Decision Notes SC Meeting Copenhagen 10 June 2024

BSPC Standing Committee MeetingCopenhagen, 10 June 2024Decision Notes1. OpeningBSPC President Henrik Møller, President of the BSPC 2023-2024, welcomed everyone to the Danish parliament. He mentioned that this was somewhat special because of the situation on the Faroe Islands. Before going into that, he welcomed new members to the Standing Committee: Pauli Aalto-Setälä from Finland and Romualdas Vaitkus from Lithuania. He went on to say that until a week earlier, none of them had expected to be meeting in this place as they had been looking forward to holding the first BSPC Standing Committee meeting in the Faroe Islands. They had all hoped that the strike, which had begun in mid-May, could be finished right in time before the meeting. On the preceding Monday, they had not been able to see an end or any change in the situation. To the BSPC President’s knowledge, it had been the day before that an agreement had in fact been reached. Circumstances in the Faroe Islands might have returned to normal on this day, but the Standing Committee members had, after all, already arrived in Copenhagen and would be leaving that day. All the areas of public life on the islands had been restricted by the strike – supermarket shelves had been empty, institutions had been closed, and there had been nearly no petrol available for public transportation. As such, it had been with a heavy heart that the presidium had made the decision to cancel the meeting in the Faroe Islands. Furthermore, he noted that the Danish royal couple’s planned two-day visit had had to be put on hold indefinitely. The Faroese minister Aksel Johannesen had also decided to postpone that trip, as it was not “appropriate to hold a visit under the current circumstances.” To minimise the effort associated with the relocation, it had been decided to hold the present meeting in the Danish Parliament. This was only possible because the Parliament was used for the European elections the day before. With respect to that, he remarked that there were good hangovers and there were bad hangovers. The party called the Socialist Folk Party in Denmark were having the good hangover on this day. BSPC President Henrik Møller himself was a member of the social democratic party and was having a bad hangover. That was due to the election results. However, there had been a lot of life in the house the day before because of that.BSPC President Henrik Møller had also decided not to include any further expert presentations in this meeting to allow enough time for the discussion of the running business, finalise one or the other difficult discussion, and find a solution in consensus.Regarding the elections, they were all increasingly concerned about the growing brutalisation and radicalisation of the way people were treating each other and the criminal attacks and offences against politicians, police officers, and media representatives that had occurred in some countries during the European election campaign. He added that this was also true in Denmark but especially in Germany. This had affected European election candidates, some of whom had been seriously injured, local politicians, but also the Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen had been assaulted at the end of the previous week. All of them realised that intensive countermeasures against such developments had to be taken. For that reason, it was also important to emphasise the strengthening of their democracies and the strengthening of social cohesion and resilience in their societies again and again and to raise awareness of their importance. Perhaps this development could be addressed more clearly in the BSPC’s draft resolution.In view of the circumstances, BSPC President Henrik Møller was very pleased that so many had made it possible to come to Copenhagen and take part in this meeting. Next, he asked if the meeting agreed with the proposed agenda?The meeting agreed to the proposed agenda.2. Draft Notes from the BSPC Standing Committee Meeting in BrusselsBSPC President Henrik Møller noted that the BSPC Standing Committee had assembled on 4 March 2024 in Brussels. A detailed summary, including the PowerPoint presentation, has been published on the website. Everyone had received the draft notes and the decision notes from that meeting. The Secretariat meeting in Riga on 6 May had endorsed these draft notes and submitted them for the Standing Committee’s final approval. He asked for this next.The meeting approved the draft notes from the digital Standing Committee Meeting on 4 March 2024 in Brussels.3. The Follow-up to the 32nd BSPC Resolution3.1 The 32nd BSPCBSPC President Henrik Møller said that all delegations had been invited to bring the resolution to the attention of their governments and ask for statements on implementing the 32nd BSPC Resolution. Statements from the governments to the 32nd Resolution of the BSPC had been received from Åland, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein, and Sweden until 6 June. These had been published on the BSPC website.Johannes Schraps asked if the statements from all governments had been received or some were still outstanding.Secretary General Bodo Bahr replied that all that had been received had been published on the website. He noted that, traditionally, Iceland did not provide any detailed statements because they were not all that much involved in the issues addressed in these resolutions.BSPC President Henrik Møller added that, of course, Iceland was very welcome amid the BSPC.The meeting took note of the information.4. BSPC Working Groups and Rapporteurs4.1 Working Group on Energy Security, Self-sustainability, Resilience, and Connectivity (ESSRC)BSPC President Henrik Møller noted the two meetings the BSPC Working Group had held on 17-18 March 2024 in Helsinki and 26-28 May 2024 in Greifswald. In a digital meeting on 3 June 2024, the working group had unanimously adopted a series of recommendations for this year’s BSPC resolution. Detailed reports with presentations of these meetings had been published on the BSPC website. He further noted that the working group's recommendations had been included in the preliminary draft of the 33rd BSPC resolution. An interim report would be presented at the annual conference in Helsingør. From BSPC President Henrik Møller’s perspective, the working group had done an excellent job so far and elaborated some fundamental results for this year’s conference. He opened the floor for comments or remarks.Prof Jānis Vucāns considered the work quite well organised in the number of meetings already held. Wherever they had gone, there had been something new, something related to the topics. On the latter point, he remarked that the scale of the working group was quite large and covering many issues. He was particularly grateful to their Finnish colleagues who had organised the study trip to their country. This had been very special, he underlined, as it had mainly related to security matters. At the same time, the BSPC representatives had visited a super-computing centre which had one of the highest potentials for computing speed in Europe. Moreover, the representatives had discussed some recommendations which had been included in the draft resolution for the conference. In addition, Prof Jānis Vucāns was very grateful to Secretary General Bodo Bahr and Agnija Antanoviča who had put in great effort to support the working group chairman, Andris Kulbergs, in organising these events. From this he moved on to deliver some regrettable information to the Standing Committee. During the working group’s first meeting, they had visited the Rail Baltica construction site. Owing to the Latvian government’s shortcomings, a rather large financing deficit had opened up and brought this project to a halt. The Latvian government was looking for solutions together with the European Commission. At this point, it was not clear whether the Rail Baltica route would go through Riga or pass a little ways off from the capital. As such, the route of this high-speed railway was being discussed once more.Anna Kassautzki commented that she had only attended some of the meetings of the working group. However, the scope of topics was huge indeed. It was not just energy security – already a huge field to discuss – but also connectivity and digital resilience. There was a diversity of threats to be considered. Therefore, she appreciated deeply the existence of the working group and the associated discussions. The different countries were pursing quite divergent approaches, but, she mentioned, that was what made the region so rich. She added that it had been her pleasure to welcome the working group to her hometown of Greifswald for the latest meeting, even though she had had to leave early. She was looking forward to reading the report and hearing more about the event.Prof Jānis Vucāns picked up on the mention of Greifswald, pointing out that some lessons had been learned during that visit. They had seen the shut down nuclear power station which was being reconstructed in another facility. What he found of interest was that Greifswald had been the terminal location of Nord Stream I and II out into the sea. Although the pipelines were no longer in use, the ecological and other problems persisted. They had heard from local municipalities about what the latter were promising to do about these difficulties. This, the professor underlined, was another aspect to keep in mind.Johannes Schraps mentioned that he had been part of the preceding two working groups of the BSPC, about Migration and Integration as well as Climate Change and Biodiversity. Although he was still following the goings-on in the working group as head of the delegation from the German Bundestag, he had noticed that there was less overlap between the members of the Standing Committee and the working group. He was delighted that, however, there were two members of the Standing Committee, Prof Jānis Vucāns and Andrius Kupčinskas, who were regularly attending the working group meetings. It might be a sign of the growing workload of parliamentarians that they could not participate in both meetings. After all, the world was not growing less complicated. It might be a misperception, he conceded, that it used to be easier to combine both some ten or fifteen years earlier. He was open to Secretary General Bodo Bahr correcting that impression. As for the future, Johannes Schraps argued that they should make sure there was this overlap of membership in both groups, ensuring that the Standing Committee was always well informed about the working group.BSPC President Henrik Møller agreed that this should be kept in mind when forming a new working group. From his point of view, he was in frequent contact with a working group member and kept abreast of developments that way.Secretary General Bodo Bahr noted that this overlap had always changed a bit. Sometimes, it had been more intensive, while at other times, the group had been a bit more specialised. This time, the advantage of the working group was that many members were deeply involved and nearly experts in these fields. They were bringing a great deal of knowledge, thus making the discussions more intense. The reports on the website as well as the detailed notes were intended to bridge that information gap. He further remarked that the BSPC President had been at the first meeting of the working group in Riga. On top of that, Secretary General Bodo Bahr underlined that they could state that any member of the Standing Committee had a standing invitation to join the working group if possible. As an example, he pointed to Beate Schlupp having attended the entire meeting in Greifswald. The regional and national politicians did not have a long way to travel and so could come to the meetings of the working group in their area.The meeting took note of the information.4.2 RapporteursThe Rapporteur on Sea-Dumped Ammunitions, Anna Kassautzki, informed the Standing Committee on developments in her field. She started by regretting that she could not tell them that all the ammunition had already been removed. It was still at the bottom of the sea, and they were still working on the problem. She had one update regarding the situation in Germany where a 100-million-euro fund had been provided by the German Bundestag for the construction of a prototype mobile platform for retrieval and disposal above the waterline. At the moment, the plan was not going according to the schedule. The prototype should have been finished by the end of 2024, but this would not be possible, as per the latest update. The parliamentarians were putting pressure on their government to accelerate the proceedings. They were expecting a report on progress shortly. She went on to speak about a conference at GEOMAR Kiel two weeks after the present meeting about ammunitions in the sea. Anna Kassautzki would unfortunately not be able to attend. Nonetheless, since she had been to the CBSS roundtable and knew the people involved, she was confident that there would be an update from that conference.BSPC President Henrik Møller said that the reports of the other rapporteurs would be given in writing for the conference. Moreover, the Rapporteur on Integrated Maritime Affairs – who was also the new president of the Åland lagting and former BSPC president –, Mr Jörgen Pettersson, would give a short report at the conference. The conference organisers had planned a short time slot for the report of the BSPC Rapporteurs at the conference with contributions of up to 5 minutes – which could be extended slightly, if needed –, because most of the Rapporteurs would provide, as in former years, written reports.The meeting took note of the information.5. FinancesBSPC President Henrik Møller stated with pleasure that all the contributions for 2024 had been received. He thanked all the delegations that their parliaments had realised that by this time. That also meant that the new budget and the partly new payment procedure were working.The meeting took note of the information.6. BSPC Presidency after 2026BSPC President Henrik Møller remarked that the Standing Committee had already postponed the discussion about possible hosts of the BSPC for the time after 2026 several times. He asked if any new considerations for hosting the conferences after 2026 had come up in the meantime. As there were none, he went on to note that particularly the parliaments which had not yet held a BSPC Presidency or had not done so for a longer period of time were invited to come up with proposals. It might be that, after the elections to the European Parliament, the EP could consider that as well during the new election period. The BSPC appreciated very much that they could regularly continue their tradition of having the Standing Committee winter meeting in the European Parliament. But, of course, it would be of particular importance if the European Parliament could host an annual conference, as they had done regularly, for example, for the Northern Dimension. The European Parliament had already indicated its willingness to organise the conference a few years earlier. That, though, had been when a Dane had been chairman of the relevant delegation. In this respect, this issue should be addressed openly once again after the new delegation in the European Parliament would be constituted. However, he cautioned that the procedure to reach a result would take at least six months.Furthermore, BSPC President Henrik Møller mentioned that some time earlier, Iceland had been considering a presidency. So far, an annual conference had been held in Iceland in 2006. So, after 2026, it would be more than 20 years later. Perhaps now, after their presidency of the Nordic Council, such a consideration could be discussed again. Given that Poland and Finland were always willing to take on individual committee meetings, perhaps both delegations could also reconsider a presidency. The last conference in Poland had been in 2014, and in Helsinki, it had been in 2012. Perhaps, Bremen might also consider hosting for the first time.He went on to say that these were just a few brief ideas how the BSPC might continue after 2026. While nobody had to raise their hand and commit at this moment, BSPC President Henrik Møller expressed his hope that they would consider the possibility. As there were no further remarks on this topic, this would be raised again at the Standing Committee meeting in Helsingør.Johannes Schraps underlined what he had already mentioned at the Standing Committee meeting in Brussels. He had called on his colleagues to get in touch with the newly elected members of parliament from their home countries and try to push them to join the European Parliament delegation responsible for the Baltic Sea region. This delegation had a lot of areas in its remit, not just the Baltic cooperation but also, e.g., Switzerland. During the past five years, the chair of that delegation, Andreas Schwab, had been from a German region close to the Swiss border. Naturally, his focus had been on Switzerland. If no other members of the delegation had any interest in the Baltic cooperation, that would mean another five years of the European Parliament’s delegation to the BSPC not being involved in the latter’s work. That was something all of them could try to counter and reinvigorate that cooperation. Johannes Schraps promised that he would contact the German elected members of parliament, and he hoped all the BSPC delegations would do the same. He went on to note that he had mentioned that in Brussels right after the introduction but at that time, the aforementioned chair of the European Parliament delegation had already left the room. The message therefore was only delivered to the vice-president of the parliament who had still been present.BSPC President Henrik Møller agreed that these were important arguments. He had been thinking that Åland during its presidency could arrange a meeting with the European Parliament on who was represented in this committee and how they could expand their cooperation beyond just hosting a meeting. As for Denmark, he expected that they would learn that evening who exactly had been elected to the European Parliament. It was very important to push for Baltic Sea representation in that delegation.Secretary General Bodo Bahr remarked that the European Parliament had been discussing a change of the remit of that delegation for several election periods to focus it only on the seas in the north – the Arctic, the Atlantic, and the Baltic Sea. This would make much more sense, and it would raise the interest of northern parliamentarians to engage in this delegation. As Johannes Schraps had said, enacting influence on those in charge of selection of delegations or committees might be helpful.BSPC President Henrik Møller suggested that the delegations to the BSPC should inform the Standing Committee about who the respective representatives in the European Parliament were. That would make it easier to contact these people.Alfons Röblom wondered when the right time would be to approach the newly elected members. He imagined that there was quite a circus at the moment, considering having to move to Brussels and dealing with all the committee appointments. He was ready to talk to the MEPs as soon as possible but asked if there was any experience in the room about the right time to do so.BSPC President Henrik Møller joked that it was never the right time.Kristina Herbst asserted that this was the right time. At this point, they were receiving orientation. The first of the MEPs were in Brussels, figuring out what to do. Approaching them had to be done this week.Johannes Schraps underlined that. Noting that he had worked as a parliamentary assistant for four years in the European Parliament, the right time was immediately after the elections. This was much like the politicians knew it from their home parliaments. The committees were being set up, as were the delegations. Usually, the committees came first, followed by the delegations. He cautioned that they had to talk to the European parliamentarians, or there would not be anybody in the delegations interested in Baltic cooperation. As a matter of fact, after the last European elections in 2019, there had been a few members who had been part of the delegations. Before going to Brussels, they had been members of national or regional parliaments that were part of the BSPC. These people had already attended annual BSPC conferences. But they had not yet understood the processes in the European Parliament enough, so they did not manage to join the delegations associated with Baltic cooperation, despite understanding the value of the BSPC. Johannes Schraps stressed that indeed, it was time to talk to their colleagues right at this point. He added that the good thing about this was that the BSPC members came from different party groups and could reach out to a wide variety of parliamentarians.Prof Jānis Vucāns agreed as well. However, it was an interesting question how these delegations were formed, based on which mechanism. From what he knew, it was on the basis of party groups. Accordingly, representatives from their countries in the respective party groups needed to say that they wished to join that delegation. He shifted back to the original topic of this agenda item, the presidency of the BSPC. Many years before, the idea of the rotation principle had raised in the BSPC. Prof Jānis Vucāns suggested that they should start thinking about it again. Considerations for which parliament would host the next conference or the one after that remained difficult. He would prefer it if some order were already in place, acknowledging that changing the respective rules could be a challenge. But if a delegation knew that in five years’ time, they would preside over the BSPC, then they could prepare and apply for finances from their national parliamentary budget. That made it quite easy to organise, he opined. However, a two-year advance notice was more of a problem since every European Union country had a medium-term budget.BSPC President Henrik Møller said he had conferred with Secretary General Bodo Bahr that this issue would be put on the agenda of the next Standing Committee meeting to be debated then.Johannes Schraps made a proposal to those members of the Standing Committee who had freshly come into the BSPC. Understandably, they were unlikely to know about the recent history of the organisation, such as who had held the presidency. He noted that Prof Jānis Vucāns, Carola Veit, and he himself had been presidents of the BSPC and were still part of the Standing Committee. In addition, Henrik Møller was the current president. The newcomers might not feel sure what the presidency would entail. Therefore, he proposed that these could approach the former – or current – presidents and ask about their experience. Moreover, the staff who were highly necessary to organise these events were also present, he pointed out. The presidency was a lot of work, he conceded, highlighting that it was a great joy at the same time, representing all of the BSPC for one year.BSPC President Henrik Møller concluded this point, adding that this was the moment when they would take the new European parliamentarians by the hand to help them connect to Baltic cooperation. Once the committees and delegations were put together, then they could discuss strategies to approach them.The meeting took note of the information.7. The 33rd BSPC and the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum in Helsingør, 25-27 August 20247.1 The Conference and the BSPYFBSPC President Henrik Møller began by commenting that the conference would be held in the Marienlyst Strandhotel. The wellness hotel was bordering on the beach. He asked the representatives to book their rooms via the link provided by Secretary General Bodo Bahr. Unfortunately, availability of the rooms could not be guaranteed so he advised the delegates to book as soon as possible for the announced time slot.Secretary General Bodo Bahr detailed the procedure as it was somewhat tricky. It was necessary to first book the time slot listed in the link, from 25 – 27 August 2024. They could not book a day earlier or later at the start. Instead, after booking the core period, they would receive a number allowing the guests to contact the hotel and ask for an extension, before or after the core period. Then the hotel would provide a room at the same price. This was a two-step process, he explained.BSPC President Henrik Møller said that the Youth Forum, beginning a few days earlier, would be held at the Konventum conference centre. This location was close to the Marienlyst Strandhotel. 27 participants would join the forum, with debates primarily about energy supply and security. Furthermore, the forum participants would also be at the annual conference.The conference would start on Monday, 26 August. Confirmations had been provided by the Speaker of the Danish Folketing, Søren Gade, the Danish Foreign Minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, the Danish Vice-Prime Minister and Defence Minister, roels Lund Poulsen, and the Swedish Minister of Civil Defence, Carl-Oskar Bohlin. There were ongoing acceptances for the programme, and the BSPC President thought things were going well. On Monday, there would also be a reception at Castle Kronborg – the site of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, he added, citing “To be or not to be”. The newly crowned Danish king, His Majesty King Frederik X would be the guest of honour. Because of the royal protocol in Denmark, BSPC President Henrik Møller underlined that it was important all of the BSPC delegates arrived at Castle Kronborg no later than 17 o’clock. They should always arrive before the royals. Of course, bus transportation would be arranged. He conceded that there might be a slight problem because the end of the plenary session prior to the reception did not leave much time to change clothes, if needed. However, a break of some 45 minutes was scheduled before the final session. That might be a good opportunity to dress for the reception. BSPC President Henrik Møller noted that this would be repeated at the conference. Moreover, he noted that Castle Kronborg dated from the 15th century which meant that there were cumbersome stairs. Accordingly, he asked that those delegates who were handicapped or might need professional help notify the secretariat. Furthermore, the security level of the event had not yet been set, but he expected that to be announced prior to their meeting their royal highness, the king.Alfons Röblom remarked that he was a newbie when it came to meeting and greeting royals. As such, he wondered if there was any more to the protocol that he and others like him should know. Perhaps, respective information could be distributed via e-mail so the parliamentarians would not make fools of themselves.BSPC President Henrik Møller assured him that he would distribute information on how to act according to the protocol to all the delegations prior to the conference. Otherwise, he said that the programme had been sent out. If the delegations had suggestions on anything of interest to the sessions, he asked them not to hesitate to notify the organisers. Furthermore, the Danes had thought about how to ensure that the conference would not be in one direction only as they would like all the participants at the conference to be able to make comments or ask questions of the experts. Respective suggestions would be given in writing, but he said that those who knew they would like to speak up on a certain topic should inform the organisers in advance. Then they would be 100 % sure to get the word at the conference. Some time would be given for debate with the presenters – some of whom were politicians, others experts in their fields. Preparing for each session would enable them to have an even better debate.Secretary General Bodo Bahr said that the best practice example in this regard was the Nordic Council. The procedure was that the notification could be provided by e-mail, up to three days before the event, announcing that one wanted to give a contribution of up to three minutes in length to one or the other session. Then, the staff could prepare accordingly and include said contribution in the speaker’s notes. He pointed out that this did not stop any spontaneous contributions at the end, but, as the BSPC President had stated, this guaranteed that everybody who had announced wishing to speak would get the opportunity to do so.BSPC President Henrik Møller added that the names of the chairs and vice-chairs for each session would be concretised in the near future. The respective delegates would be contacted in the coming weeks. Any further proposals, in particular for speakers, and further remarks were welcome, to be given to the presidium or the secretary general.Regarding the programme for the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, he said that on the following Monday, the first online introduction seminar would be held. The in-person meeting would be held from Saturday, 24 August, to Sunday, 25 August. In addition to the 27 youth participants, several politicians from the BSPC working group had already confirmed that they would join the forum. The BSPC President said that if anybody else from the delegations wished to take part in the forum, they were very welcome to provide a respective notice.The meeting took note of the information.7.2 The Conference ResolutionBSPC President Henrik Møller said that everyone had received the preliminary first draft of the conference resolution and the suggestion for the further procedure and timetable. The proposal was that the elaboration of the draft resolution would follow the procedure of all recent years. The draft was planned until 6 June 2024, including the input from the working group, as unanimously decided on 3 June. The first debate of the draft was held at this meeting. Additional input from Standing Committee by e-mail members was scheduled until 30 June. Based on the above, the Secretary General was mandated to elaborate the baseline draft, which would be released on 15 July. Amendment proposals could then be sent in until 8 August. A compilation of these proposals would be distributed on 17 August. Finally, the Drafting Committee would meet on 25 August at 11 o’clock in Helsingør. The BSPC President stressed that a major task would be narrowing down the draft so it would not turn into a report but rather a resolution which would not take too long to read. He opened the floor for comments.Staffan Eklöf commented that the more points there were in the resolution, the harder it would be to find consensus. In addition, fewer points also might make it easier to get action on those points, to put pressure on the governments. If they were unanimous, they could be more effective.Johannes Schraps remarked that the compilation of amendment proposals would be a birthday gift to him. Turning more serious, he agreed with Mr Eklöf, noting that there had been a great number of points in past years’ resolutions, leading to tough discussions. On some occasions, they had needed more time than the programme had scheduled for the Drafting Committee. On the other hand, in other years, there had not been that many amendments. That depended on the delegations. If there were a lot of amendments, there might be a lot of discussions. However, he also stressed that they had always found a compromise in the end, creating a very good resolution. He was certain they would be able to do so this year as well.BSPC President Henrik Møller agreed with Johannes Schraps’ comment.The meeting took note of the information.8. Future Accommodation of the BSPC Secretariat and Related QuestionsBSPC President Henrik Møller first referred to the attachments, i.e., letters from the Landtag Schleswig-Holstein and the Åland Lagting. The goal for this meeting was to find a solution on this issue after two years of intensive discussions. The status of the discussion could be seen in all details in the report of the Enlarged Standing Committee that had been presented to the Standing Committee in Maribo, the detailed notes of the meeting in Brussels, in which they had again discussed this issue intensively and in detail, and in the annotated agenda of this meeting. Kristina Herbst had submitted a proposal from the parliament of Schleswig-Holstein to take over the secretariat functions for five years, starting in 2025, in view of their then-upcoming presidency. That proposal had been detailed in a letter which had been presented and discussed during the Standing Committee meeting in Brussels. During that meeting, the Standing Committee had also been informed about additional conversations with the CBSS Secretariat and the Nordic Council Secretariat based on Maribo's mandate. It had been clearly pointed out that these options did not currently include realistic solutions. Kristina Herbst had informed the Standing Committee in an additional letter and responded to questions of the Swedish delegation about more details regarding the Schleswig-Holstein Parliament's proposals in view of the raised questions to be discussed at this Standing Committee meeting (both had been distributed on 29 May). Furthermore, the Secretariat meeting in Riga on 6 May had been informed about some unofficial reflections of the Åland Parliament regarding a possible additional offer. The Speaker of the Åland Lagting, Jörgen Petterson, and the Chairman of the Åland delegation to the BSPC, Alfons Röblom, had sent on 5 June a letter offering to host the secretariat of the BSPC head office. The letter had been distributed the next day.Before going into the details, BSPC President Henrik Møller raised one aspect: To come to a solution, a unanimous decision was needed. The Standing Committee had to be aware that if a delegation was not pleased with one or another aspect of a solution, they should come up with a ready alternative, which had been discussed and agreed upon by all decision-makers in their own Parliament or administration or institution. Otherwise, the Standing Committee would not come to any solution. With that in mind, he invited Kristina Herbst and then Alfons Röblom to explain their offers.Kristina Herbst also referred to her text, offering two options. The first was to hire a new secretary general from the Schleswig-Holstein State Parliament. Recruiting would be completely within state regulations. These could be translated into English to involve all of the Standing Committee, but it had to be clear that the costs would fall entirely to the BSPC. One important aspect was that they could not find a new secretary general with the available budget at this point. Secretary General Bodo Bahr was very kind to do this work within that budget. Instead, her side believed that a budget of some 122,000 euros would be needed for a new secretary general at the level that Bodo Bahr currently held. This led her to outline the second option. That would be a part-time secretary general, together with the pro-rate office in Brussels and Kiel. In her mind, referring back to Johannes Schraps’ earlier remarks regarding the connections to the European Parliament, this would assist with that. She joked that this would make Brussels and the BSPC great again. This second option rested on one person, at which point she introduced Jan Diedrichsen sitting next to her, asking him to tell the Standing Committee more about himself. Kristina Herbst noted that she could go on speaking, but the facts had been detailed.Jan Diedrichsen thanked the Standing Committee for the opportunity to say a few words about his background and what he was currently working on. To him, this event was a bit like coming home since he had worked in Copenhagen for twelve years. He had been an elected member of the German minority in Denmark in Copenhagen, responsible for the contacts between the parliament for those twelve years. He knew the city very well and still maintained a good network in Copenhagen. Due to regulations internal to the minority, he had only been allowed to be re-elected three times. Thus, he had had to find a new job. Thankfully, six years earlier, the Schleswig-Holstein Landtag had asked him if he had been willing to help establish an office in Brussels. He had agreed to this. In the present day, he believed that those six years had allowed Schleswig-Holstein to build up quite a good representation in Brussels, with particular attention to the European Parliament but also to the Committee of Regions. For the Schleswig-Holstein Landtag, the regional cooperation was vital. This latter aspect was also one of the points where he believed that the BSPC could benefit from the network established in Brussels by Schleswig-Holstein. Furthermore, Jan Diedrichsen assured the Standing Committee that he was used to travelling a lot. Earlier, he had also been a director of an international NGO on minority issues and lesser-used languages for five years. Accordingly, he knew the work of a secretary general, commenting that he was aware of the many places in Europe on Bodo Bahr’s itinerary. This also gave him an understanding of the Swedish delegation’s concerns how this could be managed by a part-time secretary general. However, Jan Diedrichsen was convinced this was very much possible, not least because he was quite free to do his job in Brussels. He returned to the matter of his background, mentioning that he had started as a journalist. Then, he had gone to Copenhagen for twelve years, followed by Brussels. As for the BSPC, he understood that this was a very important position that had to be filled. He believed that his background and person would provide a positive benefit to the BSPC. Jan Diedrichsen would be delighted to be considered for the position.Alfons Röblom explained that the Åland side had made their proposal to offer some flexibility. To them, it was important that the recruitment process would be open and take part in all the member states and regions of the BSPC. Secondly, it mattered to them that the Standing Committee made the decision on who to hire. This had led them to offer this proposal. He did not believe he would have to make a marketing pitch about Åland’s advantages – such as their geographical position in the middle of the Baltic Sea, their autonomy, the demilitarisation, and having been long-term members of the Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers. Their proposal had been about housing the secretary general as part of the lagting but outside the budget, with their own bank account. The BSPC Standing Committee would choose the person, and the recruitment process would take place in all the regions and nations. The question was what the BSPC wanted, and he believed his side could make it happen.Kristina Herbst asked three questions of Alfons Röblom, first who would execute the employer function in this proposal, i.e., the state parliament or another entity. Secondly, she inquired about the budget management, specifically whether the bank account would rest with the state parliament, the government, or who else the owner would be. Thirdly, she was interested in the total cost in Åland’s estimate for the secretary general. This, she elaborated as whether Alfons Röblom believed that the current 80,000 euros were sufficient and if any more costs would be incurred by Åland.Alfons Röblom replied that the parliament would be the owner of this post. Regarding the costs, he and his parliament – represented by Jörgen Pettersson – did believe that they could find a person willing to do the job with this amount of money. In their view, it was not all about the money. Rather, it was the possibility for someone to further their career, to use it as an opportunity to get valuable experience. His side believed they could find a secretary general within the costs that the BSPC was able to provide.Staffan Eklöf thanked both Schleswig-Holstein and Åland for their generous offers. In particular, he expressed his gratitude for Schleswig-Holstein answering all the questions of the Swedish side. Regarding Åland, he wondered if technical assistance, legal advice, and audits were provided. Furthermore, he asked if this function would be in a fixed term, as the Swedish side believed was appropriate. From a realistic perspective, he asked whether, in the case of some irregularities, the employment could be terminated. He further inquired if Finnish legislation would apply to this position.Alfons Röblom considered that the Standing Committee should decide on a possible fixed-term position. As for technical support, his side did not have the respective details available yet. He did not view it as impossible to make these arrangements, but he would have to clear this with the leadership of the parliament. This would not incur so much additional costs to become a deal breaker. Moving on to legislation, he conceded that his side would have to look into this issue. However, their proposal did not stipulate that the secretary general would have to move in Åland or live there to fulfil the job. This was how they intended to resolve the situation if that person were to live in another country but work for the Åland parliament. That was not something new in a border region, he added, noting that it happened all the time. As such, he did not foresee any problems in this regard.BSPC President Henrik Møller asked who would be handling the finances, whether that would be the lagting.Alfons Röblom said that the financing and costs of the secretary general would be borne by the BSPC.Secretary General Bodo Bahr concretised the question as to who would handle and manage the budgetary affairs. At the moment, when he as the secretary general received any bills, he signed them as correct and forwarded them to the administration of the parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. There, the bills were checked by two people independently from each other. Afterwards, they were proofed and signed before being sent off to the Landeszentralkasse – the state treasury, a part of the state’s finance ministry – where they were released for payment. In light of this procedure, the question was who and how this would be handled in the future, if taken over by the Åland parliament. Secretary General Bodo Bahr added that the BSPC still had the permission from the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern finance minister to continue this procedure until the end of the coming year, 2025. He underlined that this permission had been provided in written form and was agreed. There was no doubt about the availability of this procedure until the end of the budget year 2025. As for the hand-over, he noted that Schleswig-Holstein had assured the BSPC they could take over from the start of 2025.Alfons Röblom thanked Secretary General Bodo Bahr for the clarification. The Åland side would be handling the budget within the parliament or with the help of an external firm.Prof Jānis Vucāns asked about another technical detail, specifically if the person in question would have to register for income tax in Åland or whether they could pay their taxes in their home country.Alfons Röblom admitted that he was no expert in the respective rules, although he knew they existed. To his understanding, one could be employed on Åland but pay taxes where one lived.Johannes Schraps stated, as Kristina Herbst had done before, that the BSPC had been discussing this topic for some two years by this time. He remembered very well sitting together with Bodo Bahr in Copenhagen – the very city they were in now – on the premises of the Nordic Council, wondering what would happen if Bodo Bahr would no longer be there at some point in the future. Johannes Schraps underlined that Bodo Bahr had been investing all his energy and work into the BSPC for many years, even into what would otherwise be his well-deserved pension. Following that, the Standing Committee had formed a working group of former BSPC presidents and the current presidium to elaborate what such a process could look like. In that working group, they had spoken about this issue many times and informed the Standing Committee about their progress. In that, they had discussed several options, such as the Nordic Council or the CBSS headquarters in Stockholm. However, they had come to the conclusion that nobody from the BSPC could sign a work contract for the BSPC because the Standing Committee kept changing in its composition. Therefore, an institution to handle the formalities in the background was needed. An entity like a parliament was obviously needed. After reaching that conclusion, the first proposal from Schleswig-Holstein had been submitted in the autumn of 2023. Johannes Schraps admitted that he had not expected any such proposal from a member parliament and was delighted, not least in his position as outgoing vice-president of the BSPC. Upon that submission, the Swedish delegation had posited a number of questions which now had been answered by the Schleswig-Holstein parliament. From the point of view of Johannes Schraps, this proposal looked very well prepared. On top of that, they were also offering a person who could fill this position of secretary general. With that, Johannes Schraps addressed Alfons Röblom, noting that the latter had stated as the most important point that the Standing Committee had the option to decide who would assume this position. Given the proposal from Schleswig-Holstein, Johannes Schraps wondered what had led to Åland and Alfons Röblom submitting their own proposal. He stressed that time was running out for this decision, after two years of discussions. In particular, he pointed out that the Standing Committee had planned to already take this decision at an earlier point before delaying it to this meeting. Some further work would be necessary before a new secretary general could begin their work. Moreover, there should be a transition period in which Mr Bahr could transfer the position to his successor. Johannes Schraps underlined that all the knowledge that Mr Bahr had accumulated in his more than twenty years of serving the BSPC should be handed over to that other person. Moreover, Johannes Schraps was grateful for the parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern handling the budget of the BSPC, and the end of their promised period had to be kept in mind. As such, the Standing Committee had to make sure that this decision-making process should not be extended too much further. As Johannes Schraps was comparing the two proposals on the table, the one from Schleswig-Holstein seemed to be far more elaborate, in-depth, and addressing the questions posed by other delegations. He could not see that the proposal from Åland was equally developed, even though he gladly acknowledged the deep involvement of Åland representatives in the BSPC. This led to him suggesting that the Standing Committee come to a decision at this meeting rather than postponing it yet again.Alfons Röblom thanked Johannes Schraps for his valuable input. He assured the meeting that it was not his intention to prolong the procedure. His side was aware of the progress of time, and he acknowledged the benefit of a transition period as proposed by Johannes Schraps. Alfons Röblom remarked that the recruitment process and decision making was not the most important aspect for him and the Åland parliament, but it had been something that they wanted cleared up. In their view, there was quality and benefit in having an open and transparent recruitment process and to be able to have this in every country and region of this cooperation. His side also found value in the Standing Committee having a great deal to say in the appointment of the next secretary general.Kristina Herbst reminded her colleagues that Schleswig-Holstein had submitted two options. The first was an open recruitment process, with no person already attached to it. Only the second option was associated with Jan Diedrichsen. It was up to the Standing Committee to select one of these options. Kristina Herbst underlined that she had no preference for either. However, she wished to stress that she could not imagine that it would be possible to find a secretary general willing to work for a budget of 80,000 euros. She did not view this as realistic for a full-time position. Furthermore, she highlighted that the parliament of Schleswig-Holstein would have to complete its budgeting for 2025 at the end of August. That meant that she needed the preliminary decision at this very meeting, with the final decision taken by the conference in Helsingør. Without that, she could not include the BSPC in the budget for 2025.Johannes Schraps said that the budgetary question was important. He reminded the meeting that the BSPC had recently raised the contributions from the member parliaments after the departure of the Russian delegations as per the decisions taken in February 2022. The contributions of the remaining members had had to be increased to make up for those no longer provided by the departing delegations, thus allowing the BSPC to continue their work. Speaking frankly, Johannes Schraps voiced his doubt about being able to convince his own parliament, the German Bundestag, to raise the contributions yet again to properly pay a new secretary general. He did not know what the respective situation was in other parliaments, but implied that this might be similar. As such, he opined that the BSPC would have to either work with the budget they had at this point or choose to accept the offer from one of their member parliaments to pay this person. Johannes Schraps stressed that this was a matter the Standing Committee had to discuss and decide upon.Staffan Eklöf underlined that the Swedish delegation also preferred an open and transparent recruitment procedure and that the decision of employment was that of the BSPC rather than someone else. He conceded that it might be premature to suggest deferring the decision to written procedure after the present meeting or to arrange for a digital meeting in the very near future. In the meantime, the Åland side could answer the questions raised during the current meeting.BSPC President Henrik Møller remarked that he had been about to propose the same. Yet he underlined his own worries in this regard, namely that they might be starting a new two-year process and lose even more time. Instead, he now suggested a tour de table asking all the present members of the Standing Committee to offer their opinions. He added that all of them would have to agree, but perhaps this would provide some indication where the various countries or regions were positioned. He started by saying that he was for the Schleswig-Holstein proposal. He saw this as a good solution. Moreover, he did not have the same reservations about the Standing Committee making the decision whom to hire. As far as he was concerned, it would be nice to have a secretary general who understood the ways in which the BSPC worked. Furthermore, a five-year term was something he approved of since that would ensure continuity. This proposal would resolve all of the problems, such as insurance.Prof Jānis Vucāns saw some similarities here with presidential elections. In reality, they were looking at three proposals, two from Schleswig-Holstein and one from Åland. If such a situation were to occur in, e.g., Latvian elections, the country would hold a run-off election: In the first round in this case, the meeting would look at all three options and select two for the second round. If one of them were to reach a majority, the Standing Committee could then discuss which was more preferable for everything. In reality, the likelihood was very low to find a decision in a debate because of the competition between Åland and Schleswig-Holstein. Therefore, they should look for a mechanism to find a resolution. Finally, he underlined that the decision would have to be made on this day. Any postponement would prolong the process for a long time, and no solution would be found. He noted that he was speaking from experience.Carola Veit did not see any competition but rather two members of the Standing Committee who were willing to help the BSPC to find a solution and be responsible for the organisation. What was most important were the two upcoming conference hosts. She also saw a practical question. It was in all of their interests to see the conferences organised well with everything that was needed. The next conference, after Denmark, would be held in Åland, and then there would be Schleswig-Holstein. Both wanted to have good conditions for their presidency. Accordingly, Carola Veit wondered if those interests could not be merged in some fashion. She did not think there was that much difference between the two models. Both were willing to host the secretariat, said that they would get by with the costs. She acknowledged that the Åland proposal was not as precise. Thus, she wondered if Alfons Röblom could speak more about the needs of their upcoming conference and what support they would need. On the other hand, Kristina Herbst had a clear vision but had to know when the new secretary general would be able to take over at the latest. Still, she asked if there could be more of a fluent transition, depending on how long Bodo Bahr would be willing to continue supporting the BSPC. Perhaps that could be done with a focus on ensuring the Åland conference would be well supported, and Schleswig-Holstein might take over more fluently, a bit later than currently intended. Carola Veit reiterated that this was a practical question and did not mean any postponement; she also underlined that the decision would have to be taken on this day. And perhaps, she added, the BSPC was heading more towards a rotation of presidencies.BSPC President Henrik Møller commented with a touch of sarcasm that everybody was making it very easy to come to a decision by continually offering new proposals. He announced that there would be a ten-minute break in which to discuss the further procedure. In that, he conferred with Secretary General Bodo Bahr who to discuss the matter with.The meeting took a ten-minute break.After the break, BSPC President Henrik Møller said that there had been a preliminary result from their discussions and gave the floor to Alfons Röblom.Alfons Röblom stated that it was not the intention of his side to disturb or prolong the process, so he announced that Åland withdrew its proposal. Instead, the Standing Committee should now move on to discuss only the two proposals from Schleswig-Holstein.BSPC President Henrik Møller said that they had come to a possible solution and left it to Secretary General Bodo Bahr to explain it.Secretary General Bodo Bahr detailed that a transition period might bring all the desires and needs a little closer together. That could begin by transferring the accounts on 1 January 2025 to Schleswig-Holstein. The current secretary general would continue his job until the end of the conference in Åland in Mariehamn. Furthermore, the Standing Committee would opt for the proposal using the budget of 80,000 euros with the joint work with the office in Brussels. During the Åland presidency, the Secretariat would have an additional seat in the Åland Parliament. This would be the case from 1 January 2025 to the end of the conference in Mariehamn, with the successor already serving as vice-secretary general during this period. That would enable a transition and also allay any fears that sharing the work with the EU and for the BSPC would end up as a half-time secretary general. As such, the transition would last more than half a year and have the successor already engaged in the work during that time. After the conference in Åland, the position of secretary general would be entirely transferred to Schleswig-Holstein. This was the proposal which, from his point of view, provided the guarantee of continuation and would uphold the quality all of them were used to.BSPC President Henrik Møller underlined that this would stay within the framework of 80,000 euros. If the Standing Committee were to go any other direction, they would have to figure out how to raise more money. He opened the floor for remarks or comments.Johannes Schraps said he could back that proposal, thanking the involved parties for their willingness to find a compromise. This proposal would make sure that their work for the Baltic Sea region could be continued in the future. He went on to point out that, a year earlier, there had been no proposal of this kind on the table at all, and now they had two delegations willing to ensure the continuity of the BSPC’s work. As he looked back, this process had initially begun with three assessments: One had been that at some point, the BSPC would need a successor to Bodo Bahr. The second had been that the BSPC’s work would be guaranteed to continue. The third had been to ensure the BSPC was not as dependent on a single parliament anymore. As it turned out, the third aspect had proved not to be possible because nobody in the BSPC could sign a contract on behalf of the organisation with a new secretary general. Therefore, he believed the proposed solution to be very good, taking both parties into account and sharing the responsibility between both future presidencies. In that regard, he noted that in their earlier discussion about future presidencies, the lack of a solution for the secretariat had held some parliaments back from voicing their interest. Now that the structures were clearer than before, this might lead to further proposals for presidencies. In his view, it was necessary to ensure a good foundation for future presidencies to continue their work. Formally, he declared that he, on behalf of the German Bundestag, was backing this proposal.Staffan Eklöf remarked that it would be ideal to see this suggested solution in written form. He conceded that his colleagues might think him tough, but he assured them that this was nothing compared to the Swedish delegation. Indeed, he only had a mandate to vote for the first option because combining the work for the BSPC with that regarding the EU was seen as a conflict of interest by his side. Indeed, he only had a mandate to vote for an open selection procedure. He could not agree to anything else.BSPC President Henrik Møller asked Staffan Eklöf if his delegation had discussed the issue of the finances.Staffan Eklöf confirmed this. He noted that salaries were different in different countries, but his side saw the possibility of, for instance, redeploying the money for assistants to the secretary general. He was not sure of the amount, citing a possible figure of 40,000 euros. In that regard, Staffan Eklöf pointed out that, if a secretary general could complete his work for the BSPC in a half-time position, then he could handle the full-time position without assistants. Moreover, he noted that the 2023 budget had seen an overshoot of 48,000 euros which signalled that there were no immediate shortcomings in terms of money. Since the fixed term was included in the proposal, he was satisfied on that count.Prof Jānis Vucāns thanked the parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern for their support during the period from 2015 to the present day, when they had organised all of these matters. He pointed out that, aside from Bodo Bahr and Mika Laaksonen, he was the only one who had participated in the decision-making process on the current secretary general. Indeed, Bodo Bahr and Mika Laaksonen had been up for the position. Back then, they had accepted the proposal from Sylvia Bretschneider, the then-president of the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Landtag. The current proposal from Schleswig-Holstein seemed very similar to him. If he were to compare all three proposals, the competition was truly between the second option – namely Jan Diedrichsen – and the Åland suggestion. This came down to money since, for example, it would be impossible for Latvia to increase its contribution to the BSPC because the budget did not leave much room for manoeuvre. He believed this was the same situation for many other parliaments at this time. After all, they were not on the improving side of global economics. As for the concrete proposals, now that Åland had withdrawn its proposal, the decision was easier for him. However, he still did not foresee a unanimous decision because Staffan Eklöf had already been unable to provide a definite answer. He went on to speak formally on behalf of the Baltic Assembly and the Latvian parliament, he accepted the solution that Secretary General Bodo Bahr had outlined.BSPC President Henrik Møller agreed that this solution would have to be provided in writing. He noted that he had spoken to Mr Piotr Koperski from the secretariat of the Polish delegation, regarding the fact that the Polish parliamentarians had not been able to join this meeting. With that in mind, any decision taken at this meeting would find approval from the Polish side.Johannes Schraps concurred with Prof Jānis Vucāns, saying that as head of the delegation from the German Bundestag, he had only been able to discuss the proposals then on the table with his delegation. Yet the Standing Committee had to be able to find compromises, and he believed this proposal was very well suited to implement the will of the delegation from Åland to take a stronger part in elaborating the future of the BSPC while at the same time agreeing to the rather elaborate version from the Schleswig-Holstein parliament. That was why he saw this as a very good proposal. Keeping in mind the three aspects that had launched this discussion, as he had explained a short while earlier, he noted that this compromise resolved two of these three. Therefore, he suggested that the new secretary general should be given the task to reflect the interest of the BSPC to become more independent from a single parliament in the future. That task more specifically would be to elaborate how this institution would have to be settled so that in the future – in five, seven, or ten years – a new structure could be put forward that was no longer dependent on a single parliament. That would at least head in the direction that had originally been envisioned while ensuring that the BSPC would continue working over the coming years. Adding this task to the compromise might be something they could agree on, even though the members of the Standing Committee had not been able to discuss this compromise in full with their home delegations.BSPC President Henrik Møller agreed that this would have to be discussed in the future, but he saw it as overcomplicating the issue if that additional task was put into the compromise.Himanshu Gulati thanked both Åland and Schleswig-Holstein for coming forward with their proposals. As far as the compromise was concerned, Norway was willing to support it, but he also asked for it in writing. He stressed that all of them had to take it seriously that there were three matters of concern here. The first was the need for a smooth transition and continuation, the second was an open recruitment process, and the third independence from a single parliament. At this point, that was not completely possible because of the way things were organised. Whatever solution the Standing Committee was to reach, they would have to accommodate these three aspects.Alfons Röblom remarked that Norway had said much that he had planned to share. He emphasised that from the Åland point of view, what mattered was the openness of the recruitment process, that anybody from every member state or region could apply, and that the decision would be taken by the Standing Committee. They had chosen to withdraw to ensure continuity and a transition period. Thus, he supported the line drawn up by Johannes Schraps, namely that the incoming secretary general should develop a structure for how to implement this procedure the next time, with the aforementioned aspects in place.Hanna Katrín Friðriksson found the present discussion interesting, noting that they were choosing between two good offers. Even though she believed this was a matter for the various parliaments to decide on, on behalf of the Nordic Council, she supported the compromise just presented, especially in light of the fact that a decision had to be made shortly.Carola Veit of Hamburg understood that they now had a solution, except for Sweden currently not agreeing to option 2. As the rest of the Standing Committee favoured the second option, this was a majority for the staffing selection, she noted. She opined that this would be decided by majority, anyway, rather than requiring a unanimous vote. Therefore, she saw no reason to oppose this second option, since it was cheaper. She saw no point in delaying the decision.BSPC President Henrik Møller underlined that this had to be laid out in writing. Furthermore, this written outline would have to include the outlook for the future structure of the BSPC, in that it would no longer be this closely associated with a parliament and also install a more open process of selecting a new secretary general.Pauli Aalto-Setälä said that Finland supported the compromise proposal, also agreeing with what Himanshu Gulati and Johannes Schraps had said. This was a great idea, and, from their point of view, the decision could be made on this day.Staffan Eklöf reminded his colleagues that they were all representatives. This applied to him as well. He had been given these red lines, so he could not agree to the compromise. Instead, he suggested that this could be put into writing, and he promised that the Swedish delegation would answer within a week.BSPC President Henrik Møller concurred since that would also allow the Polish delegation to be involved in this matter. That would also mean that the matter could be decided before 1 July.Oddný G. Harðardóttir from Iceland voiced her support for the compromise. However, she also preferred a written version so that everybody could understand everything included within.Beate Schlupp from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern supported the compromise as well.BSPC President Henrik Møller asked the meeting if they could then agree to make a decision before 1 July, after receiving and reviewing the proposal in writing.Secretary General Bodo Bahr informed the BSPC President Henrik Møller that the Rules of Procedure of the BSPC would have to be adapted for the present case.BSPC President Henrik Møller went on to clarify that this would be included in the written compromise which would also reflect what had been said at the meeting about the future of the BSPC, such as a more open process. Then, they would have to wait for Sweden’s process.The meeting agreed with the proposed procedure regarding the compromise solution.9. 27-30 April 2024 Study Visit at the Finnish Eastern BorderlineBSPC President Henrik Møller noted that some of those present had taken part in this study visit which MP Mikko Polvinen had presented at the Brussels meeting. The participants had pointed out that this had been a very important visit with a very interesting programme and high-level input. He went on to state that a detailed article had been published on the BSPC website, similar to the BSPC Standing Committee meetings. Detailed Notes had also been elaborated and distributed. The results and conclusions of this visit had been incorporated in the preliminary draft resolution for this year’s conference. He suggested that those who had participated in that visit could now report to the meeting. In that, he addressed the representative of the host parliament, Pauli Aalto-Setälä.Pauli Aalto-Setälä felt that he was the wrong person for an unbiased report. As the host, he had loved the event and considered it a fantastic trip. However, he welcomed the others’ remarks.Prof Jānis Vucāns agreed that it had been fantastic, from various points of view. The contents were excellent, as had been the atmosphere. He appreciated what they had been able to see. They had been at the border between Russia and Finland and had seen, for instance, a railway without any trains. The border was absolutely closed, after all. Furthermore, they had visited the LUMI supercomputer at Kajaani as well as other facilities. As such, the visit had been related in some respects to the current working group on energy security and connectivity issues. Prof Vucāns voiced his gratitude to Mr Polvinen and their Finnish colleagues. They had travelled many hundreds of kilometres from the sea to the Finnish border and back. Moreover, he pointed out that the parliamentarians had had the opportunity to discuss many of these issues – primarily related to security – in the bus during those long travels. They had proposed some sentences for the BSPC resolution of the current year. He hoped that these proposals would be acceptable. He noted that there had been the impulse to publish these ideas in the name of the entire BSPC, but he acknowledged that the Rules of Procedure stated that only the conference or the Standing Committee had the right to release opinions on behalf of the entire organisation. The proposals had now been included in the draft, and his side was happy about that.BSPC President Henrik Møller said that the headline for the conference was Safety in the Baltic Sea Region. It was natural to incorporate these ideas.Beate Schlupp fully agreed with Prof Jānis Vucāns. This had been a great experience. She had already made use of it in discussions with her colleagues, noting that it was important to see what was happening at the border. That made it easier to explain the matter to those who did not understand what had really happened.Secretary General Bodo Bahr clarified that the results had already been included in the preliminary draft of the resolution. Thus, there was no need for any further decision to be taken on this item.The meeting took note of the information.10. Events, Reports, and InvitationsBSPC President Henrik Møller remarked that he would take part in the Benelux Interparliamentary Assembly and invite that organisation to the BSPC Annual Conference. He opened the floor for remarks or additional information on upcoming events. Referring to the list, he said that, as always, any of the members of the Standing Committee were welcome to take part in any of these events if they would have the opportunity to do so. No comments were offered.The meeting took note of the information about past and upcoming events.11. BSPC CalendarBSPC President Henrik Møller noted that the Secretariat meeting was listed as taking place on 4 or 7 October 2024. This would be clarified in due time. He opened the floor for remarks, inviting Alfons Röblom to speak about considerations regarding the venue for the November and the spring Standing Committee meetings.Alfons Röblom said his side was very eager and looking forward to organising the May meeting. Regretfully, for the November meeting, they were open if someone else was interested in hosting that meeting. In that, he wished to check the meeting.BSPC President Henrik Møller commented that the strike on the Faroe Islands was likely to be over by November. More seriously, he said that a lot of planning had gone into that meeting, and they were very sad that the Standing Committee had been unable to come to their islands. As such, he believed the Faroe Islands organisers would love having the BSPC there in November. He said this could be discussed further with Alfons Röblom at a later occasion. To a comment about the weather in June compared to November, BSPC President Henrik Møller replied that the Faroe Islands were always beautiful, no matter the weather. He commented that it was the only place he had seen where water was running up because of the powerful winds there.The meeting took note of the BSPC calendar.12. Any Other BusinessBSPC President Henrik Møller invited the meeting to offer any further remarks. As they were none, he thanked the organisers for all of their efforts and closed the meeting.List of Participants in the BSPC Standing Committee Meeting in Copenhagen10 June 2024The Baltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceSec Gen27 June 2024, 22.00BSPC Standing Committee | StaffMr Henrik Møller,President of the BSPCDenmark | Mr Peder Pedersen,Ms Joan ÓlavsdóttirMr Johannes Schraps,Vice-President of the BSPC,Ms Anna Kassautzki,BSPC RapporteurGerman Bundestag | -Mr Alfons Röblom,Vice-President of the BSPCÅland Islands | Mr Sten ErikssonMr Pauli Aalto-Setälä,Finland | Mr Mika LaaksonenMs Carola Veit,President of State ParliamentHamburg | Mr Johannes Düwel,Ms Friederike LünzmannMs Oddný G. Harðardóttir,Iceland | Mr Helgi ÞorsteinssonProf Jānis Vucāns, Vice-President BALatvia | Ms Ingrīda SticenkoMr Romualdas Vaitkus,Lithuania | Ms Agnija Antanoviča,BA Secretary GeneralMs Renata GodfreyMs Beate Schlupp,Vice-President of State Parliament Mecklenburg-Vorpommern | Mr Georg SträtkerMs Hanna Katrín FriðrikssonMember PresidiumNordic Council, | Ms Kristina Háfoss,NC Secretary General,Mr Arne Fogt BergbyMr Himanshu Gulati,Norway | Mr Thomas FraserMs Kristina Herbst,President of State ParliamentSchleswig-Holstein | Mr Jan DiedrichsenMr Staffan Eklöf,Sweden | Ms Helena LundstedtMr Piotr Koperski,PolandMr Bodo Bahr,BSPC Secretary General