant. Ofthe island’s total 30,000 inhabitants, about 600 were farmers. Theyhad a rich agricultural landscape along with a well-developed foodindustry and small-scale production. Therefore, Ms Mattsson consid-ered Åland a good place for pilot projects in sustainable food produc-tion. Already today, several projects were in progress with a focus oncircular systems, construction of wetlands, sedimentation basins andIPM (integrated pest management).Ms Mattsson went on to note some concrete examples: A largeamount of the substances causing eutrophication were transportedalong ditches to the Baltic Sea. In recent years, farmers on Ålandhad therefore built several wetlands and sedimentation basins withthe main purpose of capturing nutrients from fields before theycould flow into the sea. The wetlands were reducing the amount ofMs Liz Mattsson44 Second Sessionnutrients streaming out from the fields while at the same time stor-ing water for dry years. She added that the wetlands also beautifiedthe landscape and served as excellent habitats for many differentspecies. The sedimentation basins captured soil material containingnutrients released from the fields.Some of the island’s farmers had also tried to recycle nutrients fromthe Baltic Sea by collecting bladderwrack washed up on the beaches.Bladderwrack had proven effective in soil improvement, providing anenvironmentally friendly nutrient supplement to the fields.Åland produced around 80 % of the total production of apples inFinland, and the value of the production was high. She pointed outthat insects were their most important workers in the cultivations ofapples. A key factor for a good harvest was a successful pollinationof the apple flowers through bumblebees and bees. Varoa was acommon disease in bees, the speaker explained, and was caused byVaroa mites. The mites had caused widespread loss of vital bees inEurope and the USA. For Europe, calculations arrived at a lack of 1million colonies, for the most part due to the Varroa mite. The dis-ease spread through the movement of bee fry and direct contactbetween infested bees. Åland was unique in that its bees were Varoa-free. Accordingly, the island’s bees did not suffer from the disease.To keep Åland free from Varoa, they had enacted a total stop onimporting bees from 2013 onwards. This had allowed them toestablish the present-day prosperous society of bees, allowing localbeekeepers to seek out possible commercial trade of bees to othercountries. As an example, Ms Mattsson mentioned that bees fromÅland had been delivered to Iceland.The Åland family farms were generally small-scale and took greatcare of the environment. Behind each product, there were peoplewho wanted to produce the best food possible and contribute tosustainable food production. Biodiversity and climate-smart farm-ing methods were the key elements in sustainable food production,she underlined. Ms Mattson said that she was very much lookingforward to further discussions with the working group on biodiver-sity, expecting that there would be a lot of good ideas and experi-ences to exchange. Biodiversity was an extremely important subjectglobally as well as locally, she concluded, and together, they still hada lot of work to do.Session chairwoman Pivnenko thanked Ms Mattsson for her contribu-tion, moving on to Mr Kacper Płażyński, Sejm of Poland.Second Session 45Comment by Mr Kacper Płażyński, Member of theSejm of the Republic of PolandMr Płażyński offered special thanks to Mr Stein on his report aboutmunitions at the bottom of the Baltic Sea as well as the idea of afund for the protection of the Baltic Sea. That would seriously dealwith the cleaning of the seabed in the Baltic Sea, removing all theremnants of the First but even more so the Second World War.However, he pointed out that he had to intervene here. When MrStein provided the historic relativism that there was a different atti-tude to the ammunitions and the poison gases in the various coun-tries, he reminded his audience that it had been Germany whichhad caused the Second World War together with the Soviet Union.In the present, it was Russia and Germany who were responsible forthose chemicals at the bottom of the sea. Mr Płażyński reasonedthat this was because those states after 1945 had dropped thosematerials there rather than neutralising or destroying them in anenvironmentally friendly manner. When they were talking aboutdeveloping the fund suggested by Mr Stein, the speaker believedthat the core responsibility lay with those two countries mentionedbefore. They should contribute the major financial outlay to rectifythe mistakes that they had caused before.Mr Kacper Płażyński46 Second SessionMs Pivnenko thanked him for his comment. She chose to remark on theresponsibility of Russia and Germany for dumped ammunitions. Shecautioned her listeners not to forget the fact that dumped ammunitionshad been dumped by the allies, including Britain and the US. WhenRussia had opened the respective archives in the 2000s, they didn’t haveaccess to the archives of other countries. Ms Pivnenko very much hopedthat they would continue to pursue this very serious and importantwork to find out more about all of this, and by joining forces, shebelieved they could arrive at a real picture of the participants linked tothe dumping of ammunitions, wrecks and other weapons. It had beenopen, it had been clear, and they should be able to get evidence for all oftheir Baltic Sea states as well. They were looking at their work whichwould continue. When taking part in the Drafting Committee meetingon the draft resolution in the run-up to this conference, they had focusedvery clearly on this issue and had discussed it. The chairwoman askedthe attendees of the Conference to consider that there had been a num-ber of different points regarding the protection of the environment, theoceans and the seas. The Russian side had put in several amendmentsinto the resolution. They believed that this provided the basis for the wayforward, to ensure the purity and cleanness of the Baltic Sea wasachieved. This came in addition to economic and social development incountries, serving the prosperity of their citizens as well as, first andforemost, their health. Health, namely, was also an important issuebecause the pandemic COVID-19 had meant that they could not seeeach other in person. They could not look into each other’s eyes; theycould not smile at each other in person. All the attendees could do wassee each other on their screens. In addition, Ms Pivnenko remindedthem that, starting on 1 September, Russia would begin vaccinating itspopulation through the vaccine developed by their country. First, themost vulnerable members of the population would receive it.As this was an important issue, she gave the floor to Mr Christian Juhl,MP Denmark. Subsequently, Mr Peter Stein would comment on someremarks made earlier. Mr Johannes Schraps, MP Germany, would alsoadd his views.Second Session 47Mr Christian JuhlComment by Mr Christian Juhl, MP DenmarkMr Juhl noted that he was especially glad about the report on sea-dumped ammunitions. He considered it very important. Moreover,he agreed with Ms Pivnenko that they had to determine who wasresponsible for this problem. It was necessary how many and wherethese munitions were located as well as how to clean them up.He wished to mention that the Nordic countries and the Balticstates had been very active in their endeavour to stop nuclear weap-ons all over the world. Mr Juhl thought this could be a case for theBSPC to support the UN in its new initiative to ban all nuclearweapons. He conceded that this was an issue for the future, but headdressed it because it seemed to him fitting regarding the ammu-nitions in the Baltic Sea. Mr Juhl said that they had an importantrole to play in the question of nuclear weapons as well. The speakeradded his hope that the BSPC could form a committee in the futureto discuss the Baltic Sea as a sea without nuclear weapons.Ms Pivnenko thanked him for his presentation and proposal. She agreedthat this was a valuable suggestion for their work in the Baltic Sea Par-liamentary Conference. Next, she yielded the floor to Mr Stein.48 Second SessionComment by Mr Peter Stein, MP GermanyMr Stein began by noting that the questions raised earlier were theones he himself had been most intensely interested in. It was notthat they did not know what was happening in the Baltic Sea. Theproblem was that historical responsibility often did not match whowas responsible for the issue now. Coordinating an agreement inthis regard was not something for which they had all the time in theworld to discuss. For that reason, he believed they should establisha voluntary fund, much like the UN funds, for example on develop-ment of cooperation. This element of voluntariness was important,Mr Stein stressed. Those who felt called upon or experienced a senseof responsibility could donate finances to this fund. He added thatEuropean funding might also be brought into this. Mr Steinbelieved that it would be highly meaningful to take this first stepand to find a common ground, whether or not they had conclu-sively agreed on everything and discovered all that they wished tofind out. In his view, they had already spent too much time doingthis and needed to throw money at the problem, to clean up theBaltic Sea. This was an opportunity, he stressed, to become a pilotregion and set an example for others who had to deal with suchproblems as well.Ms Pivnenko moved on to Mr Johannes Schraps of the German Bunde-stag.Comment by Mr Johannes Schraps, MP GermanyMr Schraps also thanked Mr Stein for his report about dumpedammunitions in the Baltic Sea and was looking forward to hearingfrom the other Rapporteurs on important topics. He believed thatthe lively discussion at today’s meeting showed that it was a hottopic that they had to deal with as parliamentarians in the Baltic Searegion. Something that had always been important for them as par-liamentarians had been and was that they tried to focus on thethings they had in common and how they could solve them together.Therefore, he considered it important not to look back at the past,at who was responsible and who had to pay for what. Talking aboutresponsibilities mattered, he underlined, as did discussing where toSecond Session 49Mr Johannes Schrapsget the money to solve problems. Nonetheless, the focus should beon the issue at hand and how to resolve it. Accordingly, he was veryhappy that the German side had brought this topic onto the agendain the previous year’s resolution. The first, important success thatthey had already achieved was that the current HELCOM presi-dency – as the German Minister of the Environment, Ms SvenjaSchulze, had said – was taking sea-dumped ammunitions intoaccount in their agenda. What they could do, as parliamentarians,Mr Schraps pointed out was to ask their governments about thisproblem and to put pressure on them to deal with it. That was, afterall, part of their work and their way of taking responsibility forissues. As such, he called on his listeners that they should pursuethis path to bring this topic forward. He stressed that the BSPCshould strengthen its position on this topic, adding that he hopedfor all of them to agree on the resolution that they were finalising onthis day.Chairwoman Pivnenko thanked him for his contribution. She notedthat it was important to have this valuable discussion. Ms Pivnenkoadded that the problem of dumped ammunition and sunken wrecks atthe bottom of the Baltic Sea was very important and suggested to hercolleagues that they should not use this issue to point fingers or to get intothe whole history of the Second World War again. It happened, theseissues were important, these difficult times they were living through –but she underlined that the idea of getting into practical work wasimportant. She further mentioned that this work had indeed started, as50 Second Sessionevidenced by the region of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea where the Rus-sian Federation had begun work to remove some of the sunken bargesand wrecks as well as the ammunitions on the seabed. This was done inpractice, and it was this practical approach that she called on the par-liamentarians to focus on, how this task could be accomplished together.Regarding a fund to be set up, she considered it a sensitive issue. Still,that topic had been touched upon in the draft resolution, although shecautioned that there had not been a huge amount of support at the time.Ms Pivnenko suggested that they needed to look at this concern morecarefully and at what resources might be available in the current day aswell as at how these resources could be employed. All of that would helpin implementing this expensive, difficult work, within the framework oftheir Baltic Sea cooperation and could be intensified. The purity of theBaltic Sea remained part of their action plan that they were workingtowards, Ms Pivnenko stated.She thanked all the contributors, adding her high hope that they wouldbe able to continue their work in person and overcome the COVID-19coronavirus. With that, she concluded the Second Session and yieldedthe chairmanship to Ms Carola Veit, president of the State Parliamentof Hamburg, for the Third Session.Third Session 51THIRD SESSIONVision 2030: Migration andIntegration – Finding CommonSolutions Based on MutualInformation and Best Practicesas well asReports by the BSPC RapporteursandAddresses by observers and guests of the BSPCChaired by Ms Carola Veit, President of the State Parliament ofHamburg, Vice Chair of the BSPC WG, Former BSPC PresidentSession chairwoman Carola Veit said that the third session consistedof two parts: In the first part, they would discuss the topic of Migra-tion and Integration along with finding common solutions basedMs Carola Veit52 Third Sessionon mutual information and best practices. The BSPC WorkingGroup on Migration and Integration had completed its activitiesand published its final report on the BSPC website. Accordingly,she considered it excellent timing to discuss the issue based on thefinal report and its recommendations. In the second part, the BSPCRapporteurs would present their work. After that, the guests andobservers were traditionally invited to address the digital audienceof this conference.She introduced the speakers of the first part of the current session,beginning with Mr Hans Wallmark, MP Sweden and chairman ofthe BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration, followedby Mr Dmitry Demidenko, Deputy Head of the Main MigrationDepartment of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Fed-eration, and Ms Vladlena Avdeeva, representative of the NGO«Stellit» from St Petersburg.Ms Veit gave the floor to Mr Wallmark.Speech by Mr Hans Wallmark, MP Sweden andchairman of the BSPC Working Group on Migrationand IntegrationThe BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration had beenlaunched by the 26th BSPC in Hamburg on 5 September 2017. Forthe past three years the Working Group had had engaging discus-sions, listened to a number of presentations from experts andexchanged best practice examples with each other.Mr Wallmark explained that, during this time, a scientific analysishad been conducted by the Migration Institute of Finland, and thedialogue with the Governments on the subject had continued andbeen extended. The group had finalized two interim reports, a finalreport and several recommendations to their governments. Thegroup’s work had now come to an end, he announced.The aim of the working group had been to coordinate and cooper-ate, to the extent possible, while respecting the fact that migrationand integration were areas of national legal competence. He furtherpointed out that each and every member of the BSPC also had dif-ferent national priorities, traditions, migration realities and condi-Third Session 53Mr Hans Wallmarktions to further take into account when formulating individualapproaches.This had been one of the strengths of the Working Group; by shar-ing best practices and our different perspectives on the topic, theyhad been able to learn from each other.Mr Wallmark noted that this was also one of the main conclusionsstated in the final report - to continue to share best practices regard-ing, for example, the support of employment and integration of cer-tain groups of migrants. It was necessary to acknowledge the multi-faceted character of integration, including the labour market, lan-guage, social relationships and cultural accommodation. In all ofthese areas, he underlined, they could continue to learn from eachother.During the past years, the working group had met with severalactors working with migration and integration in the Baltic Searegion, many of them parts of civil society. Another recommenda-tion of the working group was therefore to acknowledge the impor-tance of civil society and NGO’s in facilitating integration. Hementioned sports associations as one example of organisations thatwere playing an important, unifying role in integration by helpingpeople to get introduced to the society, activated, and bringing newgroups of people together.54 Third SessionOther recommendations of the working group included striving formultinational cooperation and coordination in order to balanceundesirable developments such as labour shortages and labour sur-pluses and to acknowledge the concept of three-way integration inlegislation and policies.He returned to the aim of the working group, noting that they alsorecommended that the BSCP governments should – as best possiblegiven that it was required to take the individual conditions intoaccount – aspire to harmonise the practices concerning returns,processing of asylum applications, and standard reception facilitiesprovided for minor asylum applicants, while taking into accountboth national and human rights considerations.Mr Wallmark highlighted the working group’s insistence on theimportance of promoting good relations within society and to pro-mote diversity.Since the refugee crisis in 2015 and the shared – but various – chal-lenges it had created in the Baltic Sea region, he noted, the issue ofmigration and integration had been one of the key political topicsin almost all countries in the region.Now they were dealing with another crisis – COVID-19. Due tothe pandemic, the last meeting of the working group, scheduled onthe Åland Islands in April this year, had had to be cancelled. Theworking group had therefore not had the chance to discuss theeffects of the pandemic in detail but had still been able to take thepandemic into consideration when discussing and issuing recom-mendations.Being aware of a new reality due to the pandemic, Mr Wallmarkexplained, the Working Group was urging that the issue of migra-tion and integration continued to be given high priority. It was nec-essary to maintain and further develop the institutions and projectsset up in many countries in the Baltic Sea region as a result of thesharp increase in refugee numbers in 2015 and 2016 and which hadmade a decisive contribution to improved integration, in order tobetter respond to future needs in this area.It was furthermore required to maintain and extend the support forregional and local authorities in this task, because in the long term,they would be bearing the main responsibility in the context of sus-tainable integration and implementation of long-term integrationmeasures.Third Session 55And once again, it was necessary to continue to bring up and high-light successful examples of best practices in other Baltic Sea coun-tries, provided that they could be integrated into the respective legaland structural framework. Mr Wallmark stressed that this was whatthe BSPC could do best - learn from each other.He noted that one person that he had learned a lot from during thisworking group was Carola Veit, its vice chair. He thanked her forher your excellent work as vice chair, her dedication to the task ofthe working group and their fruitful cooperation. He also offeredhis gratitude to his fellow colleague, Mr Pyry Niemi, who had takenthe chairman’s seat in his absence.Furthermore, he gave many thanks to the parliaments that hadshown great hospitality when hosting the meetings of the workinggroup – Hamburg, Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein, Kaliningrad,Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany and – even though the lastmeeting had not taken place – the Åland Islands. Mr Wallmarkthanked all the experts attending the meetings as well as the secre-tariats of the Parliaments and the Secretary-General, who had sup-ported the group’s work with the highest levels of commitment.Last, but not least, he was grateful to all the members of the work-ing group for their high-quality contributions, the intense discus-sions and the harmonious atmosphere. This working group hadtruly shown that the BSPC was an arena for engaging discussionsand cooperation, even in an area that was rather politically sensitivein its nature.Mr Wallmark pointed out that this was the strength of the BSPC;that it was possible to have open arenas for dialogue despite differ-ences of opinion between members. He concluded by stating thathe was very proud to have had the honour of being the chair of thisworking group. He wished his audience a very successful confer-ence.Ms Veit thanked him for his excellent presentation of the three years oftheir work. She agreed that they could be proud to have dared face thistopic in a BSPC working group. Ms Veit emphasised that she had alsoenjoyed working with Mr Wallmark, Mr Niemi and all other membersin this policy field. She highlighted the sessions held in Hamburg in con-nection with the great integration seminar as well as the conversationswith the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum in Schwerin and thevery open discussions they had had in Kaliningrad.56 Third SessionShe moved on to inviting Mr Demidenko to speak about the Russianimmigration strategy and the situation in Russia concerning migrationand integration.Speech by Mr Dmitry Demidenko, Deputy Head ofthe Main Migration Department of the Ministry ofInternal Affairs of the Russian FederationMr Demidenko thanked his audience for the opportunity toexchange opinions about the important issues of migration. At themoment, the Russian Federation was pursuing an open migrationpolicy. It was based on weighing the interests of the individual andthe government. Each person who observed the law, respected thehistory, culture and many different ways of life of the Russian soci-ety was within their right to choose the place where they lived andthe kind of work they did. Every day, they were working to make itpossible for citizens to achieve this end. Important conditions oftheir openness were security and safeguarding their country againstdifferent threats.Issues of foreign nationals adapted to the legal, social and culturalconditions of Russia were important for realising migration policy.Naturally, he added, adaptation criteria had to be applied in a dif-ferentiated manner. Two years earlier, he noted as an example, theRussian Federation State Migration Concept had been adopted perthe Presidential Decree of 31 October 2018. The concept aimed atformulating clear rules for entry being granted, acquiring residencepermits and citizenships. This policy was placing special emphasison creating conditions as conducive as possible for the return oftheir compatriots to Russia as well. Most of this, Mr Demidenkonoted, could be done online, and a lot of services were included.Online visas were available as well. At this point in time, partici-pants of the State Programme for Assistance to Voluntary Resettle-ment of Compatriots Living Abroad wishing to relocate to Russiaand to go to priority resettlement areas had received material sup-port. The Russian side was also offering additional types of stimuluspayments. Over 1,000 people had relocated to Russia in the preced-ing year. They had nearly completed the transition to electronicinvitations to the Russian Federation, allowing electronic visas toenter the country to be issued. The mechanism set up had alreadybeen tested in the Leningrad and St Petersburg region. These meas-Third Session 57Mr Dmitry Demidenkoures were part of a plan implementing the concept in the periodfrom 2020 – 2022. The Russian side was looking at ways of how tomanage flows of migration.Against the background of the coronavirus in the present day, theywere considering how they could deal with criminality within theframework of illegal migration and attempts to use legal integrationchannels for unlawful entry. In order to work out commonapproaches to solving this problem, Mr Demidenko suggestedbeginning consultations on closer cooperation between the law-en-forcing agencies along the migration routes.He then spoke about how Russia was adapting to the situation ofCOVID-19. The country was a centre of migration flows. Everyyear, there were thousands of people passing through Russia, evenmillions. Most of these, because of the virus, had been stuck in Rus-sia, and they had had to determine how to cope with them. Whenthey had closed the borders, the vast majority of some 10 millionforeign nationals had been forced to stay in Russia without therespective documents allowing longer residence. The Russian sidehad been aware of the difficulties these foreigners had found them-selves in, and out of humanitarian concerns, the president of theRussian Federation had issued a decree giving all of these personsthe opportunity to regulate their legal status regarding the legalright of residence and right to work in Russia. Until 15 September,the expiry date of migration documents would be suspended, andno decision would be taken about annulling them. Restrictions hadalso been introduced on the control and surveillance activities in58 Third Sessionthe area of migration. No decisions on expulsion, deportation andthe undesirability of anyone’s stay or reduction of temporary stayperiods were taken during the pandemic. The territorial organisa-tion of the interior ministry of Russia had not reduced their work-load and continued to provide all citizens with their required docu-ments. Thanks to the implementation of a range of measures, over1.5 million people had received their documents, allowing them toextend their stay and legally apply for work permits. Particularattention was being paid to returning citizens to their countries oforigin while already in special temporary detention facilities. Meas-ures had also been taken to disallow the outbreak among foreignnationals of labour conflicts, protests and strikes. In this way, allsocial risks were levelled out, including an exacerbation of the crim-inal situation linked to the rise in crime among foreigners. Contraryto many predictions by many Russian and foreign experts, theircountry did not see a surge in illegal activity by migrants nor massprotests nor disturbances. Mr Demidenko added that it was worthmentioning that this had been achieved through close cooperationwith their colleagues and the active participation of civic societyorganisations.With that, he brought his presentation to a close.Ms Veit thanked Mr Demidenko for his contribution and introducedthe next speaker, Ms Vladlena Avdeeva. The chair noted that MsAvdeeva had already informed the Working Group on Migration andIntegration in Kaliningrad about her work in the preceding spring.Speech by Ms Vladlena Avdeeva, representative of theNGO «Stellit» from St PetersburgMs Avdeeva was glad she had been able to join the working groupin Kaliningrad, adding that it was a great honour for her to beinvited to the BSPC Conference. On this day, she would like to talkabout the role of online technologies in engaging with migrant chil-dren in trafficking in persons. First of all, she wished to define thephrase trafficking in persons for her presentation. According to themain international document, the Palermo Protocol, trafficking inpersons meant recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring orThird Session 59Ms Vladlena Avdeevareceipt of persons with the purpose of sexual, labour exploitation,exploitation for the purpose of forced begging and other forms ofexploitation. Russia was a country of destination for child victims oftrafficking from many Central Asian countries such as Uzbekistan,Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan but also from other countries such as Nige-ria, Congo and many others. St Petersburg in particular was a desti-nation for the migration of children from other regions of Russiaand also from other countries.The speaker noted that all children were vulnerable to trafficking inpersons, but some groups of children bore special risks of falling vic-tim to trafficking in persons. These included children who had lefttheir homes (or parental families) or formal care institutions; unac-companied minors, i.e., children travelling alone without supervisionby parents or guardians; children who did not attend school or kin-dergarten and were not registered in medical institutions, whichmade it more difficult to identify or track them; undocumented chil-dren as well as children from families of migrants from other regionsof the Russian Federation or other countries.Ms Avdeeva reiterated that she was concerned in her speech withonline technologies with engaging children in human trafficking.She pointed out that, according to the UNICEF report Children ina Digital World, every third Internet user was a child. This numberwas growing every day. Recruitment into trafficking in persons wastaking place on every online platform: in social networks, messen-gers, even in computer games where children were playing andcommunicating with other players, and also on DarkNet platforms.60 Third SessionThe COVID-19 pandemic had significantly increased the risk ofchild trafficking as children were spending more and more timeonline, studying or communicating with their peers over the Inter-net while experiencing much less control from their parents.Concerning the recruitment, geographic distances between thechild and the perpetrator were erased as the accessibility to chil-dren increased when communicating online. This created anopportunity for the perpetrator to choose a potential victimbecause there was a great amount of information about children –their age, photos and many other materials about themselves.Thus, the recruitment process was being accelerated since therewas no need for a face-to-face meeting with the child and all thecommunication could take place online. At the same time, therewas decreased control from the child’s family members whotended to use online communication less than their children.Moreover, the recruiters did not have to be strangers but couldalso be relatives of a child or people familiar to the child’s family,such as friends, acquaintances and fellow villagers. Ms Avdeevabelieved it worth noting that in many Central Asian countries inparticular, there were cultural features conducive to recruitment.Here, she mentioned a high level of trust in fellow countrymenand people familiar to the children.While talking about the prevention of the involvement of chil-dren into trafficking and providing assistance, Ms Avdeeva men-tioned the manual produced by her organisation, serving to assiststakeholders, with the title “Sexual abuse and exploitation of chil-dren: identification, assistance and prevention”. This manual, sheexplained, was not directly devoted to the problem of trafficking,yet many parts of the document were very helpful and useful forthe specialists working with migrant children and children at riskof being dragged into trafficking. When working with children –especially migrant children -, there was a number of difficulties. Inparticular, this concerned the identification of children’s personal-ity, age and place of residence. This could be further exacerbatedby the fact that many children from other countries, that had beenidentified by the specialists, did not speak Russian. They couldacquire the Russian language while living in a shelter or accom-modation centre. Other children from the same country leavingthe shelter could assist in translation. Ms Avdeeva conceded thatit was possible to invite a professional interpreter, but they shouldtake into account the risk of information distortion or leakage.This posed a threat to the protection of children and their per-sonal development. Very often, the facts of abuse and exploitationof children were revealed as it was necessary to report all of theseThird Session 61cases to law enforcement agencies. Ms Avdeeva stressed that theyshould remember that rehabilitation should be considered a prior-ity when working with a child at all stages.As her final statement, the speaker noted that online technologieswere playing a more important role in the work of non-governmen-tal and governmental organisations alike in the spheres related tothe migration of children and engaging with them. Online technol-ogies could be used in the process of identification of children, pro-viding assistance to them and monitoring the children’s conditionafter completion of the rehabilitation process. Moreover, the Inter-net providers should be involved in the prevention of children beingrecruited into trafficking and raising awareness about this pro-gramme.Ms Veit thanked Ms Avdeeva for her interesting presentation as well asall the other speakers. She opened the floor for debate. The first speakerwas Annika Jansson from Skåne.Speech by Ms Annika Annerby Jansson, PresidentSkåne Regional CouncilMs Jansson thanked and offered her compliments to Mr Wall-mark and the working group as well as Ms Veit for their excellentwork and a very useful survey of the conditions in the Baltic Searegion when it came to migration and integration. This was usefulalso for people like her who were working at the regional level. Ina very interesting part with political recommendations, she wishedto dwell a bit on the suggestion stressing the importance of com-piling more comprehensive data at the local level on social, eco-nomic, employment and popular trends in the BSPC regionwhich would assist immigration policy-making. Here, her sidehoped that the Baltic Sea region would benefit from the projectfunded by the EU Migration, Asylum and Integration Fund. Theoverall goal in their region was to create an evidence-based frame-work for regional policy-making on migrants and integration.One part of the region particularly touched upon the recommen-dations of the working group. The sub-goal was to build regionalindicators for migrant and refugee integration. This would be62 Third SessionMs Annika Annerby Janssondone by new and fine-tuned indicators of integration policy andoutcomes, by assessing and comparing regions and beyond as wellas by supporting evidence-based actions. Her side had called thisthe regional version of the well-known migrant and integrationpolicy (MIPEX). Ms Jansson noted that Mr Wallmark had men-tioned COVID-19. On that note, she shared some related infor-mation. As she and her colleagues had mentioned when they hadmet in Oslo, the cooperation and partnership project in Skånecalled Civic and Health Communication had been a model forinformation and communication with newly arrived migrants.The outbreak of COVID-19 had shown the importance of sys-tems of communication with citizens that normally do not takepart in the information flow from the authorities. This included,of course, large numbers of foreign-born men and women oftenliving in Sweden for some time but unfortunately not always intune with the language and recommendations of their society.This was also the case in some other parts of Sweden where somegroups were harder hit than others. In Skåne, they had had thegreat advantage of having a large number of established civic andhealth communication specialists that had been trained to provideinformation in a great number of languages. They had now beenable to switch over to educating not only new arrivals but also abroader and larger part of society. This meant that they had beenvery fortunate insofar as they did not see significant differences inhow the pandemic had affected their society with regard to ethnicorigin. Again, Ms Jansson reiterated her gratitude for the hardwork in the field of migration and integration.Third Session 63Ms Veit thanked her for her contribution. As there were no more requeststo be heard, the chairwoman moved on to the second part of this session,namely further reports by rapporteurs and working groups. Here, thenext speakers would be the Rapporteurs on Integrated Maritime Policy,Mr Jörgen Pettersson and Mr Jochen Schulte. Ms Veit underlined thatboth had been highly committed to the BSPC in this policy area formany years.Reports by the BSPC RapporteursSpeech by Mr Jörgen Pettersson,former BSPC president, MP ÅlandMr Pettersson noted it was a joy to see his colleagues and to listento them, but it was a pity that they could not touch each other. Hewas honoured to address his audience again in a matter he trulybelieved to be important for literally everything one appreciated inlife. Shipping and maritime policy made a difference. The verycomputer screens the attendees were now looking at in their officeshad arrived after spending weeks or even months on a ship at see,their phones had been transported via waterways, probably fromChina, and the cereals they’d had for breakfast had been transportin a huge ship, carefully placed in the cargo hold by skilled drivers.Likewise their shirts, trousers, socks, cars, bicycles and the televisionset they would likely watch before going to bed that night. He fur-ther pointed out that even the bed probably had also been trans-ported on a ship or ferry, as had been the fridge from which theytook their nightly sandwich.The speaker pointed out that the was saying all of this to make hislisteners understand the need for infrastructure in general and ship-ping in particular.Up to March of 2020, the shipping industry had been mainly devel-oping to plan. The cruise industry had been constantly increasing,and in Europe alone, there had been over two million people work-ing directly and indirectly in the maritime business. Within the Bal-tic Sea, great efforts had been made to attract the cruise ships to64 Third Sessiontheir ports and cities. The tourism industry had been clearly andstrongly future-orientated, affecting the maritime industry. Thecontribution to the total European GDP had been calculated to be150 billion euros. Mr Pettersson noted that, of course, there hadbeen challenges, such as gender equality, social safety, sustainability,greenhouse gas emissions and so on. At the end of the day, though,everyone realised that the shipping industry had been needed toprovide an increased population with food, clothes, products, lei-sure, transport etc.He went on to explain that the EU-controlled fleet had been largerthan ever but still smaller compared with the rest of the world. Thedemand for shipping services had been rising more than Europeanship-owners could provide which led to a business opportunity.Still, shipping had been one of the major employers in Europe andthe world. Besides the direct effects in the industry, there had beenindirect impacts like purchases of inputs from suppliers and suppli-er-owned supply chains. Furthermore, there had been inducedimpacts like consumer spending by those employed in the shippingindustry and its ship supply chains, like food and beverages, recrea-tion, clothing, household goods and so on. The total impact hadcreated an industry had impacted literally everything people wereconsuming in their daily lives.Then, Mr Pettersson said, the pandemic had come, and everyone wasforced to stay inside and stop consuming, which had huge impact onthe maritime industry – the infrastructure of literally all their dailylives. Except for tankers, the rest of the industry had suffered fromsignificant immediate losses. So far, it had been bad, but it was mostlikely far from over, he cautioned. The situation for ferries, car carri-ers, offshore service vessels and also generally cargo and containerswere expected to deteriorate, and the cruise industry as they hadknown it had disappeared. At the beginning of 2020, the world fleetof cruise ships, including 108 in order, had consisted of 474 shipsworth 170 billion dollars. The same fleet on this day was expected tobe worth 32 billion dollars less. The older units were expected to havefallen 90 per cent and more. It was mayhem in the cruise industrywhich, up to this year, had increased steadily every year.Behind all these figures, Mr Pettersson underlined, there were alsohuman beings unable to travel home to their families, being stuckon cruise ships for example, and of course all of those who no longerhad a job to attend. They were facing massive job losses due to thecrisis. The speaker said that he would have loved to have come upwith advice and recommendations on how shipping would survivethis, but for the moment, the uncertainty was larger than everythingThird Session 65Mr Jörgen Pettersson –BSPC Rapporteur on Integrated Maritime Policyelse. He was quoting Phil Hogan, the Commissioner for Trade inthe European Commission, saying that their world is reshaping andthat they had to adapt. In order to keep a European shipping indus-try, they had to make sure their ship owners would stay competitiveand ambitious in the future as well. That would require money andlegislation along with an acceptance of the change they were facing.Keeping in mind all the challenges that had rammed the industry,he noted that it was also important to remember the heroic deedsseafarers and ship owners had performed during the first months ofthe pandemic. Risking their own lives, they had continued to trans-port the goods the ones who had stayed in their homes had requiredevery day. They could continue to buy gas, eat bananas, watch tvand work in Teams because the supply chain had continued to workand deliver. That was something Mr Pettersson asked all of them inthe BSPC to acknowledge and praise and to realise the unbelievableefforts made by sailors unable to return home.In numbers, there was a fact that the passenger volumes haddecreased by 90 per cent and more while the trade volume had beendown by 20 and 30 per cent. Transport had been working so far, buttravel had disappeared which would in the long run also affect thetransportation of goods.It was far from over, Mr Pettersson stressed, but they still had tofocus on the future and make sure that they were ready the day theycould pronounce that they had beaten the virus. From ECSA, theEuropean Community Shipowners’ Association, he quoted the fol-66 Third Sessionlowing requests in order to grow. They had to focus on building aresilient and sustainable EU economy after the coronavirus, andthey should reform the World Trade Organisation in order to createglobal trade opportunities for businesses and in particular small andmedium-sized enterprises. They also needed to handle global chal-lenges such as climate change, sustainable development and the dig-ital transition. Improving the level playing field and protecting EUbusinesses and citizens was as vital as providing a well-functioningmaritime structure was necessary in order to go back to sort of anormal again.Finally, Mr Pettersson conceded that this report was nothing like itused to be. It was different, like the rest of the world. He was how-ever delighted having discussed a printed version together withtheir dear friend Georg Strätker from Mecklenburg-Vorpommernand his colleague in maritime policy, Jochen Schulte, and hopedthat this would become reality later. He thanked his audience forlistening and keeping up their enthusiasm, high hope and greatambitions for what was probably the best little ocean in the world,the Baltic Sea. He noted that certainly, things were bad at themoment. Yet he assured his colleagues that they were strong, andlife was not over, far from it. Therefore, they had to push themselvesto see the possibilities that would inevitably turn up when tis sort ofmiserable year would come to an end. He wished everyone goodluck in their work for a better Baltic Sea.Ms Veit thanked Mr Pettersson very much for his impressive presenta-tion, his work and for going so deeply into the issue and sharing whathe had found. She wished the next speaker, Mr Jochen Schulte, alsoBSPC Rapporteur on Integrated Maritime Policy, a happy birthday,thanking him for spending part of his birthday with the BSPC, andinvited him to speak.Third Session 67Speech by Mr Jochen Schulte, Former Chairman ofthe BSPC Working Group on Integrated MaritimePolicyMr Schulte said that it was an unusual situation for him, not tospend his birthday together with his colleagues at the Conferencebut rather not to be there in person. He was hoping that in the nextyear, things would work out the way they had been in the past andthey could meet each other in person. That made a differencewhether they were meeting eye to eye. Video streaming was a nicething, but if you could talk to each other directly, that could not bereplaced by virtual means. Still, he was very happy and delightedthat they did have the opportunity to meet despite the difficultiesthey were confronting and that he could be reporting, together withMr Pettersson, on what had happened in the field of integratedmaritime industry policy over the past twelve months.He noted that he would like to emphasise a couple of the pointsmade by Mr Pettersson. First, he mentioned that the attendeeswould be receiving the joint report written by the two rapporteursshortly. Some of the information was available there in moredetail.COVID-19, Mr Schulte stated, had led not only to a postpone-ment of many popular maritime events. As Mr Pettersson hadMr Jochen Schulte–BSPC Rapporteur on Integrated Maritime Policy68 Third Sessionalready drawn their attention to the issue, long-standing economicimpacts had affected the industry as well as important negotiationsin the area. Unfortunately, many thriving businesses had beenseverely hit in the course of the coronavirus pandemic by supplyand demand disruptions. The blue economy, the maritime econ-omy was no exception. This applied not only to the ship owners’and the shipyards’ industry but also everything around it: suppliercompanies in all regions involved as well as the tourism industry. Intotal, they had to see that, for the time being, for cruise ships, ship-yards and for the supply industry, the ongoing financial year andpresumably the beginning of the next year would turn out to be avery difficult situation. All of them had experienced the fact that thedemand for new ships of any kind would be very low. So, it was allthe more important for all of them, in the regions they were work-ing and living in, that this industry – which was very important fornorthern Europe – be maintained. They shouldn’t forget that build-ing contracts for ships were one of the strengths of Europe. Modernpropulsion engines could help find a way out of the crisis. MrSchulte underlined that this applied to the economic crisis as well asthe environmental challenge.As part of the COVID-19 recovery package, the European Mari-time Recovery Fund had been increased by 500 million euros. Themoney was supposed to enhance investment contributing to theNew Green Deal, including Farm to Fork and the 2030 BiodiversityStrategies. Even more, in March and April 2020, the EU hadadopted an emergency aid for fisheries and aquaculture, in a tempo-rary framework for state aid.There was another point, Mr Schulte added, a topic that the BSPChad been dealing with for a very long time and that they have hadsome disputes over. He specified that he was talking about theNordstream 2 Baltic Sea pipeline. He didn’t wish to assess the vari-ous positions regarding the pipeline or the relevant arguments aseach of the people putting these forth had the right to be listenedto. Nonetheless, he wanted to address a fundamental issue. MrSchulte was talking about infrastructure and energy as such. Therewere some points that had to be mentioned. New EU rules and pro-ceedings had promoted competition on the gas market. Owners ofgas infrastructure now had to allow third parties access to theirpipelines. This included those connecting member states of theEuropean Union to external countries. The interregional groupNordstream 2 within the European Committee of the Regions –which he had also been a member of – had ceased to exist. At thesame time, the construction work on the pipeline had stopped inDecember 2019. Since 15 June 2020, the US had implemented aThird Session 69censure act against Nordstream 2, putting into place sanctionsagainst European companies involved in the pipeline’s constructionand operation. At this point, 24 member states of the EuropeanUnion had issued a démarche to the US government, expressingthat extraterritorial sanctions imposed by third countries wereagainst international law.Mr Schulte clarified that he was not concerned with assessing thepipeline or energy policies. Instead, his concern lay with the sover-eignty of the European Union and all Baltic Sea states. Greening ofenergy supply was underway, he noted. In northern Germany, LNGterminals were being built. One of these was built in Rostock,funded by the EU. Climate initiatives, he pointed out, were havingan effect on supply and demand of natural gas.Another point they had been dealing with in the past time andagain were the greenhouse gas emissions. Since 2020, maritime traf-fic had increasingly banked on less GHG-intensive fuels. A fulldecarbonisation would have to be achieved in the future. Accordingto an EU report, the move towards climate neutrality had started.The European Union which was responsible for 10 per cent ofglobal GHG emission had reduced these by some 20 per cent in-be-tween 1990 and 2018. The potential of the shipping industry washuge as it played an important role, but it needed to be used in aconsistent manner so that the increasing emissions in this industrycould be brought down further.Since 2019, progress could be noted in this field, on the basis of theEuropean Union regulation on monitoring and verification sys-tems. Shipping industries needed to report to the EU Commissionand to the flag states via the THETIS system about their emissionstatus. This was true of all ships that would have travelled within theEuropean Economic Area.In addition to that, the IMO initial strategy on the reduction ofGHG emissions was reflecting the endeavour of the EuropeanUnion to bring down the GHG emissions by 40 per cent by 2030.In view of the long lifecycles of ships, these activities had to be pre-pared and kept in mind during these developments.Mr Schulte hoped that together with his colleague Mr Pettersson,he had managed to give his audience a brief overview that was none-theless sufficient for them for their purpose at hand regarding thecurrent developments in the field of integrated maritime industryand policy. He wished all of them a successful working day, not onlyfor this day but for the rest of the year in general.70 Third SessionMs Veit thanked him for providing the overview of the activities. Sheannounced that Ms Beate Schlupp, first vice president of the state par-liament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, would be the next speaker,informing the Conference about the activities of the HELCOM. Shewould also provide a report on sustainable tourism, on behalf of thepresident of the same state parliament, Ms Birgit Hesse.Speech by Ms Beate Schlupp, BSPC Observer at theHELCOMMs Schlupp noted that the first report had come as a bit of a surpriseto her as she hadn’t been expecting it. Regarding HELCOM, sheexplained that she had continued her colleague’s work as an observerat the HELCOM as well as possible within the framework of theCOVID-19 pandemic. This had been a challenge, but she very muchwished to thank the HELCOM for their continuous and hard workthat had been carried out, particularly the transparency of the com-mission in terms of its online presence. To begin with, Ms Schluppsaid she would like to share a few personal impressions. In her newrole as a rapporteur, she had had to deal with the role of the HEL-COM as well as the restrictions imposed by the mandate. This rolewas by nature limited to acting as the BSPC’s eyes and ears at themeetings of the executive – but not as the voice of the constituents,which they were all accustomed to as parliamentarians. This, she con-ceded, had required some adaptation but it had also made her thinkabout the ways in which they could make the most of their observerstatus and not only act as silent guests.Here, Ms Schlupp chose to quote Ms Svenja Schulte, minister ofthe environment of Germany, who spoke about partnership. Thatwas something she felt needed to be discussed intensely. In thisregard, she mentioned point 24 of the BSPC’s preceding year’s res-olution and drew attention to point 10 of the current year’s draftresolution. In those, the BSPC was calling upon the governments ofthe Baltic Sea region to “support that the HELCOM chairmanship”was pursuing efforts “to intensify efforts to address the problem ofmunition dumps in the sea”. She noted that they had discussed thisintensely earlier. The German team which had assumed the HEL-COM chairmanship in July was advocating exchanges of expertise,information sharing and technology tests to gain a better overviewof the scale of munition compounds and their potential impacts.Third Session 71Ms Beate SchluppThe ultimate goal remained ensuring the environmentally soundremoval of the munitions from the Baltic Sea.In the framework of the Baltic Sea Action Plan update process, theHELCOM expert group on environmental risks of hazardous sub-merged objects (SUBMERGED) had submitted a correspondingproposal for new action. It aimed at the development of best environ-mental practices and control of threats posed by munitions, wrecksand other hazardous submerged objects in the Baltic Sea. On this dayand the following, the BSAP UP workshop on hazardous substanceswould discuss and evaluate this proposal among others. The BSPCshould keep a close eye on these developments, bearing in mind thatthe 41st HELCOM Ministerial Meeting had stressed that the BSAPupdate process should be participatory and inclusive.As far as the update of the Baltic Sea Action Plan was concerned,Ms Schlupp pointed out that 2019 – 2020 had marked a departurefrom plans to correct actions. The work her had mainly concen-trated on two aspects: review and reassessment of current actionsand considerations of proposals for new ones. The HELCOM wasworking on a tight schedule despite the pandemic-induced limita-tions. She expected the updated Baltic Sea Action Plan to be adoptedat the following year at the 42nd Ministerial Meeting.With the BSAP update high on the HELCOM’s agenda, the speakerwent on, regular work on pressing issues had to continue regardless.Their goal was to improve the safety of navigation and protection ofthe marine environment, given the increase of Baltic Sea traffic, the72 Third Sessioncurrent year’s ministerial meeting had adopted recommendationson deep-sea pilotage and enhancing the use of pilots in Route T andSound. Moreover, it had revised the recommendation on the pro-tection of harbour porpoises in view of increased human activitiesand the critical status of harbour porpoise populations.At the same time, the HELCOM was actively working to increaseits outreach and contribute to global commitments. State represent-atives had agreed to use the HELCOM platform to coordinate theregional implementation of ocean-related SDGs in the Baltic Sea.In addition, the HELCOM had undertaken new voluntary com-mitments for the 2020 UN Ocean Conference – as they had donein 2017 as well. These ranged from integrating ocean-related SDGsinto the updated Baltic Sea Action Plan, contributing to the UNDecade of Science for Sustainable Development through the devel-opment of the HELCOM Science Agenda to sharing experiencewithin the framework of the UN Regional Seas Programme.Less than two months earlier, the German team had assumed thechairmanship of the HELCOM and had presented six strategic pri-orities covering such issue areas as: updating and implementing theBaltic Sea Action Plan; strengthening marine biodiversity; the prob-lem of dumped munitions and finally understanding and respond-ing to climate change. The outlined priorities, Ms Schlupp pointedout, showed potential synergies with the newly established BSPCWorking Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity and couldserve as a solid basis for further cooperation between the BSPC andthe HELCOM.Overall, Ms Schlupp concluded this part of her speech, it had beenan intense year, not only because of COVID-19. Much work stillhad to be done in order to achieve their goal of having a healthy andsafe Baltic Sea.Third Session 73Ms Beate Schlupp on behalf of Ms Birgit Hesse, BSPCRapporteur on Sustainable Tourism, President of theState Parliament of Mecklenburg VorpommernMs Schlupp began the speech on behalf of the BSPC Rapporteuron Sustainable Tourism by noting that the unusual format of thisyear’s first digital Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference was reflectingthe extraordinary circumstances caused by the global COVID-19pandemic. It had brought the world to a standstill. The tourismindustry had been among those economic sectors hit the hardest.Ms Schlupp noted that the BSPC had been forced to cancel theirmeeting in Vilnius. Similarly, hundreds of millions of people aroundthe world who had had to cancel their international business andvacation trips in recent months. The United Nations World Tour-ism Organisation had registered a 58 % decrease in internationalarrivals in Europe from January to May, and that included the firstshutdown-free months. In the Baltic Sea region, Denmark, Iceland,Germany, Estonia and Latvia had experienced the highest losseswith an almost 60 % decline in international tourist arrivals com-pared to the previous year. The tourism industry was one of themajor sectors in the Baltic Sea region, contributing between 8.6 %and 1.2 % to the states’ total GDP and between 15.7 % and 3.4 %of total employment. The economic impact of the crisis remaineduncertain, yet the forecasts were not encouraging.Ms Schlupp moved to a cautiously optimistic note: With the care-ful lifting of travel restrictions and easing of curfews in June andJuly, tourism in Europe was slowly resuming. It was expected thatdomestic tourism would recover faster – and her side had experi-enced this trend first-hand in the federal state of Mecklenburg-Vor-pommern. Ms Hesse was president of their regional tourist board,and Ms Schlupp quoted her directly by providing a brief overview.Even under the current circumstances, seasonal tourism demand inMecklenburg-Vorpommern was high, and accommodation capaci-ties were well filled. On average, during the summer vacation time,they had registered around 400,000 overnight arrivals on a dailybasis. According to a poll conducted by the Mecklenburg-Vorpom-mern tourist board, accommodation facilities were offering 85 % oftheir capacities. The absence of day-trippers, though, was noticea-ble. On the one hand, it allowed for better implementation of socialdistancing regulations but led on the other hand to revenue losses inretail, restaurants and cultural institutions. What was particularastounding, Ms Schlupp noted in Ms Hesse’s name, was that untilnow, there had been no acute infection outbreak in Mecklen-burg-Vorpommern despite the high tourism intensity. The local74 Third Sessiontourism industry had – also thanks to the safety standards jointlydeveloped by the tourism board and its partners – prepared itselfwell for the vacation season in times of the pandemic and had takenthe necessary steps to ensure safe tourism.With that, Ms Schlupp returned to her own report, noting that therecovery of domestic tourism was good news but unfortunately didnot affect everyone equally. There was significant variation in theshares of domestic as compared to inbound expenditures from tour-ism across the Baltic Sea states, with figures ranging from 85 % inGermany to 12 % in Estonia.Yet the pandemic’s impact on tourism was not only of financialnature, Ms Schlupp clarified. Lockdowns and border shutdownswere also preventing inter-personal contacts and communicationwhich were essential to fostering understanding, promoting trustand building bridges between people and peoples. Under the cur-rent circumstances, working together rather than in isolation oncommon solutions for the future was becoming more importantthan ever. Beyond immediate crisis responses to supporting theindustry and preparing recovery plans, it was incumbent on themto think about the long-term implications and further pave the wayfor the structural transformation of tourism. The UNWTO, theOrganisation for Economic Cooperation and Development as wellas the EU had called upon states to use the crisis to step up effortsin the direction of sustainable tourism and mobility. Thus, in itstourism and transport package from May, the European Commis-sion had set the long-term goal of making tourism more resilientand sustainable. In line with the European Green Deal, the strategywas aimed at developing sustainable transport and tourist accom-modations, smart management of tourism flows as well as sustaina-bility skills among tourist professionals.Special emphasis had to be placed on the digital transition, MsSchlupp underlined. On this matter, she drew her audience’s atten-tion to the first trend report on digital tourism in the Baltic Searegion prepared by the Baltic Sea Tourism Centre in 2019. Thepublication showed, for example, that both tourism providers andconsumers in the region were increasingly open to digital tools andproducts. Additionally, in its report of the preceding month,Routes4U, a joint project between the Council of Europe and theEuropean Union, had proposed that the focus on digital technologyand innovation could be one of the building blocks of the Baltic SeaRegion brand. Indeed, Ms Schlupp noted, there were considerablediscrepancies in digital tourism trends within the region. The Nor-dic states were spearheading the development. Digitalisation wasThird Session 75also a horizontal and overarching theme within policy area tourismof the revised EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea region which had beenforwarded to the European Commission in July. It noted that digi-tal technologies could contribute to sustainable tourism, for exam-ple through improving the visibility of remote and rural areas inorder to redirect tourist flows and minimise overcrowding. IN addi-tion, controlling and monitoring tourism flows could help reducenegative impacts on the environment. Moreover, digitalisationmight serve to raise awareness and promote sustainable consump-tion. The digital transformation in itself should of course be sustain-able and environmentally friendly in line with the Green IT con-cept.Ms Schlupp further mentioned that green tourism had been identi-fied as one of the priorities of the Lithuanian presidency of theCouncil of the Baltic Sea States in 2020 – 2021. She congratulatedthe country on assuming the presidency and wished their organisa-tion team all the best in their preparation of the 13th Baltic SeaTourism Forum in Palanga in November 2020. Ms Schlupp washoping that the forum could be helped as planned.In conclusion of her speech, Ms Schlupp stated that the pandemichad dealt a serious blow to the tourism sector. Upholding the bal-ance between keeping people safe and minimising pressures ontravel and tourism could be challenging. Yet the crisis could also beused to reflect on the future of the tourist sector with a view to itsgreen transition, sustainability and digital transformation. Withthat, she brought her presentation to a close.Chairwoman Veit thanked Ms Schlupp for her contributions as well asthe other rapporteurs for providing reports in this year of the COVID-19 pandemic. She opened the floor for comments or questions, yieldingfirst to Mr Simon Påvals, Member of the Åland Parliament and then toMr Asaf Hajiyev.76 Third SessionMr Simon PåvalsSpeech by Mr Simon Påvals, MP ÅlandThe speaker offered a brief invitation on the subject of cleaning theBaltic Sea from sea-dumped ammunitions. He presented Åland as ameeting place for the Russian, German and other delegations con-cerning the future cleaning of the Baltic Sea from sea-dumpedammunitions. On the behalf of his island, he was reaching out thehand for future cooperation, noting that Åland was known as theisland of peace. Moreover, Finland had been in 2019 ranked as #12of the greatest countries to have meetings in, and in that regard, heviewed his home as the perfect meeting spot.Ms Veit thanked him very much and moved on to Mr Hajiyev, the Sec-retary General of the PABSEC.Third Session 77Addresses by observers and guestsof the BSPCSpeech by Mr Asaf Hajiyev, Secretary General of thePABSECMr Hajiyev thanked the president, secretary-general, the membersof parliaments for the high honour and privilege to address theBSPC on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black SeaCooperation (PABSEC). He wished his Baltic colleagues good workfor their general assembly.Noting that the pandemic had reduced the frame of their coopera-tion, he was grateful for IT enabling them to continue their activity.He informed his audience that during the last two months, thePABSEC had organised three meetings of committees and also thegeneral assembly which had taken place at the beginning of August2020. Three further committee meetings were planned for Septem-ber and October. A topic in all of these discussions would be thecoronavirus pandemic, its economic, political and social aspects. Itwas their hope that in early December, on 9/10 December, the gen-eral assembly would take place in Athens, Greece. Mr Hajiyev alsooffered his hope that a representative from the BSPC could partici-pate in the PABSEC meeting.Mr Asaf Hajiyev78 Third SessionThe speaker said that the relation with the Black Sea ParliamentaryConference was very good, and he was glad it had been mentionedin the intervention of the president of the BSPC, Mr Valerijus Sim-ulik. Mr Hajiyev hoped that their joint meeting which had beenplanned for Stockholm would take place physically, although nonecould know when that would be.He went on to say a few words about the damages the coronavirushad wrought because today, the damage to the world economy wasestimated to be more than 2.5 trillion US dollars. This sum, heunderlined, was unimaginably huge. Therefore, it was vital to payattention to local business. It was very important in this period. Avery good example could be Turkey, Mr Hajiyev said, because theywere developing their local business as well as e-trade and alsoe-business. As a parliamentary assembly, he thought it was theirobligation to pursue this.Once again, Mr Hajiyev wished the Baltic parliamentarians goodwork and hoped that their good relations would continue. To all ofhis listeners, he wished success and very importantly good health.He thanked them for the invitation to participate in this meeting.Ms Veit offered her gratitude to Mr Hajiyev. Next, it was her greatpleasure to introduce as another of their close partner organisations, MrMieczysław Struk, president of the Baltic Sea States Subregional Coop-eration (BSSSC) and the Marshal of the Pomorskie Voivodeship.Third Session 79Mr Mieczysław StrukSpeech by Mr Mieczysław Struk, President of the Bal-tic Sea States Subregional Cooperation (BSSSC) andthe Marshal of the Pomorskie VoivodeshipMr Struk thanked President Simulik for inviting the BSSSC toaddress this honourable forum. He considered it a pleasure to attendas a partner organisation representing local and regional authoritiesas well as their youth. He explained that the BSSSC was a platformto voice the interests of regions, debate and lobby for issues mosturgent to them as well as to support and initiate projects and bot-tom-up cooperations. It also organises its activities against the back-ground of the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region,Sustainable Development Goals, Baltic 2030 Action Plan, theHELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, Northern Dimension, the Euro-pean Green Deal and the EU Digital Agenda, to mention just thekey policies and visions.Having a nearly 30-year history behind them, they could see howmuch had already been done for this part of Europe and its citizens.But the current challenges – climate crises, ageing societies, digital-isation and all sorts of cyber threats – were decreasing trust in tradi-tional democratic mechanisms, to mention just a few, demanded aneven more active and concerted approach. When adding the experi-ence from COVID-19, it became clear that they had to rethink andremodel many areas of life to prepare better for what would come80 Third Sessionnext. They had to act together to stop society disruption, the spreadof fake news, the increase of populism and nationalism as well as theloss of trust in science and logic.To address those challenges successfully, they had to follow goodgovernance principles: the rule of law, transparency, accountabilityand consensus. Solidarity was required in all aspects: with those inneed, including migrants, with future generations and with nature.Mr Struk underlined that this what they stood for in the BSSSC.As the Pomorskie chairmanship in the BSSSC, they had opened thecurrent year’s work with a seminar on democracy, showing howimportant it was for all the aspects of life to thrive. They had dis-cussed the need to redefine the democratic model, showing newforms of deliberative democracy, like citizens’ assemblies involvingall levels of citizenship. In this respect, they were looking forward tothe Conference on the Future of Europe but also to initiatives like“Citizens take over Europe”.Mr Struk went on to say that they were building on the past devel-opments and thus were taking care to involve the youth in all theiractivities and to provide cooperation and discussion platforms forthem. He noted that examples were plentiful, including the BSSSCSpring Youth Event. In that respect, he offered his gratitude to theBSPC director for joining them. Further activities encompassed theplanned BSSSC Autumn Youth Event, involvement in the BalticSea Youth Camp and the Baltic Sea Youth Platform, where theywere happy to be partners of the CBSS. But his organisation wasalso proud that both initiatives had originated among the BSSSCYouth.He noted that their biggest event would be the annual conferenceto be held this year in virtual form from 29 September – 1 October.There, they would discuss developments within the European Strat-egy for the Baltic Sea Region and the Strategy for the West NorthRegions of the Russian Federation. They would look into the newTerritorial Agenda and showcase the best examples of Interreg coop-eration. On this basis, they would be preparing ideas for future ini-tiatives. This would be done in the areas of: Culture, creativity andBaltic Identity, Plastic Free Baltic, Intelligent Transport and Mobil-ity, Energy Islands and Circular Economy. Regarding Interreg, MrStruk highlighted the 30th anniversary of this great financial instru-ment to be celebrated in October of the current year. The BSSSCappreciated having this important financial support, allowing themto implement ambitious and necessary solutions. In this respect,they were looking forward to the Youth Manifesto on EuropeanThird Session 81Territorial Cooperation which would be presented at that event.They were proud to be part of the discussions.In his conclusion, Mr Struk conveyed a very strong plea from theregional and local level to the legislative on the macroregional levelbut also within the nations to involve both them and the youth inthe decision-making processes. Only by truly acting together couldthey find success. Mr Struk further invited his audience to partici-pate in their annual online conference and to follow their otheractivities.Ms Veit noted her gratitude for his contribution. She went on to offerher thanks to everyone for taking part in this session, noting that it hadbeen a pleasure for her to see everyone’s faces after such a long time. Shehoped that they would be able to come together soon and have debatesin person. With that, Ms Veit closed the third session and handed thefloor back to President Simulik for the closing of the 29th BSPC Confer-ence.82 ClosingCLOSINGThe Digital 29th Baltic SeaParliamentary ConferenceChaired by BSPC President Valerijus SimulikPresident Simulik thanked Ms Veit in turn. He said that the wasvery grateful for the wonderful chairman ship of all these sessionsand offered his congratulations to Mr Niemi, Ms Pivnenko and MsVeit. Beginning the closing session of the digital 29th Baltic Sea Par-liamentary Conference, he pointed out that they were all invited toadopt the Resolution of the 29th annual conference. He remindedhis audience that they could only approve it by unanimous vote.However, there was one matter he liked to address first: During thedigital Standing Committee meeting in June, they had welcomedan in-depth analysis and a scope of work for the new BSPC Work-ing Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity. A lot of prepara-tory work had been done before the outbreak of the COVID-19pandemic. He was very grateful to Ms Tenfjord-Toftby, the desig-nated chair of the working group, and the Swedish delegation fortheir effort and commitment. Mr Simulik wished Ms Ten-fjord-Toftby great success in her work and was confident that goodresults would be achieved.The president asked the Secretary General of the BSPC, Bodo Bahrif there were any administrative issues that had to be resolved. Tothat, Mr Bahr clarified that what remained was a decision on theresolution, after which the work of the working group under thechairmanship of Ms Tenfjord-Toftby could begin.Mr Simulik turned to the resolution of the 29th Baltic Sea Parlia-mentary Conference. The president thanked all the delegations fortheir constructive proposals and their hard work in the digital Draft-ing Committee meeting. As always, it had not been an easy feat tofind agreement, but they had managed it at the end of the day. Pres-ident Simulik underlined that that had been worth it. He thankedeveryone for their mutual tolerance and ability to compromise, not-ing this pride that they had succeeded. Moreover, they had proventhat even online, they were able to bring such a difficult resolutionto an excellent result. He further mentioned that the resolution hadfound the unanimous agreement of the Drafting Committee.Closing 83Mr Bodo BahrNow it was up to the Conference to decide whether they wished toadopt it in its current form.The Conference adopted the Resolution of the 29th Baltic Sea Par-liamentary Conference.Mr Simulik thanked everyone, for their tolerance and for achievingconsensus. He hoped that the contents of the resolution would beacted upon by their governments, ministers and institutions aroundthe Baltic Sea.He preceded to the moment of passing the baton on to the nextteam and they all went back to a different kind of work. Mr Simu-lik further noted that they were both glad and sad – sad for the col-leagues that would be leaving the BSPC, and he thanked them.In particular, he thanked Dr Marika Laizane-Jurkane for her greatcommitment to the BSPC. As Secretary-General of the BalticAssembly, she had worked with the BSPC for 19 years in the closestand most committed way and had coordinated the cooperation andinput of the Baltic Assembly and the Baltic parliaments. She hadensured that comprehensive and continuing contributions of theBaltic States had been incorporated into the work of the BSPC. Inthe overall structure of the BSPC work, she had been one of thesupporting pillars for many years, conscientiously contributingmany years of experience. The president pointed out that as of 28August, Dr Laizane-Jurkane would take on a new challenging taskas Chancellor of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lat-84 Closingvia. On the BSPC’s behalf, he thanked her for many years of coop-eration on the basis of trust and for her commitment to the BSPC.He wished her every success in her new task and future life as wellas continuing success.Mr Simulik gave her the floor for final remarks.Dr Laizane-Jurkane thanked everybody for the years of coopera-tion. As they were always saying, she noted, they were members ofa very safe Baltic Sea boat. She wished them every success in imple-menting cooperation initiatives. She assured her audience that theywould all be seeing each other again as they were living in a digitaltime and digital network. None of them were leaving but ratherstaying in very strong communication. Dr Laizane-Jurkane under-lined that she would be following the future work of the BSPC.The president thanked her again, reiterating his wishes of success to her.He went on to state that it had been a true honour for him to the BSPCpresident, although the time of the presidency had been, in manyrespects, unprecedented. Mr Simulik thanked all of their colleagues fortheir friendly cooperation, mutual understanding and for their respectas well as the good work they had been able to do together.With a great deal of pleasure, he said, he would be passing the batonto the incoming president, Mr Pyry Niemi from the Swedish Parlia-ment.Ms Dr Marika Laizane-JurkaneClosing 85Speech by Mr Pyry Niemi, MP Sweden, IncomingBSPC President 2020 – 2021Mr Niemi thanked Mr Simulik and began by congratulating theirLithuanian friends for having successfully leading the BSPC duringthe last year, despite the unusual circumstances with the pandemicaffecting all of them in their countries and their parliaments. It hadbeen a very special year, he underlined, and it was in times like thesewhen they were facing common challenges that they were remindedof the importance of their strong regional and parliamentary coop-eration. He was therefore very happy and proud that they had nowhad their first digital Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference.Addressing Mr Simulik, he thanked him for his commitment to theBSPC and for the professional way that he had led their coopera-tion. Everyone had been looking forward to visiting him in hisbeautiful country and to meeting in the Seimas for the conference,and they all hoped very much that they would get another chanceto attend a Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Lithuania in thevery near future.Mr Niemi went on to thank everyone involved in the programme.On behalf of all of them, it had been most interesting and absorb-ing, adding that he believed all of them had learnt a lot. He furtherstated his gratitude to the secretariat, the Lithuanian team, the tech-nicians and the interpreters, congratulating them on the successfulwork they had accomplished.Mr Pyry Niemi86 ClosingOn this day, Sweden would take over the presidency of the BSPC.It was a great honour and pleasure for Mr Niemi to take over aspresident and to invite all his listeners to the 30th Baltic Sea Parlia-mentary Conference in Stockholm in August 2021. He hoped thatthey could not only enjoy the beautiful views of the water surround-ing the parliament building - where the Baltic Sea met the LakeMälaren – but also the pleasure of seeing each other face to faceagain.During their presidency, Sweden would like to focus on sustainabledemocracy and how to face common challenges, with COVID-19as one example. The spread of the virus and the fight against thepandemic was one of many reasons to safeguard the strong cross-bor-der cooperation that constituted the BSPC as well as the democraticvalues on which it was based. Furthermore, Mr Niemi pointed out,COVID-19 also constituted an area where BSPC members couldexchange best practices and follow up different strategies that wereput to use in order to combat the pandemic, with the aim of learn-ing from each other.In light of the Swedish parliament’s commemoration and celebra-tion of 100 years of democracy, the Swedish presidency of the BSPCwould like to highlight the importance of democracy. Democraticinstitutions, strong cooperation as well as environmental and socialsustainability were cornerstones of the work of the BSPC. Preserv-ing these was the clear priority of the Swedish presidency, he under-lined.During the upcoming year, they would like to focus on four areasrelated to achieving sustainable democracy. First of all, he said thatthey would concentrate their common work on peaceful and relia-ble neighbourliness and intense cooperation built on participationand trust in the democratic system. Mr Niemi explained that theywere seeing various new forms of political engagement aroundthem, and Sweden would therefore focus specifically on youth andthe role of civil society.His side further believed that it was important to view democracyin a changing media landscape. Digitalization, disinformation andfake news had changed the playing field, and it was now moreimportant than ever to protect free media and freedom of speech.The world was changing, he noted, and their region was changing.Another area of their concern was how to best adapt to a newdemography in the Baltic Sea region and what challenges thisimplied for their welfare model. Questions of interest were howClosing 87urbanisation, an aging population and labour shortages were con-nected to trust in public institutions, social and regional equalityand young people’s opportunities. The resulting question for theBaltic Sea region was how they could tackle these challenges in asustainable and democratic way.Finally, the Swedish presidency wished to focus on an aera wherethe BSPC had a long tradition of commitment and engagement:the environment. This was a subject that had been discussed at thisconference, and Mr Niemi said that he was very glad that they couldcontinue to focus on the environment during the upcoming twoyears with the new working group on climate change and biodiver-sity. His colleague, Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby, had agreed to chairthe working group, and Mr Niemi wished her and the workinggroup the best of luck with their vital task.In 2021, he said, the BSPC would celebrate 30 years of parliamen-tary cooperation which would be commemorated at the conferencein Stockholm. They believed that the BSPC as a forum for politicaldialogue, for exchange of best practices and ideas and as an actor forstrong regional cooperation should be celebrated, and they lookedforward to doing so with all of his listeners.Mr Niemi once again offered his gratitude to Mr Simulik, his teamas well as to Bodo Bahr for organising this year’s conference. Hepromised that he would roll up his sleeve and do his very best aspresident and was sure that the Swedish delegation would do alltheir best to make the upcoming year a very good year for BSPCcooperation. He concluded by saying that he looked forward to see-ing all of them in Stockholm.88 ClosingClosing Words by Mr Valerijus Simulik, President ofthe 29th BSPCMr Simulik said that they were reaching the end of their digital con-ference. As such, he thanked everyone for the work that had beenput into the conference. He noted that in their debate, a number ofissues had cropped out on which he hoped that they could beaddressed in Sweden, namely the situation in Belarus, a fund toclean the seabed of the Baltic Sea and a no-nuclear zone around theBaltic Sea. These were topics that could be talked about in thefuture. He reiterated his gratitude to everyone who had workedhard so they could hold this conference, the professional conferenceteam, the interpreters and finally all of the delegates for the timethey had put into attending and contributing to the success of thisconference. He particularly thanked Renata Godfrey and BodoBahr.He looked forward to seeing everyone in a year in Stockholm. Withthat, he declared the 29th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conferenceclosed.List of Participants 89List of ParticipantsRepublic of Lithuania1. On behalf of H. E. Mr. Gitanas Nausėda, President of theRepublic of Lithuania,Mr. Sigitas Mitkus, Adviser to the President on ForeignPolicy Issues2. Speaker of the SeimasH.E. Mr. Viktoras PranckietisMember Parliaments andParliamentary OrganizationsÅland Parliament3. W ille Valve, Member of the Åland Parliament4. Jessy Eckerman, Member of the Åland Parliament5. Liz Mattsson, Member of the Åland Parliament6. Simon Påvals, Member of the Åland Parliament7. Jesper Josefsson, Member of the Åland Parliament8. Jörgen Pettersson, Member of the Åland Parliament9. Emma Dahlén, Secretary of the Delegation of the ÅlandParliamentBaltic Assembly10. Prof Aadu Must, President of the Baltic Assembly11. Prof Jānis Vucāns, Vice President of the Baltic Assembly12. I nese Voika, Member of the Presidium of the Baltic Assembly13. A tis Lejiņš, Vice Chair of the BA Economics, Energy andInnovation Committee14. D r Marika Laizane-Jurkane, Secretary General of the BalticAssembly15. A gnija Antanoviča, Senior Consultant, Baltic Assembly Secre-tariatBremen16. S ülmez Dogan, Vice President of the State Parliament of Bre-men17. Antje Grotheer, Vice President of the State Parliament ofBremen90 List of ParticipantsDenmark18. C hristian Juhl, Member of the Danish Parliament19. J oan Ólavsdóttir, Secretary of the Delegation of the DanishParliamentEstonia20. E rki Savisaar, Member of the Estonian Parliament21. U rve Tiidus, Member of the Estonian Parliament22. R egina Sepp, Secretary of the Delegation of the EstonianParliamentEuropean Parliament23. A ušra Rakštelytė, Secretary of the Delegation of the EuropeanParliamentFinland24. S akari Puisto, Member of the Parliament of Finland25. M ika Laaksonen, Secretary of the Delegation of the Parliamentof FinlandGermany26. J ohannes Schraps, Member of the German Bundestag27. G yde Jensen, Member of the German Bundestag28. E nrico Komning, Member of the German Bundestag29. P etra Nicolaisen, Member of the German Bundestag30. P eter Stein, Member of the German Bundestag31. K atalin Zádor, Secretary of the Delegation of the GermanBundestag32. P ia-Sophie Brandenburg, Secretary of the Delegation of theGerman Bundestag33. L ynda Lawrence, Secretary of the Delegation of the GermanBundestag34. W iebke Jafra, Secretary of the Delegation of the GermanBundestagHamburg35. C arola Veit, President of the State Parliament of Hamburg36. D avid Erkalp, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg37. Danial Ilkhanipour, Member of the State Parliament ofHamburg38. L isa-Maria Otte, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg39. D r Miriam Putz, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg40. Sören Schumacher, Member of the State Parliament ofHamburg41. U lrike Sparr, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg42. J ohannes Düwel, Director of the Parliament of HamburgList of Participants 9143. F riederike Lünzmann, Secretary of the Delegation of theParliament of HamburgIceland44. K olbeinn Óttarsson Proppé, Member of the Parliament ofIceland45. H elgi Thorsteinsson, Secretary of the Delegation of Parliamentof Iceland46. I ris Dager, International Secretariat of the Parliament ofIcelandKaliningrad47. E vgeny Mishin, Member of the Parliament of the KaliningradRegional Duma48. M arina Prozorova, Secretary of the Delegation of theKaliningrad Regional DumaLatvia49. A rvils Ašeradens, Member of the Parliament of Latvia50. I veta Benhena-Bēkena, Member of the Parliament of Latvia51. J ānis Butāns, Member of the Parliament of Latvia52. E dgars Kucins, Member of the Parliament of Latvia53. I ngrida Sticenko, Secretary of the Delegation of the Parliamentof LatviaLeningrad54. Sergei Bebenin, Chairman of the Leningrad Region LegislativeAssembly55. Nikolay Pustotin, Vice-Chairman of the Leningrad RegionLegislative Assembly56. Iurii Terentev, Member of the Leningrad Region LegislativeAssembly57. Maxim Gindin, Secretary of the Delegation of the Parliamentof LatviaLithuania58. Valerijus Simulik, President of the BSPC, Member of theParliament of Lithuania59. Renata Godfrey, Secretary of the Delegation of the Parliamentof LithuaniaMecklenburg-Vorpommern60. B irgit Hesse, President of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern61. B eate Schlupp, Vice President of the State Parliament ofMecklenburg-Vorpommern92 List of Participants62. D irk Friedriszik, Member of the State Parliament ofMecklenburg-Vorpommern63. K arsten Kolbe, Member of the State Parliament of Mecklen-burg-Vorpommern64. N ikolaus Kramer, Member of the State Parliament of Mecklen-burg-Vorpommern65. J ochen Schulte, Member of the State Parliament of Mecklen-burg-Vorpommern66. G eorg Strätker, Secretary to the delegation of the State Parlia-ment of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern67. E vgeniya Bakalova, Secretary to the delegation of the State Par-liament of Mecklenburg-VorpommernNordic Council68. Silja Dögg Gunnarsdottir, President of the Nordic Council,Member of the Parliament of Iceland69. Oddný G. Harðardóttir, Vice President of the Nordic Council,Member of the Parliament of Iceland70. Michael Tetzschner, Member of the Parliament of Norway andthe Nordic Council71. Britt Bohlin, Secretary General of the delegation of the NordicCouncil72. Arne Fogt Bergby, Secretary of the delegation of the NordicCouncilNorway73. Jorodd Asphjell, Vice President of the BSPC, Member of theNorwegian Parliament74. Ulf Leirstein, Member of the Norwegian Parliament75. Ove Trellevik, Member of the Norwegian Parliament76. Torhild Bransdal, Member of the Norwegian Parliament77. Thomas Fraser, Secretary of the delegation of the NorwegianParliamentPoland78. Jarosław Wałęsa, Member of the Sejm Parliament of Poland79. Kacper Płażyński, Member of the Sejm Parliament of Poland80. Jerzy Materna, Member of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland81. Grzegorz Matusiak, Member of the Sejm of the Republic ofPoland82. Artur Łącki , Member of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland83. Piotr Koperski, Secretary of the Delegation for Internationaland European Union AffairsList of Participants 93Russian FederationCouncil of the Federation84. A nna Zhiltsova, Councilor of the Committee for Foreign Af-fairs of the Council of the FederationState Duma85. Valentina Pivnenko, Member of the State Duma86. V ladimir Bortko, Member of the State Duma87. V adim Dengin, Member of the State Duma88. Alexander Kozlovskiy, Member of the State Duma89. O leg Nilov, Member of the State Duma90. Alexey Veller, Member of the State Duma91. Sergey Karseka, Deputy Head of the Department onInternational Relations at the State Duma Staff92. Yulia Guskova, Secretary of the Delegation of InternationalRelations at the State DumaSaint Petersburg93. D mitry Tugov, Member of the Saint Petersburg Legislative As-sembly94. N argis Akhadova, Secretary of the Delegation of Saint Peters-burg Legislative AssemblySchleswig-Holstein95. H artmut Hamerich, Member of the State Parliament ofSchleswig-Holstein96. R egina Poersch, Member of the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein97. B ernd Voß, Member of the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein98. S tephan Holowaty, Member of the State Parliament ofSchleswig-Holstein99. V olker Schnurrbusch, Member of the State Parliament ofSchleswig-Holstein100. J ette Waldinger-Thiering, Member of the State Parliament ofSchleswig-Holstein101. J utta Schmidt-Holländer, Secretary of the Delegation forInternational Affairs of the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein94 List of ParticipantsSweden102. P yry Niemi, Vice President of the BSPC, Member of the SwedishParliament103. C ecilie Tenfjord Toftby, Member of the Swedish Parliament104. A ron Emilsson, Member of the Swedish Parliament105. P ernilla Stålhammar, Member of the Swedish Parliament106. H ans Wallmark, Member of the Swedish Parliament107. J ohanna Ingvarsson, Secretary of the Delegation of the SwedishParliament108. D an Alvarsson, Secretary of the Degation of the SwedishParliamentBSPC and ObserversBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference110. B odo Bahr, Secretary General of the BSPCBaltic Sea States Subregional Co-operation (BSSSC)111. M ieczysław Struk, Chairman of the BSSSC112. K rystyna Wróblewska, Secretary General of the BSSSC113. M ałgorzata Maria Klawiter-Piwowarska, Secretariat of theBSSSC114. Marta Czarnecka-Gallas, Secretariat of the BSSSC115. Anna Drążek, Secretariat of the BSSSCCouncil of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS)116. B ernd Hemingway, Deputy Director General of the CBSS117. M aria Nadybska, Core Team Intern of the CBSSCPMR Baltic Sea Commission118. L ucille Ehrhart, Executive SecretaryNorthern Dimension Partnership in Public Health and SocialWell-being (NDPHS)119. Ülla-Karin Nurm, Director120. S ilvija Geistarte, Senior AdviserParliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Coopera-tion (PABSEC)121. P rof. Asaf Hajiyev, Secretary General of the PABSECList of Participants 95Skåne Regional County Council122. A nnika Annerby Jansson, President, Region Skåne123. L ennart Pettersson, Vice President, Region Skåne124. E wa Pihl Krabbe, Vice President, Region Skåne125. M aria Lindbom, Senior Advisor, Region Skåne126. M aria Korner-Westin, Head of unit EU and InternationalRelations, Region SkåneExecutiveEuropean Commission127. H .E. Virginijus Sinkevičius, European Commissioner forEnvironment, Oceans and FisheriesMinistry for Environment, Nature Conservation and NuclearSafety, Germany128. H .E. Svenja Schulze, Federal Minister, HELCOM Chair, Eu-ropean Council Presidency, Video messageMinistry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania129. Neris Germanas, Vice-MinisterMinistry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Denmark130. Ove Ullerup, AmbassadorMinistry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Norway131. Dag Wernø Holter, Senior Adviser, Nordic-Baltic SectionMinistry of Foreign Affairs of Russia132. Alexey Ivanov, Head of Section133. Timofey Kunitskiy, 1st Secretary96 List of ParticipantsExperts134. Dmitry Demidenko, Deputy Head of the Main MigrationDepartment of the Ministry ofInternal Affairs of Russia135. Mayya Rusakova, Founder, Regional Public Organization«STELLIT»136. Vladlena Avdeeva, Manager of Social Projects, RegionalPublic Organization «STELLIT»137. Victoria Ledeneva, PhD, member of the Commission onmigration issues of the Council on Interethnic Relations un-der the President of the Russian Federation138. Marina Kazmina, Acting Head, Neva and Ladoga Basin andWater Management. Department, Federal Agency of Water Re-sourses of Russia139. Ekaterina Zakharova, Consultant, Water Use Regulation Sec-tion, Neva and Ladoga Basin and Water Management Depart-ment, Federal Agency of Water Resourses of RussiaOther ParticipantsInterpreters140. C atherine Johnson141. M atthias Jansen142. M artina Würzburg143. G yda Thurow144. A lexei Repin145. M argarita Höckner146. E lena Almas147. S tein Larsen148. P iotr Krasnowolski149. A leksander JakiemovicBSPC Secretariat Support150. M algorzata Ludwiczek151. G ildo Kweton152. R oman KwetonTechnical Support - Professional Conference Systems (PCS)153. Christoph Körner, technical moderator154. Sebastian Meyer, technical moderatorList of Participants 97Speakers· S igitas Mitkus, Adviser to the President on Foreign Policy Is-sues, on behalf of the President H.E. Mr. Gitanas Nausėda· Viktoras Pranckietis, Speaker of the Seimas of the Republic ofLithuania· V irginijus Sinkevičius, European Commissioner for Environ-ment, Oceans and Fisheries· V alerijus Simulik, MP, President of the BSPC· Neris Germanas, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Re-public of Lithuania· Ove Ullerup, Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of theKingdom of Denmark· D ag Wernø Holter, Senior Adviser, Nordic-Baltic Section,Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Norway· S venja Schulze, Federal Minister for Environment, NatureConservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany, HELCOM Chair,European Council Presidency, Video Message· O leg Nilov, Member of the State Duma of the Federal Assemblyof the Russian Federation· H ans Wallmark, MP, Chairman of the BSPC WorkingGroup on Migration & Integration, Sweden· D mitry Demidenko, Deputy Head of the Main Migration De-partment of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia· V ladlena Avdeeva, Representative of the NGO «Stellit»,St.-Petersburg· Jörgen Pettersson, former BSPC President, and· Jochen Schulte, MP, BSPC Rapporteurs on Integrated Policy· B eate Schlupp, BSPC Observer in HELCOM, First Vice Presi-dent of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern· P eter Stein, BSPC Rapporteur on Sea-Dumped Munitions Ger-man Bundestag· M ieczysław Struk, President of the Baltic Sea States Subregion-al Cooperation, BSSSC, Marshal of the Pomorskie Voivodeship· Pyry Niemi, MP, Incoming President of the BSPC98 ClosingClosing 99100 ClosingClosing 10126Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Secretariatwww.bspc.netBSPC SecretariatSchlossgartenallee 1519061 SchwerinGermany