33rd BSPC Report

33BSPCYEARSThe 33rd Baltic SeaParliamentary ConferenceSafety in the Baltic Sea Region25 – 27 August 2024,Helsingør, Denmark33The 33rd Baltic SeaParliamentary ConferenceSafety in the Baltic Sea Region25 – 27 August 2024,Helsingør, Denmark33BSPCYEARS5ContentsOPENING SESSION ...........................................................................6FIRST SESSION .................................................................................14Defence Cooperation 14Recommendations from the BSPC Parlamentaryyouth Forum 41SECOND SESSION ...........................................................................47Energy supply Security 47The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) was was es-tablished in 1991 as a forum for political dialogue betweenparliamentarians from the Baltic Sea Region. The BSPCaims to raise awareness and opinion on issues of current po- THIRD SESSION ...............................................................................70litical interest and relevance for the Baltic Sea Region. Itpromotes and drives various initiatives and efforts to sup-Safety in the Baltic Sea 70port the sustainable environmental, social and economicdevelopment of the Baltic Sea Region. It strives to enhancethe visibility of the Baltic Sea Region and its issues in a Addresses by Representatives of other Parlamentary Assemblies,broader European context. The BSPC gathers parliamen-international Guests, and BSPC Observer Organisations 85tarians from 10 national parliaments, 7 regional parlia-ments with legislative powers, one supranational parlia-ment and 4 parliamentary organisations around the Baltic Status Report from the Working Group and Reports bySea. The BSPC thus constitutes a unique parliamentaryBSPC Rapporteurs 95bridge between the democratic EU- and non-EU countriesof the Baltic Sea Region. The BSPC external interfaces in-clude parliamentary, governmental, subregional and otherorganisations in the Baltic Sea Region and the Northern FOURTH SESSION .........................................................................108Dimension area, among them CBSS, HELCOM, theNorthern Dimension Partnership in Health and SocialClimate Initiatives108Well-Being (NDPHS), the Baltic Sea Labour Forum(BSLF) and the Baltic Sea States Subregional Cooperation(BSSSC).CLOSING SESSION ........................................................................126The BSPC shall initiate and guide political activities in theThe 33rd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference region; support and strengthen democratic institutions inSafety in the Baltic Sea Region the participating states; improve dialogue between govern-Text: ments, parliaments and civil society; strengthen the com- LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ...............................................................133Marc Hertel, Jördis Palme, Daniel Becker and mon identity of the Baltic Sea Region by means of close co-Bodo Bahr operation between national and regional parliaments basedLayout: on equality; and initiate and guide political activities in thePHOTOS ..........................................................................................142Produktionsbüro TINUS Baltic Sea Region, endowing them with additional demo-cratic legitimacy and parliamentary authority.Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference The political recommendations of the Annual Parliamenta-Bodo Bahr ry Conferences are expressed in a Conference ResolutionSecretary General adopted by consensus by the Conference. The adopted Res-+49 171 5512557 olution shall be submitted to the governments of the Balticbodo.bahr@bspcmail.net Sea Region, the CBSS and the EU and disseminated to oth-www.bspc.net er relevant national, regional and local stakeholders in theBSPC Secretariat Baltic Sea Region and its neighbourhood. The govern-Schlossgartenallee 15 ments of the Baltic Sea Region report before the next Annu-19061 Schwerin al Conference about its implementation.GERMANY6 7OPENING SESSIONIntroductionChair: Mr Henrik Møller, President of the BSPCCo-Chair: Mr Johannes Schraps, Vice-President of the BSPCMr Søren Gade, Speaker of the Danish ParliamentMr Henrik Møller, President of the BSPC 2023–2024BSPC President Henrik Møller welcomed the attendees to the 33rd Bal-tic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Helsingør. He declared the conferenceopen. Over the next few days, they would discuss crucial topics for the fu-ture of the region. He was pleased to co-chair this session alongside his es-teemed colleague, Mr Johannes Schraps, Vice President and former Presi-dent of the BSPC. Before delving into the details of the conference topics,he had the honour of giving the floor for the opening speech to the speak-er of the Danish parliament, Mr Søren Gade.Opening Speech by Mr Søren Gade, Speakerof the Danish ParliamentSøren Gade also welcomed the attendees to the 33rd Baltic Sea Parliamen-tary Conference in Helsingør as well as the participants of the Baltic SeaParliamentary Youth Forum. In Helsingør, they were in a central locationin the Baltic Sea region. This was where the entrance to Øresund and theBaltic Sea was the narrowest. At this point, the Øresund custom tolls hadbeen collected and the deadliest battles between Denmark and Swedenhad been fought for the control of Øresund and the Baltic Sea. He com-mented that they hadn’t done any of that in the last couple of decades. Itwas also precisely in this region that a large-scale coordinated action hadtaken place in October 1943 when more than 7,000 Danish Jews had beensaved from deportation and had sailed to safety in Sweden. Many Jews hadcome to Sweden from this area; local fishermen had hidden them on their8 9fishing boats and sailed them across Øresund under the cover of the night. the Baltic Sea area. Mr Gade did not say that this was to scare anyone, andNeutral Sweden had been very close to Denmark, and the border could be he wished the reality was different. But the Baltic Sea was a key region in Eu-crossed by sea right here in Øresund. This action had been of great signif- rope. In this region, they had seen many big questions of their time unfold.icance for the Allied’s perception of Denmark’s position during and after Climate change and the protection of maritime ecosystems, energy and safe-World War II. In international Jewish history, the rescue of the Danish ty in maritime infrastructure, democracies were under attack in the digitalJews stood out as an event demonstrating resilience and humanity. space and, close to the Baltic Sea region, in Ukraine. It was important thatthey exchanged ideas with each other and learned from each other. Moreo-Moving on, Mr Gade said that the brutal Russian attack on Ukraine in Feb- ver, the participation of young people in the Youth Forum was of great val-ruary 2024 had been a turning point for Europe and for the Baltic Sea Par- ue. He extended a special thanks to them.liamentary Conference. Cooperation with the Russian duma and its region-al parliaments had been terminated immediately. The Russian invasion inUkraine was against all principles in a rule-based international order. Hisheart went out to the great people of Ukraine. He condemned the Russianaggression in the strongest terms. Ukraine had now been fighting for its free-dom for more than two and a half years, and Mr Gade was deeply impressedby the determination of the Ukrainian people to defend their freedom anddemocracy. The West had to continue its support for Ukraine, they had tostand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine because the latter’s fight was alsothat of the former. All of them shared the same values regarding democracy,individual freedom, and a rule-based international order. After Russia’s with-drawal from the institutions of the Baltic Sea region, it was important thatother neighbours cooperated even more closely. At this conference and inthe Baltic Sea Council, they were working together well in other formats,such as in the European Union and of course NATO. Mr Gade was pleased Mr Gade wished everyone good days in Helsingør, with good and con-that Finland and Sweden were now members of NATO. This would make structive discussions as well as hopefully new friendships across the Baltictheir alliance stronger and their deterrence even more effective. Sea. The parliamentary conference in the Baltic Sea was of particular valueas a forum for dialogue between the parliaments in the Baltic Sea regionHe noted that the theme for this year’s conference was Safety and Security in and had been so for now more than 30 years. He repeated his welcome,the Baltic Sea Region. In recent years, they had seen a number of incidents noting that he was also looking forward to bilateral discussions with somewith a destabilising effect on the energy supply in the Baltic Sea region. A of the attendees.year after the Nord Stream pipeline had been blown up, the Finnish-Estoni-an gas pipeline had been subjected to what had been characterised as sabo- Co-Chairman Johannes Schraps thanked the speaker for welcoming thetage. Danish district heating had also been exposed to major cyber attacks. BSPC as well as for the first impressive contribution. He also welcomedIn 2022, there had been many attacks on the GPS signals in Denmark. Un- the attendees and thanked BSPC President Henrik Møller and his teamfortunately, these attacks on their power grid, internet cables, and digital sys- for organising an excellent start into the conference. In that regard, hetems never seemed to end. So far, they had managed to fix every breakdown mentioned the welcome dinner the night before. They had had nice fooddue to their know-how and experience, but the attacks were also aimed at and drinks as well as good talks at that table. The performance by threecreating uncertainty in the population, to provoke division and criticism of Danish singers and a piano player had built a symbolic bridge between thethe West’s position in relation to Russia. The political rhetoric of today was two shores visible through the windows. He gave the floor to the presidentaggressive, and more and larger-scale military exercised were being held in for his speech.10 11Opening Speech by BSPC President Henrik Møller strides in environmental protection, energy security, and regional de-fence cooperation. These conferences had reinforced the importance ofBSPC President Henrik Møller said it was an honour and privilege to the BSPC’s role in a broader international community, demonstratingstand before them in his hometown of Helsingør – or Elsinore, as it was that the democratic Baltic Sea region was a leader in addressing some ofcalled there – and to celebrate the 33rd Baltic Sea Parliamentarian Confer- the most pressing issues of this time. Additionally, during visits to theence. This gathering represented the culmination of one year’s hard work Rail Baltica construction site in Riga and the Fehmarnbelt Tunnel con-and collaboration and continuation of vital traditions underscoring their struction site in Rødbyhavn the previous autumn, they had taken a deepshared commitment to the prosperity, security, and sustainability of the and practical look at Europe’s most significant infrastructure measures indemocratic Baltic Sea region. As he reflected on the past twelve months of the east and in the west. Some of their members had conducted a studyhis presidency, he was deeply grateful to the dedication and resilience visit to the Finnish eastern border, yielding insight into the current secu-shown by each of the distinguished parliamentarians, the members of their rity reality in the eastern part of the Baltic Sea region.working group, and their partners across the democratic Baltic Sea regionand beyond. They had navigated a complex landscape of challenges and BSPC President Henrik Møller acknowledged the exemplary work of theopportunities, constantly strengthening the ties binding their parliaments BSPC Working Group on Energy Supply, Security, and Resilience. Thisand nations. group had been at the forefront of the BSPC’s efforts to address the crit-ical issue of energy security in their region – an issue that had only gainedOver the past year, their work had taken them across the region and be- more importance in light of the recent global events. While the details ofyond, engaging in critical dialogue and forging partnerships that would their work would be covered more thoroughly in a separate speech by theshape the future of their shared maritime space. In the autumn of 2023, chairman, Mr Andris Kulberg, the president highlighted the group’s rolethey had convened several key meetings that had set the tone for the year in fostering dialogue and proposing innovative solutions to ensure theahead. These gatherings had reviewed their progress, had set ambitious energy infrastructure was resilient, sustainable, and secure. Their effortsgoals, and had reaffirmed their commitment to collective action. One of had laid a strong foundation for the BSPC’s discussions during this con-the highlights was their participation in the Conference of Presidents of ference.Parliaments in Europe at which they had exchanged views with severalparliamentarian presidents and had met with the president of the Ukraine As part of their Standing Committee meetings, they had dealt extensivelyparliament. These discussions had been vital in reinforcing their solidar- with critical infrastructure issues in Maribo. They had deepened their linksity with Ukraine and deepening their understanding of the broader Eu- with the EU Commission, HELCOM, and the CBSS in Brussels by tak-ropean security landscape. During the Nordic Council and the Baltic As- ing stock of several burning policy areas, particularly climate, security, andsembly sessions, they had deepened their close ties and commonalities environmental protection. They had also discussed fundamental issuesbut had also taken the opportunity to make contacts beyond the Baltic concerning the BSPC’s future structure at the Folketing in Copenhagen.Sea region. For example, they had spoken with the Scottish parliament. Their discussions had been pivotal in guiding their collective response toThis broadening of their network reflected the growing recognition of the challenges ahead. Given the current geopolitical situation, protectingthe importance of regional cooperation across the borders. In June of critical infrastructure in the Baltic Sea region had been a focal point in2024, they had participated in the meeting of the Benelux parliaments. their recent consultations within the BSPC. Many calls to action had beenAs an aside, he gave a special welcome to representatives from those par- outlined for this year’s resolution which would be discussed at this confer-liaments. There, they had held deep discussions about improving port se- ence. These measures focused on improving infrastructure, enhancing mil-curity. BSPC President Henrik Møller commented that, at the same itary mobility, and increasing cooperation among democratic Baltic Seatime, several tonnes of cocaine had been confiscated in the port of Ham- countries. Improved coordination of activities and regular collaborationburg, underscoring the importance of cooperation between countries to were essential for protecting the marine infrastructure.solve some of these problems. In his view, they had made significant12 13Looking at the days ahead, the president was particularly excited about thanks to everyone for their dedication and support over the past year.the programme they had assembled for this conference. They would be- It had been an honour to serve as their president, and he was lookinggin with a session on defence cooperation, exploring how they could en- forward to the important work they would do together in the dayshance their collective security in the face of new and evolving threats. ahead.This timely discussion was essential to create deeper collaboration be-tween their nations. He invited all of them to join them for further dis- Co-Chairman Johannes Schraps thanked the BSPC President Henrikcussion on this topic planned for 9 September in the folketing under the Møller for his introductory speech and for sharing insights about the lastheadline A New Era in the Baltic Nordic Defence. In the second session, twelve months as well as the work done during the Danish presidency.their focus would shift to the energy supply security, a subject that hadbeen at the hear of the BSPC’s work in the past year. The insight gainedfrom this session would be crucial as they navigated the challenges of se-curing a stable and secure energy supply for all of their citizens. The thirdsession would address safety in the Baltic Sea, directly speaking to theirregional identity. The Baltic Sea was more than just a body of water, itwas a vital artery of commerce, culture, and communication. Ensuringits safety was paramount to the prosperity and sustainability of their re-gion. Finally, they would focus on climate initiatives – a subject tran-scending borders and demanding their collective action. The impacts ofclimate change were felt acutely in the Baltic Sea region, and they want-ed to lead the way in implementing sustainable practices as well as inno-vative solutions.In concluding his review of the past year, BSPC President Henrik Møllerwas reminded of the words he had shared at the close of their precedingconference in Berlin. He had then spoken of the need for unity, courage,and unwavering commitment to the values defining this region. Thosewords were as relevant on this day as they had been then. Involvingyoung people in their work had been and was a particular concern. Hewas delighted that they had again succeeded in organising a Baltic SeaParliamentary Youth Forum along with the BSPC conference this year.He extended a warm welcome to the participants in this forum, follow-ing the previous day’s intensive discussions on the burning issues of thetime. He further thanked the CBSS for their work in organising theyouth forum. The BSPC had made progress over the past twelve months,but their work needed to be completed. The challenges they were facingwere significant, but so too was their resolve. As they embarked on thisconference, he encouraged each of the attendees to engage fully in thediscussions, to share their insights, and to continue working together inthe spirit of cooperation that had always been the hallmark of the BalticSea Parliamentary Conference. In closing, he extended his heartfelt14 15FIRST SESSIONDefence CooperationChair: Mr Henrik Møller, President of the BSPCCo-Chair: Mr Johannes Schraps, Vice-President of the BSPCMr Pekka Haavisto, MP, former Finnish minister for Foreign AffairsMr Jarosław Wałęsa, MP PolandMr Flemming Splidsboel, senior researcher DIISCo-Chairman Johannes Schraps said in his opening remarks that the se-curity landscape in the region had undergone significant changes in recentyears, largely driven by external factors – especially including Russia’s in-creasing military activities and aggressive postures. These developmentshad brought both direct and indirect impacts on the nations around theBaltic Sea, from increasing military spending to shifts in regional alliances.The need for enhanced cooperation among their nations had never beenmore pressing as they were all facing these challenges together.He introduced the first speaker, Mr Pekka Haavisto, the former FinnishMinister for Foreign Affairs. Mr Haavisto had had an extensive career inFinnish and international politics, including work with the United Na-tions and with the European Parliament.He brought unparalleled expertise in foreign policy, crisis management,and environmental issues. Given the BSPC’s recent discussions on the se-curity situation at the eastern border of the democratic Baltic Sea region,his insights into Finland’s current defence strategy and implications for thewhole region and the European Union were particularly timely.16 17Speech by Mr Pekka Haavisto, as Russia were very dependent on the sea and the maritime traffic. Bothformer Finnish Minister for Foreign Affairs could pose challenges to the other parties. Therefore, they had to be very re-alistic when thinking about the Baltic Sea. Mr Haavisto noted that this ap-Pekka Haavisto joked that there often was a feeling that everything had plied in particular to Finland: 80 – 90 % of the country’s trade was depend-already been said about security, but since not everybody had spoken out ent on the sea and the connections made across it. It could not be underes-on that issue, they could continue their debate. He came from a country timated what this meant for that nation.with a 1,300-kilometre border with Russia. Sometimes people asked ifFinns weren’t afraid to have such a border, and their answer already was These days, a lot was also said about the defence industry and what could bethat they would be more afraid if they did not have that border. When done together. Considering the experience from Ukraine, it was a disaster.speaking about security and defence, they were definitely speaking about a When training Ukrainian soldiers on the various arms types and technolo-broad sense of security and defence – comprehensive security. Many said gies used in the different NATO countries, it had become clear that the in-that Finland had been planning for the total defence, meaning that the dif- teroperability, standardisation, and harmonisation was missing. Mr Haavis-ferent sectors of civil society had been built into the defence thinking as to stressed that they had to step up on implementing those three factors.well as the private sector. In their view, this concept should be enhanced inthese very difficult days.He remarked that there might have been a mistake when thinking about thelayers of defence. There had been the idea that such wars as witnessed duringWorld War II – or even World War I – would no longer be realistic, thatthere would be hybrid wars, cyber wars, and information wars with all kindsof new information technologies. But they had come to the conclusion thatthose old layers of warfare had not disappeared at all, as shown by the war inUkraine. It was just that new layers had been built on top of the old ones. Assuch, they had to respond to both old-fashioned warfare as well as to thenew, very difficult types of challenges that he had listed before. All these dif-ferent risks had to be accounted for in defence. In addition, when looking atthe security in the Baltic Sea region, they had to consider the institutionsthere – particularly the European Union and NATO. With the two newmembers in NATO – Finland and Sweden –, this had enhanced the possi-bilities of the alliance for the total security of the Baltic Sea region. As Finns, This, indeed, was one of the big questions: Should that harmonisation bethey had to say they were a little bit disappointed by the security debate in put in place only in the European context – maybe including the UK andthe European Union. Finland believed that the EU’s security guarantees Norway –, or should it be extended to the trans-Atlantic context. They wereshould be real. But for them to be real, those should be planned and exer- coming very rapidly to the point at which this question would have to be an-cised in many ways. That had not happened, as all of them knew. Looking swered. He noted that the current EU elections would also have a certain in-towards the new Commission, Mr Haavisto said that his country was ex- fluence on this matter. For politicians, there was also the question of thepecting security to be taken very seriously in the EU context. Regarding the price tag: For how long would taxpayers be willing to support these decisionsBaltic Sea, it had recently been called frequently a NATO lake, but that was and the investments into the security, and what kind of security investmentsoverlooking the geographical realities. On the map, one could see Kalinin- were they willing to accept. The same went for where money would be tak-grad, all the risks borne by the corridor from Kaliningrad to Belarus and fur- en away in the national budgets to increase military spending.ther to Russia; there was St Petersburg. Both the democratic countries as well18 19Coming back to Finland and Sweden, Mr Haavisto said that maritime sur- Speech by Mr Jarosław Wałęsa, MP Polish parliamentveillance was an important issue in the Baltic Sea. They had witnessed theNord Stream explosion, irrespective of who had caused it. They had wit- To start off, Jarosław Wałęsa referenced Mr Haavisto’s comment aboutnessed the Balticconnector being severed by a Chinese ship. New technol- being disappointed in the European Union’s response. Mr Wałęsa said thatogies were needed for surveillance in the Baltic Sea region. He believed he was disappointed in the European Union ever since the Balkans War inthat Finland and Sweden could contribute to that. Here, he pointed to the 1990s. They had been unable to find a common solution and cooper-Sweden’s very advanced submarine technology. ation back then. This showed that they still had a long way ahead of themto actually forge this collaboration that was fruitful and would in factFinally, he spoke about environmental security which had already been men- transform into something meaningful, beneficial, and cost-effective. Hetioned several times by previous speakers. There was the old environmental highlighted the last term as very important. It had to be understood thatburden, such as the dumping of explosives and military material during this was a marathon. The war in Ukraine had changed their perspective onWorld War II. He noted that some among them were very concerned about pretty much everything. The way they were speaking right now hadthe chemicals outgassing from the corroding shells. Then he mentioned the changed so much. One could cast their mind back to what the debates hadnewer burdens, from e.g., oil and chemical transport, more and more carried been like four or five years ago and see that those had been completely dif-by old, unofficial vessels from Russia bringing loads from St. Petersburg and ferent. Ever since the conflict had begun, a new understanding had been inother harbours. On top of all that, there was the huge issue of the climate place. He hoped that this understanding would transform into somethingand new energy technologies, with the concern about how to advance solar else.and wind technologies. This was the landscape they were working in, andMr Haavisto believed there was much left to do in the Baltic context. As Poland’s immediate neighbourhood, the Baltic Sea region was of great-est importance for the country’s foreign policy. Mr Wałęsa noted that theySession Co-Chairman Johannes Schraps thanked Mr Pekka Haavisto for shared the concern for its development, particularly in the sphere of secu-his enlightening remarks. It had been very impressive to listen to some of rity with all the partners in this room. The geostrategic importance of thethe points he had made. He moved on to the next speaker who was very Baltic Sea region had gained a special dimension due to the Russian ag-well known in the BSPC family. Their distinguished colleague and mem- gressive actions in Ukraine. With this war raging on their doorstep, the re-ber of the Polish parliament from Gdańsk, a region with deep ties to the gional cooperation and community were essential. As long as they under-Baltic Sea region, was Mr Jarosław Wałęsa. Johannes Schraps noted that stood this, they could hopefully also transform their language – the waymuch like his father, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Lech Wałęsa, the younger they spoke to their constituents. As time went by, politicians might under-Wałęsa had been politically active for a long time. He had served as a mem- stand how important it was to maintain and fund this unity, but the citi-ber of the European Parliament from 2009 – 2019, where he had been zens might find it difficult to understand why they had to give their hard-deeply involved in fishery and environmental issues, international trade as earned money to support some war in Ukraine. It was very important forwell as the broader concerns of the Baltic Sea region. For many years, he politicians to translate the way they understood the situation into what thehad also been the chair of the BSPC delegation from the Polish parlia- society understood. Peace was nowhere in sight. It was going to be a longment. Mr Schraps said that they were all happy that Mr Wałęsa was con- process, a costly process, Mr Wałęsa cautioned. As long as the democratictinuing to be a part of the BSPC family. countries were supporting Ukraine, with firearms, with political help, withmilitary expertise, the nation was going to stand its ground. Yet recently,there had been that time when the substantial support from the US hadbeen halted, and that had led to devastating consequences on the groundin Ukraine. He called on his colleagues to make sure that their end – theEuropean side – would not allow this to recur and to maintain their sup-port.20 21Moreover, Mr Wałęsa stressed that they had to understand that Russia Wałęsa said it was also worthwhile noting what had happened in Wash-still had assets in this region. With the military presence in Kaliningrad ington at the last NATO summit. The demonstration of unity had beenand the continued military activities at sea, Russia retained the ability to established and confirmed, with the decisions taken there strengtheningthreaten the democratic nations’ territory at short notice. They could NATO’s defence as well as its long-term political and practical supportalso target critical infrastructure, including undersea cables and pipe- for Ukraine. NATO should stay focused on its collective security andlines. The Russian military and its hybrid activity in the region had in- control its defence. It had to continue to deny any possibility of aggres-tensified as well. There was a wave of Russian hybrid attacks in the re- sion, be it hybrid or military, from the territory of Russia, Belarus, orgion. Borders were also put into question, GPS signals had been disrupt- elsewhere. A persistent and robust presence of allied forces, especially oned, Russian planes had deliberately violated other countries’ airspace. the eastern flank, was of crucial importance. Supporting Ukraine and ul-Operations against the critical infrastructure had been put into action. timately admitting the country to NATO was the only way to bring sus-The sabotage operations, the military threats, the artificially created mi- tainable peace to Europe. Mr Wałęsa added that he understood this wasgration flow – a big issue in the Baltic countries, Poland, Finland – as a long process and that first, peace had to be established, yet this waswell as cyber attacks were all part of Russia’s aggressive stance. However, something that had been reaffirmed at said summit. The political mes-Russia’s war in Ukraine had triggered a number of important processes. sage was very clear: The path of Ukraine into NATO was undeniable. Po-One could literally say that Russia had succeeded in what had long been land welcomed this decision to enhance NATO’s role in training and se-hoped for on the democratic side but not deemed likely, namely, Finland curity assistance and establishment of a NATO-Ukrainian analysis train-and Sweden’s accession to NATO. Mr Wałęsa pointed out that Putin had ing centre in Bydgoszcz, Poland.been opposing that, yet his actions had pushed the two countries intothe military alliance. With that, the role of the Baltic Sea in the context Russia was and would remain the most serious and direct threat to theof their security had increased significantly. The Baltic Sea had become a alliance. Considering that Moscow’s goals went beyond the destructionbasin which the alliance was dominating. And this was both a great op- of sovereign Ukraine, as it sought to build a new security order againstportunity as well as a challenge. All of them were fully aware that Russia and at the expense of Europe, the western nations had to think about– itself a Baltic Sea state – would use its potential to destabilise the situ- what would happen next. The subjugation of Belarus was continuing,ation in the entire region. That had to be taken as a fact, he underlined. providing additional instruments to Russia to disrupt the security inIf they could do it, they would do it. Finnish and Swedish membership terms of military but also hybrid action. Mr Wałęsa believed that NATOwas boosting NATO’s defence capabilities – not only in the Baltic Sea and all of their countries had to establish a new strategic approach to-basin but also more broadly, extending into areas such as the Arctic High wards Russia. In an aside, he hoped that his colleagues from the BalticNorth and the entire Euro-Atlantic area, affecting all its allied countries. States would take the floor in the debate since their perspective was im-That was definitely something to be thankful for, Mr Wałęsa said. The portant. He always welcomed their insights. Moving back, he said it wasBaltic Sea had become almost completely an allied sea, constituting an important to understand that this conflict would hopefully come to animportant centre for strengthening the national and regional security of end at some point, but what mattered was that the democratic countriesPoland and the Baltic states. That contributed significantly to the securi- had a community of values which they shared. They were democracies,ty of the NATO countries around the Baltic Sea. they respected the rule of – international – law, and they had to imple-ment these interactions as well. In the end, once peace was established,In this context, Poland welcomed the recent initiative of the Finnish they had to make sure that their cooperation was strong enough to sur-presidency of the CBSS. A discussion of the Foreign Ministers of the vive the upcoming months.Council held in the margins of the last Ministerial Meeting in Porvoohad provided an opportunity to better coordinate their positions and re-inforcing their common response to Russian threats in the Baltic Sea re-gion. Poland was ready to continue collaboration in this format. Mr22 23Speech by Mr Flemming Splidsboel, senior researcher,Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)Flemming Splidsboel started by sharing two pieces of uncomfortable news.The first was that he could confirm that the war in Ukraine would continuefor a long time – or at least the conflict with Russia. The democratic sideshould prepare for this and define how to prepare, how to prioritise, how toinvest. The long-term nature had to be starting point in these considerations.The second piece of unpleasant news was that, unless something new was in-troduced into the war, they should prepare for the likelihood that Ukrainemight lose this war. Looking at public opinion on e.g., spending, this was afact to take into account. In the later stages of the summer, Ukraine hadbeen given a freer hand to use western-supplied weapons systems on Russianterritory. This was one such new element that was quite significant, yet some-thing else would likely have to be introduced to tip the balance.Mr Wałęsa voiced his concern that this near future would force them tonot only understand their position but also to make them judge their ac- The war would go on for a long time because the Russian regime was now fo-tions appropriately. In other words, they would have to find a common cused on war. It was the raison d’être of the regime; it revolved around war.solution that would be practical in use. This was about what kinds of ar- He ventured so far as to say that the Putin regime might not survive withoutmaments were needed, what types of weapons and where they would be the war. The conflict had now infused every aspect of Russian society and life.manufactured. These were the issues that would have to be addressed fairly In an interview, Mr Splidsboel had been asked whether a music festival inquickly, in a completely unified and cooperative response. If they could Russia had also been politicised. His answer had been that, yes, everythingfind these solutions, he was certain they would emerge victorious. Howev- was politicisied in Russia. No issue in that country was too insignificant to beer, he reiterated that the upcoming months might find themselves in ques- included in the political agenda. Therefore, it was an extremely radicalised re-tionable positions, meaning that their own constituents might become gime focused on war, understanding that conflict with the West – which hadtired enough of the situation to clamor for solutions that were not the best been part of their political DNA for a number of years – was something theyones for Ukraine. Yet the support for Ukraine had to be unwavering and would have to uphold. The democratic nations would have to prepare for thisbe as strong as humanly possible. That was the only way for that country reality and do so for the long term. This radicalisation of Russian society in soto survive. In the end, what mattered most was that the sovereignty of many respects had been developing for a long time, but it had changed dra-Ukraine also meant peace for the other democratic nations. Ukraine was matically since the full-scale invasion. Often at public lectures, Mr Splidsboelfighting the war for all the democracies. would say that Russia was a very different country today. It had always beenquite far out, and it had been authoritarian before the full-scale invasion. ButBSPC President Henrik Møller thanked Mr Jarosław Wałęsa for his valu- now, it had gone fully authoritarian, perhaps even semi-fascist, perhaps evenable contribution. The final speaker was Mr Flemming Splidsboel, a senior fully fascist. It had become semi-totalitarian as well. In Russia, a meta-narra-researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies. His research tive had been developed over the past decades or so that all of the troublesparticularly focused on international security in Eastern Europe and Rus- Russia was facing had truly come from the West. This had become all thesia, positioning him as a leading voice on defence and security issues in the more accentuated and prominent in the last two years.Baltic Sea region. His analysis would help the BSPC to understand thebroader geostrategic dynamics at play. This had consequences for the West, as reflected by the discussion at thisconference. They had been observing this development for quite a while.24 25Looking back at the illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014 as If one thought about how many different ideas one could compile in justwell as subsequent developments, Russia had pushed a number of military a brief morning session, then one understood the breadth of what the Westcapacities into the Baltic Sea and further on, even into the Arctic Sea. They had to contend with. For that reason, it was very important to cooperate.had done so for a number of reasons. In the Baltic Sea region, the relation- A lot of focus was given to hard kinetic cooperation, but increasingly, itship with Russia had centred on conflict, as the Russians insisted, probably was necessary to be aware of non-kinetic cooperation across the domains –at its most unfiltered. For instance, in Kaliningrad Oblast, they could turn physical, cyber, and cognitive. Studies had shown that the more theythe temperature up or down on the West, by e.g., moving missiles into the learned from each other and shared best practices, the better they were. Mrarea and then withdrawing them. Western countries spent a lot of time Splidsboel pointed out that they had quite similar societies, making it eas-thinking about these missiles, whether they were equipped with nuclear ier to exchange best practices and information. Moreover, their societieswarheads. These maneuvres were a way of influencing the West. Russia had were bound together by high levels of trust. He went on to remark aboutdone so increasingly since 2014 and even more so since 2022. This had im- rumours that a new ministry would be established in Denmark, designedplications for everyone outside Russia. He highlighted the Kingdom of to enable exactly this in a national context – bringing together their think-Denmark in this regarding the Faroe Islands and Greenland. ing about the domains and cooperate even more closely.Much of the focus was placed on direct military threats. Mr Splidsboel ap- Next, he picked up on the comments about the European Union. Mrproved of that. They should prepare for this, and he was aware that mili- Splidsboel stressed that he was not there to defend the EU, but looking attary planners were doing their best every day. This was evidenced through the breadth of what they were facing, the European Union had a numberincreased spending, increased operations. That was paramount. Yet hybrid of standards that were quite useful. In the most basic terms, for kinetic ef-warfare was also important. He noted that he had worked as a researcher, fects, he would look to NATO, and for non-kinetic effects, the EU wouldand much of his work had focused on that area. As such, he wanted to come into play. He underlined that the latter actually had standards forpresent his understanding of the issue, hoping that this would create a bet- some of these issues. Here, he pointed to NIS 2 – Network and Informa-ter shared understanding in the subsequent discussion. To Mr Splidsboel, tion Security Doctrine 2 – from the European Union which addressed thehybrid warfare meant the very deliberate use of kinetic and non-kinetic ef- cyber domain and the physical domain by highlighting the importance offects. He noted that the military did not speak about military and non-mil- protecting cyber infrastructure – both digital and physical. This woulditary but rather kinetic and non-kinetic. His work dealt with three do- come into force in mid-October 2024.mains that in his view covered everything: the physical domain – wherethe kinetic effects were usually found –, the cyber domain, and the cogni- Mr Splidsboel remarked that at public lectures, there were some issues hetive domain – including disinformation. The Russians thought were crea- did not wish to bring up himself. He always waited for someone to ask atively about how to use different effects in those three domains. It was a question, for instance about nuclear war. He avoided this topic because ithuge and growing challenge. Here, he asked his audience to imagine they spoiled the atmosphere of the talk. Another issue he did not like to tacklewere all employed by the Russian state, with a bunch of yellow post-it first was how to deal with Russia on the other side of the conflict. It seemednotes before them, and they had to come up with an idea how to make life premature to have a discussion on this topic, but that was something theydifficult for the Finns or the Poles or the Swedes. After a brief session with needed to prepare for. The map – such as the Arctic region, for example –lots of coffee, they could come up with many interesting ideas, and they made it clear that they were living next door to Russia. Some might re-would put them up on the wall. There, you would see GPS jamming, old member the relationship with the Soviet Union in the 1980s and Russia inships travelling through international waters, disinformation campaigns, the 1990s. They had felt the consequences of a malfunctioning, dysfunc-cyber campaigns, pressure from refugees, and so on. These were really the tional state, and the West had felt they had needed to address these. In theresults of sessions where people sat down to think creatively about how to near future, they might find themselves in a similar situation. Shoulduse different vulnerabilities. Ukraine actually win this war and Russia lose, the West had to be ready toaddress the circumstances. Looking at the big picture, the war in Ukraine26 27was about the collapse of the last European empire. The Russian empire BSPC President Henrik Møller thanked Mr Flemming Splidsboel and allwas collapsing, and Mr Splidsboel was sure that it would collapse – per- the speakers for their insightful presentations. Those had been three veryhaps not in two years’ time, but it would at one point. That would bring valuable contributions. He opened the floor for the political debate.tremendous consequences for all of them. Some of these might be verypositive, yet others would also be negative. They would cause instability Political Debatethat would have to be dealt with. He underlined that he wanted to throwthis comment out as a thought-provoking item. After Putin would no Lene Westgard-Halle said that every morning, she gazed into her littlelonger be the president of Russia – in whichever of the scenarios one could daughter’s eyes. Her heart was filled with gratitude. She was thankful notthink of –, the further war would drag out, the greater the consequences only because of her presence or the life that they were leading but also be-for Russia would be. In his view, those would make it more likely for Rus- cause of the peace that they were enjoying in their country of Norway. Hersia to turn to the West, proclaiming that Putin had told them to do it, they grandparents had not been that fortunate. They had grown up in differentwere really sorry, and now they wanted to cooperate again. There had to be cities, in different countries; they had all grown up with war. Many of thea plan to respond to that. people in this room had experienced war – some of them personally, manylike herself through family. All of them had known war through history.Their region had lived longer with war than without it. Looking back ontheir region’s history, it was not one of peace, not one of prosperity but in-stead one clad with conflict, war, and hard work. It was not a given thatthose sitting in this room were friends, that they were working together, orthat they actually wished each other well. But they did, she underlined,adding with a wink, most of the time. Peace was not given. They hadfought hard to get to this point. They had sacrificed. A lot of lives had beenlost along the way in all of their countries. For most of them, this sufferingand these conflicts were a big part of them and their history. It would beeasy for them to hate. But their countries had chosen not to hate. The peo-ple had chosen not to hate. That was why they stood united on this day.And that made them stronger than ever. Yet she cautioned her listeners notto take this for granted. By the same token, they could not take democra-In conclusion, Mr Splidsboel reiterated that the West had to prepare for a cy for granted. It had to be defended and protected. People had to standlong-term war. Hopefully, something would happen in-between. Putin up for it. In the same way, it was not a given that democracy would endure.had been re-elected, and he would be re-elected again and would remain Ms Westgard-Halle asked her colleagues to think about this fact and topresident until at least 2036. Something could happen, but that was what think about the alternatives. For that reason, the people in this room need-they needed to get ready for. They had to prepare, to prioritise, to invest – ed to deepen their cooperation, set aside different ideologies, and unite asboth in the military sphere and across society regarding hybrid warfare. politicians who believed in honesty, democracy, and freedom.They had to step up and intensify their cooperation, especially on hybridmatters. NATO was handling its part very well, but the focus on hybrid at- They were in the midst of a war on two or even three fronts – much liketacks had to be enhanced, reinforcing the exchange on best practices and Mr Splidsboel had just described it. One was in the east – very visible andlessons learned. With that in place, he was sure the West would succeed. clear. It was an authoritarian and brutal regime. A mangy and shabby bearThey would come out of this conflict in a good way, in fine shape. But be- that believed it could flex its old muscles, invading another nation. Butfore that could happen, the West would have to go through challenges to- that was not a display of strength, Ms Westgard-Halle underlined. It was agether with Ukraine. display of insecurity and weakness. The other battle they were fighting was28 29to preserve democracy itself, ensuring that their children – like her daugh- Westgard-Halle loved it when other people were different. That was soter – and their grandchildren would enjoy the same rights as the present much more colourful and so much more interesting. Moreover, that pro-generation did, that they would grow up in democracies. That was some- vided different perspectives. That was what made them stronger. There-thing that people in their countries had died for. She reminded her audi- fore, she asked her audience not to let narcissistic leaders fool them – notence that Putin’s war went beyond Ukraine. This battle was also taking outside their countries, not among their own. Insecure leaders should notplace in the other democratic countries, on this very day. The internet, the be able to use them as marionettes in a culture war. They had to be strong-Russian troll factories, the fake profiles, the manufactured conflicts in so- er, they had to be smarter, they had to be secure enough in their own be-cial media – they were happening right at this point, within their borders. liefs to accept others. She called on them to stand side by side, arms locked,The West had to wake up. They could not afford to be naïve. in these two wars. Cooperation should be deepened even more, their alli-ance should be strengthened. They were not like the other countries; theywere not going back. Europe was not like that. Europe was stronger. Thepeople of Europe were stronger.Session Chairman Johannes Schraps reacted by saying that her contribu-tion was a little bit of a wake-up call. Perhaps Ms Westgard-Halle mighttell her children about this conference and some of the insights reached.Andris Kulbergs addressed the youth, noting that they were the future.They had to listen and learn from mistakes the present generation commit-ted and correct those. As the chair of the current BSPC working group, hementioned the findings in their meetings which led him to talk about hisown relationship with Russia. He had worked with that country since2013, representing a Dutch company in Russia. That had all stopped onthe day the war had started. On that day, Mr Kulbergs had told himself,No more. The money was not worth sacrificing his ethics and beliefs for.Disinformation was spreading, causing conflicts and even riots. As such, This day and that moment had also been the reason for him to enter poli-he called on her colleagues on the political right and on the political left to tics. He had caught himself especially in 2014. That had been his momentnot be deceived by those who polarised and spoke of Us vs. Them. Their of truth – walking through Moscow, right after the Sochi Games and rightdemocracies had advanced beyond that. They had to embrace diversity and after the annexation of Crimea. He had told himself, “Andris, this is goingaccept that not everyone was the same, that not everyone agreed. Yet they to end very badly.” He had already been able to feel the change, the atti-still had to be able to talk to each other. Putin’s strategy was to divide and tude – all of it. That had been the time when the regime had brought backconquer. Yet if they stood together, defying all of their differences, then it Stalin as a symbol. For Mr Kulbergs, that had been an unacceptable reali-was impossible to conquer them. That was why they had to underline the ty. That man had slaughtered so many of Russia’s own people, beingabsolute necessity to strengthen the resilience of their democratic societies, brought back as a legend to revere. Already back then, one could identifybased on the values that actually were uniting them. It was okay to disa- what was going to come. That had now come to pass. He called on his col-gree, but they had values all of them shared. She clarified that she was a leagues that they should learn, and they should understand that the WestChristian and a modern conservative, and as such, she would love nothing should have acted back then. They were now too late, all of them, becausemore than for everyone to vote conservative and to accept Jesus and all the comfort zone – trade, being back to normal – had been letting themthat. Yet as a conservative and a woman of faith, one of Ms Westgard-Halle’s ignore all the signals shown to them.core values and beliefs was the acceptance of other people. Ms30 31acknowledge, he stressed. This was a clear moment for the BSPC as well.He conceded that he was a bit of a virgin in politics, so when he had firstlearned about the BSPC, he had wondered what was being talked about inthis forum, why they were meeting, and whether there was any real effectfrom their work. It could have just been nice meetings and talks. But hebelieved that the war in Ukraine had given the BSPC a clear purpose, to allof them. Their meetings had become so vital to send the message to theirparliaments, to effect real outcomes.Noting the working group on energy, security, and connectivity he waschairing, Mr Kulbergs said that 99.9 % of them were fully committed andunderstood that it was all the same game. As an example, he pointed to ahybrid threat centre in Helsinki. Visiting that had been an eye-openingmoment, hearing about Nord Stream II, that Europe had been too late,was too bad in communication regarding the propaganda. They had beenThus, Mr Kulbergs said that those who through history had felt the Rus- shown the evidence that this had been enacted by Russian special opera-sian bear the most had been neglected, but now they could say, “We told tions forces rather than just some divers with a sailing boat. Another inci-you so.” Now their voices were much stronger. Now, they were being lis- dent had been the Balticconnector – which had yielded a much better re-tened to, and they were the ones giving advice on what to do and having sult in terms of communication. They had indeed caught a Chinese shipan impact. The Baltic States were not the largest ones on the map, but that under Russian guidance, causing damage with their anchor. That, though,was their role and mission, to sound this wake-up call. The war meant that had created a big problem, namely the realisation that a ship like thatthere would be no going back to normal. The populations of their coun- could have dragged its anchor for as long as they liked. The West did nottries might want to go back, but Mr Kulbergs did not see that as possible, have sensors in place; there was no centralised communication betweenafter what had happened. They had to face this new reality. He added that their countries, no one centre handling all the information. The worstthey should have let Ukraine fight without restrictions and win within the thing after that was that there was no policy in place on how to deal withfirst year or year and a half. This conflict had dragged on way too long and a ship dragging its anchor. There was no NATO response to physically stopbore consequences. Referring to Mr Splidsboel, Mr Kulbergs agreed that such a vessel; there was no coordination how to respond. Mr Kulbergs un-there was a clear chance of Ukraine losing this war. In a boxing match, one derlined that this was dangerous. With the many interconnections in thecould fight a bigger opponent if one was more agile, knowledgeable, and Baltic Sea, their gas, electricity, and data connections were threatened. So,fitter – but that could only work for a certain time. The longer the match the lack of a response policy was one of the security aspects on which thewent on, the big muscles tended to win. And this was the situation they BSPC had to push their parliaments to coordinate this. The clock was tick-were currently facing, that Ukraine was way too tired. He had the impres- ing.sion the powers that be did not want to face those consequences and weretrying to push that moment of realisation off longer and longer because Moreover, referring to the findings at the hybrid threat centre, he pointedthey did not want to make decisions on what was going to happen after- out that the coming winter 2024/25 bore the greatest vulnerability for awards. That, he underlined, was a weak position. The earlier they faced cyber attack against the energy sector. They had to be aware of this. In con-that decision, the better. Dragging out that war, that fight, meant that it clusion, Mr Kulbergs highlighted that the members of the BSPC were thewould become their fight. The other democratic countries – their people, aggressor border countries. Especially the Baltic States, Poland, and Fin-their voters – would have to directly face the enemy if victory would not land understood very well what that meant. All of them needed to forgebe accomplished via the Ukrainians. That was an important thing to alliances – such as in the BSPC as the best example. The weakest link was32 33usually the problem rather than the strongest. For that reason, they had tosupport each other. So that the French and Italians could drink coffee andhave a curaçao, for them to feel secure, that could only be achieved as longas the aggressor border countries were secure. Therefore, it had to be real-ised that this was not a national matter but a European one. He pointed toa good analysis by Estonia on what was needed for Ukraine to win. EveryEuropean would have to donate seven euros per year. That correspondedto the price of one beer. Having one beer less each year, that was the priceof Ukraine winning. It was the mission of the BSPC to convey what theyhad learned back to their parliaments.Lars Christian Brask thanked the panel for refreshing and clear presenta-tions. Mr Haavisto and Mr Wałęsa had said that the EU had failed andthat this had to be rectified. Mr Brask asked if they could be concrete howthis should be achieved and how the country’s MEPs should be primed toimprove the EU in the war reference. Addressing Mr Splidsboel, Mr Brask It was not about Ukraine gaining territory but the country having its landstook him up on his comment of waiting for somebody to mention nucle- back. Ukraine’s integrity was crucial for the security of democratic Europe.ar war. Since nobody else was asking, Mr Brask inquired how they should Moving on, Ms Müller said that, amidst all these contributions, there wasthink about that issue. always a giant pink elephant in the room. That was Germany and how thecountry had acted prior to 2022. Nord Stream II had been mentioned; shedid not wish to go into details of the discussions within Germany or at theEuropean level with Germany. Yet there had been changes in the Germanway of doing things. Ms Müller highlighted one contribution in particu-lar: the German battalion now permanently stationed in Lithuania. Thishelped ensure the security of Germany’s neighbours. Coming back to thecognitive point, she believed they did not fully understand what thismeant. In that respect, she wanted to make three points: Firstly, they hadto truly comprehend the long-term work that Russia and its allies had beenenacting against the West’s people and societies, spreading misinforma-tion. Indeed, these should correctly be called lies, undermining the accept-ance of Western institutions and the way democratic societies worked, un-dermining the acceptance that people could live in different ways and stillbe part of society. As an example, she noted that Russia had lately declaredit would be easier for people to migrate to Russia if they shared Russia’scommon values and beliefs. With that, they were rejecting Western and/orClaudia Müller focused on what Mr Splidsboel had called the cognitive democratic values, presenting themselves as an antithesis to modern socie-domain of hybrid warfare. Society’s acceptance of security measure was ties, appealing to people that rejected modern societies. This was the kindcrucial to security and the question whether the West would succeed in of misinformation – lies – that Russia was spreading, that their model washelping Ukraine win the war against Russia, i.e., regaining their integrity. a future model for world societies and that Western democracies wereThat last item was what the conflict was about. bound to fail. This was what the West had to fight in this war for people’s34 35hearts and minds in order to uphold the Western democratic societies. claiming that the only right thing to do was to use strategic nuclear weap-Secondly, people did not understand the interdependencies. Ms Müller re- ons against a Western capital like London or Paris to end this war. Other-marked that she experienced this a lot. People did not comprehend that wise, more people would be killed. Mr Splidsboel noted that this was veryenergy and security were not just national concerns but always their neigh- dramatic and controversial. But the next day or two days later, a counterbours’ security as well. They could not leave anyone alone. If they wanted piece would appear by another Russian researcher who said that strategicto be secure, their neighbours had to be secure. The neighbours’ security, nuclear weapons were not at issue in this regard. Accordingly, Mr Splids-their safety was one’s own safety. She underlined that this was not spoken boel reiterated that he was not afraid of this and advised everybody else notabout enough. Otherwise, people would understand better why that had to worry about it either.to be a focus. Ms Müller conceded that there were always fights about howto spend money, but if the West could not ensure security and stability in Regarding the cognitive domain, he very much agreed that it hadn’t quiteall of Europe, all of them would lose. Even the large countries would lose been understood what that meant. The two aspects mentioned by Mstheir stability, their security. Ukraine’s fight was Europe’s fight – that had Müller – the war in Ukraine and disinformation operations – linked spe-to be repeated time and again until everybody understood. The lies that cifically to this domain. Mr Splidsboel said that it was very difficult to talkhad been spread could destroy them. The West had to rely on the truth. about war and peace in modern warfare. Even if some kind of peace wereachieved in Ukraine, the war would continue. That was another aspectChairman Johannes Schraps thanked Claudia Müller for her contribu- necessary to understand: The Russians would continue to use disinforma-tion, noting that she was also part of the German government as a state tion. In that respect, it was unrelated to the war in Ukraine and the pros-secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture. As such, her strong commitment pects for that country. Often at public lectures, Mr Splidsboel was askedwas very valuable. He next gave the floor to the panellists to respond to the when this would go away, and he answered that this would not happen.comments and questions. Disinformation was a new part of daily life. Disinformation would contin-ue to come from Russia – and increasingly from China and other states, asFlemming Splidsboel picked up on two issues. The first was nuclear war. well as from other actors such as the Islamic State which was getting moreThey needed to be mentally prepared for it. It was not something that he and more sophisticated. He did not expect that anyone could ever claimfeared. It was known – not just believed – that the Russians were using the that they had solved this challenge. They would always be confronted withrhetoric of threatening nuclear war. When confronted with it, they always the developing world of information operations and disinformation with-claimed never to have spoken about nuclear war. Yet preparation was need- in the cognitive domain. That was something the West would have to keeped. Their American colleagues were indeed prepared for this contingency, confronting in a highly dynamic approach.and they had communicated this fact to Russia as well. The use of nuclearweapons – both tactical and strategic warheads – would be met with a US Jarosław Wałęsa asked what the European Union could do. He concededresponse. Indeed, there was repeated talk about using tactical nukes in that his answer might be somewhat pessimistic, so he prefaced this by un-Russia. Similarly, Europe should have a respective plan in a drawer, so they derlining that he was a strong believer in the European project. He be-did not have to wake up to the news that nuclear weapons had been used lieved that greater integration was needed, that the European Union wasand first have to, say, convene a committee meeting. He next referenced an ever-changing entity, requiring that change to answer to different crises.Mr Volodimir Zelenskyy, the president of Ukraine, who had spoken the Only if one looked at the history of integration within the European Un-Saturday before on Ukraine’s Day of Independence. President Zelenskyy ion, they had been and were moving from one crisis to the next, learninghad said that there were no more red lines. Putin had probably fooled the from each. This was because nobody had ever tried a project like the Euro-West with the red lines, which had been successful in instilling fear that pean Union before, at any time in history. Obviously, this meant that mis-this or that action would mean stepping over a red line. Regarding strate- takes would be made. That being said, Mr Wałęsa said that greater integra-gic nuclear weapons, talk about it surfaced once in a while. For instance, a tion was needed – one that required treaty changes, institutional changes.prominent Russian researcher had written a significant article in Izvestia, This was a very difficult matter at this point, and he understood that this36 37was not welcomed by many member states of the European Union. There- Pekka Haavisto commented that they nearly dropped into a deep dis-fore, he expected that this would be put by side. But that meant that Eu- cussion of Russia’s future, but that should be the topic of another semi-ropean Union responses would continue to be difficult. It had not been es- nar. He remarked that his grandfather had escaped from school at agetablished to respond to crises. Without institutional changes, they would 17, in 1990, and had participated in the mission to free Karelia and thego on stuck to the current framework. Clearly, the European Commission people living there. When he had come back, he’d realised that he hadhad proposed the new position of a Commissioner of Defence to coordi- been more eager to bring freedom to these people than they were to havenate respective efforts. That was something to be looked into more closely. it. Sarcastically, Mr Haavisto noted that this had been a problem. Look-Yet Mr Wałęsa remained fairly pessimistic that within the present institu- ing at the long history of Russia and Europe, they had to learn some-tional framework, they would be able to accomplish as much as they could thing from this episode. Referring to Ms Müller’s comments, these hadotherwise. Of course, their efforts had to be coordinated, to derive as much made Mr Haavisto think of looking outside of Europe as well, consider-of a bang from their investments as was possible. Not every single member ing what was happening in Russia’s relations with Third World and de-state needed to produce ammunition. An understanding had to be estab- veloping countries. That summer, he had listened to a lot of interviewslished that certain places produced certain things to make the defence ef- with ministers from Senegal, Burkina Faso, Mali, Ethiopia, or Chad.forts more cost-effective. They had seemed to enjoy very good cooperation with Russia at thistime. Many of these were countries with whom the West used to haveYet they could do something else – which he conceded was a tall order and very good relationships, in northern Africa. A change was afoot there,one that would have to be demanded of the Ukrainians. Obviously, they and the democratic countries would have to be very careful what waswere fighting for their lives, war was being waged within their borders. Yet happening here. Speaking of the information wars, about lies, he point-the West had to make sure that the Ukrainian democratic institutions had to ed to quite good articles in Finnish media saying that Western people be-be strengthened. That was very important. He also pointed to anti-corrup- lieved everything bad said about Russia because it fit very well the pic-tion courts. The West was providing military as well as monetary assistance. ture of the enemy. Mr Haavisto conceded that almost all of it was true.They had to make sure that their money was used properly, and he believed Yet that raised the question whether they were critical of all the informa-this had been lacking. Ukraine had to step up its game in this regard as well. tion that was coming in. In a war situation, there were all kinds of infor-He reiterated that this was a tall order amidst a war, but it was important not mation, and critical thinking was necessary with these. He reminded histo lose sight of the end game. That end game was a democratic, sovereign audience that they had learned this lesson in Afghanistan. They had notUkraine within the European Union. At some point, the war would end, had the full picture. Finally, Mr Haavisto spoke of making Europe betterand the West would have to make sure that their Ukrainian partners were in terms of defence. Appointing a Commissioner for Defence – or theready to join this club of nations. Mr Wałęsa repeated his pessimism again, Defence Industry – was a good first step to move this cooperation for-this time pointing to another example. He had been hearing about a Euro- ward. He also underlined that he was not fully critical of the EU in thispean army ever since he had been first elected to office. Every now and then, context. The European Union had been the first to mobilise help forthat idea was raised again. As much as he would like to see a European army Ukraine and had done a lot in that regard. Yet he suggested holding ex-being established, he could not imagine it happening anytime soon. The ercises to practice one of their member countries being under threat orproper tools to make that happen simply did not exist. He hoped that the even being attacked. They could practice how the EU would respond.political will would improve in time. On the one hand, he would love to After all, NATO was holding military exercises, but the European Unionhave European response forces – and they should strive for that –, but on the was not going through the same political exercise.other hand, they would still need their big brother in NATO, i.e., the Amer-icans. And it would stay that way for a long time to come. Which brought Prof Jānis Vucāns explained that he had spoken up because Mr Wałęsa hasup the question of what would happen in November in the US with the asked for opinions from the Baltic States. Defence and security had beenpresidential elections. Despite this, Mr Wałęsa underlined that he believed on the BSPC’s agenda since at least 2014, from the conference in Polandthe West would emerge victorious in the end. onward.38 39relation to the kinetic and non-kinetic aspects. The kinetic activities weremainly connected to government action, but non-kinetic – or potential ac-tivities, as he put it – were the preserve of parliaments. This concernedspeaking with the people, getting their acceptance. As an example, hepointed to the difficult task of getting the Baltic people’s acceptance toreach the 2 % defence spending minimum required by NATO. After theUkraine conflict had begun in 2014 and the Baltic people had understoodthat this was also their problem, they had realised it was better to pay forNATO troops and their presence in the Baltic states. That would makethem ready to defend once their big neighbour would come for thesecountries. Prof Vucāns underlined the importance of the BSPC and select-ing the topics represented in the annual resolutions. This was a matter dearto his heart because he had been heading the Latvian delegation to theBSPC since 2014. Moreover, he had also served as president of this organ-isation and knew that the BSPC could influence their governments intoThat meeting had taken place right after the Russian occupation of Crimea closer cooperation.and Donbas. Prof Vucāns remembered the very hard discussions. At thattime, the Russian state duma and some of the country’s regions had been Jarosław Wałęsa said he felt strength in this room. Every single speakerfull members of the BSPC. Belarus had applied for observer status in the had pretty much said the same thing, that they were unified in standing to-organisation. In that respect, he noted that the BSPC had even sent a del- gether, that they had to spend more on defence, that they had to installegation to Minsk to investigate to what degree democratic principles had mechanisms for closer and more effective cooperation of their military. Hebeen implemented in that country. In other words, this topic had an ex- only wished that there had been some disagreements in this debate. Hetremely long history. However, one important change in the present day was sure that some people had different views. Mr Wałęsa hurried to assurewas that all the BSPC member nations were now NATO countries. This his colleagues he did not wish to start such a debate. On general principles,raised the question of whether it was enough for this cooperation to be he felt uncomfortable when everyone agreed. Surely, there were differentwithin NATO or if some regional collaboration was needed. The Baltic As- views on how to approach things. After all, that was their job – meetingsembly had discussed this matter several times at its meetings, coming to and butting heads to come up with the proper conclusions and compro-the conclusion that a regional approach was unavoidable – between the mises that could benefit all of them. In conclusion, his message was, ThankBaltic countries, between the Baltics and the Nordic nations as well as Po- you. He thanked everyone for understanding how important it was forland. These discussions also had to involve Germany. The professor stressed them to stay united.that the Baltic countries were very grateful to NATO, especially the Unit-ed Kingdom, Canada, and Germany for the multinational forward pres- Flemming Splidsboel said his concluding remark was that the Russianence battle groups led by these countries, stationed in the Baltic nations. empire would collapse at some point. This would present the Baltic Sea re-This provided some stability and aided the Baltic people’s trust in NATO. gion – and in a wider sense, the Nordic region – with tremendous chal-Moving to the panellists, he appreciated the interesting topics raised. In lenges and opportunities. The Baltic Sea region would be uniquely posi-particular, he looked at the kinetic and non-kinetic effects. The day before, tioned to play a role in this. They would have to take responsibility butin the BSPC Standing Committee, introducing a rotation principle for the could be a positive player. As Belarus had just been mentioned, that coun-organisation’s presidency had been discussed. This morning, BSPC Secre- try would also change – inevitably – after the Russian collapse. The Westtary General Bodo Bahr had distributed a proposal linking the BSPC pres- had to be prepared for that, but Mr Splidsboel saw no other region betteridency to that of the CBSS from 2026 onward. To Prof Vucāns, this had a prepared than that around the Baltic Sea.40 41Pekka Haavisto did not wish to be too pessimistic but after Mr Splids- Recommendations from the BSPC Parlamentaryboel’s comment, he had to add that all empires would collapse one day. youth ForumHistory had shown that to be true. Yet he had been very impressed whenProf Vucāns had picked up the Belarus issue. This was very close to the Chair: Ms Carola Veit, President of Parliament, Hamburgheart of many of them, considering the people in prison, the role of the and former President of the BSPCopposition, what had happened there and how Belarus was floating into Co-Chair: Mr Himanshu Gulati, MP Norwaythe hands of Russia in so many ways. That should not have happened. MrHaavisto remembered his visit to Belarus, meeting Mr Lukashenko in theautumn of 2019. The Belarus president had not yet stolen the latest elec-tion. Mr Haavisto had visited along with the Swedish foreign minister, MsAnn Linde, who had chaired the OSC and the European Union. MrLukashenko had been in a very good mood and had wanted to entertainhis visitors from Sweden and Finland. Then, he had said that Belarus want-ed to be one of the Nordic countries. This had been a little bit of a surprise,Mr Haavisto noted. Back then, he had told Mr Lukashenko that this wasan excellent goal, but they would have to start from somewhere. MrHaavisto had suggested opening up to dissenters. Mr Lukashenko hadbeen very upset and replied that Belarusians did not wish to be that Nor-dic. However, Mr Haavisto believed in his heart that Belarus was still closeto the Western nations, and they should do their utmost – even amidst thisconflict – to work for a brighter future for Belarus as well.Chairwoman Carola Veit announced that during this second session, theBSPC President Henrik Møller thanked the experts for providing their audience would hear the recommendations from the Baltic Sea Parliamen-insights into difficult issues. It had been an enriching experience. tary Youth Forum which had held intensive sessions the previous day andhad rapidly produced recommendations to showcase the interests of theirgeneration.Co-Chairman Himanshu Gulati explained that the Baltic Sea Parliamenta-ry Youth Forum was a vital platform for youth representatives and those in-terested in advancing the Baltic Sea region brought forward their innovativeideas, perspectives, and issues central to the BSPC discussions. This year’s fo-rum had been particularly dynamic, reflecting the urgency of the challengesof the time, especially in areas such as energy, security, defence, and the com-mon effort against climate change. The same topics were also being discussedin the BSPC’s current working group. Mr Gulati thanked all colleagues whohad attended the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum and had stood readyto discuss the recommendations with the youth representatives. Each grouphad worked intensively to develop actionable policies and recommendationson the following three topics: Energy Security and Resilience, SustainableEnergy Independence, and Youth Engagement in Energy Policy.42 43On Energy Security and Resilience: Ms Nagham Jaghoub,Chair of the Vestfold Youth Council from NorwayNagham Jaghoub said that the youths had been working since mid-Junein three groups. Her group had been concerned with the security and re-silience of the Baltic Sea region’s energy infrastructure.Furthermore, resources should be allocated to sustainable energy. The re-gional power grid should be rethought, prioritising its modernisationand smart optimisation regarding storage and distribution. She pointedout that this was about more than energy production and consumptionbut about sustainable energy sources.The first recommendation was that bold actors should enhance the securi- They should be selected based on what was most relevant in each coun-ty and resilience of the energy in research and development of outdated try. Optimising the power grid meant having more energy and using itsystems, hand in hand with the private sector as well as partners supple- more sustainably. The group’s second proposal was to prioritise a justmenting the existing NATO initiatives. The second was to strengthen the transition by working together to lower energy prices, build trust in in-resilience of maritime crucial infrastructure by identifying the most vul- stitutions, and support fragile communities. Additionally, it was crucialnerable areas through comprehensive mapping. This should include joint to provide strong support for those whose jobs might be at risk to therisk assessment, coordinated trading and real-time information sharing be- green transition by reskilling them, ensuring that no-one was left behindtween public and private sectors for a rapid, effective threat response. when moving towards a more sustainable future.On Sustainable Energy Independence: Ms Justina On Youth Engagement in Energy Policy:Ramonaitytė-Jemeljanovaitė, former board member of Ms Sarah Vestergaard, Danish Youth CouncilReGeneration2030, from Lithuania living in DenmarkSarah Vestergaard remarked that this topic, youth engagement, was natu-Justina Ramonaitytė-Jemeljanovaitė thanked the BSPC for having rally of particular importance for the Youth Forum. Her group had tried toyouths at the adults’ rather than the kids’ table. It was crucial to have the tackle the question how engagement and education could be promoted toyoung people’s voice heard, as this affected the latter’s future and that of fu- contribute to energy security and sustainable energy practices in the Balticture generations. Her group’s first proposal was to accelerate a full phase- Sea region. She appreciated the phrasing of this question because it under-out of fossil fuels in regional energy consumption, starting with non-EU lined the importance of youth participation – it was not about whether tosources, such as and especially from the Russian Federation. do this but how it should be implemented.44 45empowering youths in the energy sector, calling to promote access to greeneducation and encourage energy companies to create opportunities foryoung people. This could be implemented by integrating sustainable top-ics into existing programmes, enabling exchange programmes in the re-gion, fostering lifelong learning opportunities on relevant topics as well asencouraging the energy sector to develop internships and mentorships foryoung people to educate them but also creating interest in the sector.Having listed the six recommendations, Ms Vestergaard spoke on behalf ofthe Youth Forum, extending her gratitude to the BSPC for giving theyoung people a platform to voice their opinions and ideas. Hearing howdiligently the organisation had worked on implementing the previousyear’s recommendations into the present year’s resolution, it was appropri-ate to also thank the parliamentarians for not only listening but also act-ing. She was sure the young participants’ democratic confidence had grownThe 2024 Democratic Analysis conducted by the Danish Youth Council over the past days. Considering the recommendations, she paraphrasedhad showed that 76 % of Danish young people had been politically en- John Lennon’s song Imagine, saying that the young people were puttinggaged in the previous year, as opposed to the 72 % in the rest of the pop- their future into the hands of the politicians, asking them to work as dili-ulation. The majority of them had opinions on what the world should look gently on these recommendations for the coming year’s resolution.like, especially regarding the climate and sustainability. Nevertheless, thedemocratic confidence was lower among young people than in the rest of Chairwoman Carola Veit thanked the youth representatives for sharingthe population. Youths were not confident that their opinions were worth their realistic ideas and giving the BSPC their recommendations. Shelistening to and unsure whether they knew enough about topics to actual- opened the floor for comments.ly have an opinion. But young people who were active in youth organisa-tions had more democratic confidence, highlighting the importance of in- Debateformal democratic communities and volunteer work. To engage youth andsecure the next generation of democrats, it was the Youth Forum’s opinion Johannes Schraps also thanked the young people for their well-elaboratedthat youth organisations should be supported, giving young people the op- recommendations. On the preceding Saturday, at the start of the Youthportunity to voice their opinions, educating youths, and providing oppor- Forum, he as well as Henrik Møller and Andris Kulbergs had welcomedtunities to learn from industry. That had resulted in the following recom- the youth representatives, elaborating on what the BSPC had done withmendations she presented subsequently. the preceding year’s recommendations. Sometimes, it was a bit saddeningfor Mr Schraps since he considered these recommendations so good thatThe first dealt with integrating youth perspectives into regional policies. he would like to work with them right away and put them into that year’sYouth organisations should be given a permanent and supported place in resolutions. Unfortunately, the BSPC’s processes relied on those in thedecision-making processes in the Baltic Sea region. This could be done by member parliaments. All of this took time. That meant that the presentestablishing formal structures, such as national youth advisory bodies for year’s recommendations could only be integrated into the following year’senergy independence, security, and sustainability under the ministry of en- BSPC resolution, as had been the case with many of the youth recommen-ergy or equivalent governmental entities for each BSPC parliament, ensur- dations from the previous Youth Forum. He appreciated that these repre-ing a strong mandate of the members and recognising the advisory bodies. sentatives had understood this and been very keen to add their own recom-The second recommendation concerned advancing green education and mendations. Mr Schraps underlined that the BSPC parliamentarians could46 47SECOND SESSIONcall on their governments and carry their resolution into their parliaments,bringing it into legislative proceedings. After all, the BSPC itself was not alegislative body and could not make laws. Yet they had the pressure ofmore than 20 national and regional parliaments as well as regional parlia- Energy supply Securitymentary organisations behind them. All of them had to use this strengthto push their parliaments and governments into the right direction. The Chair: Mr Andris Kulbergs, MP Latvia,youth representatives were part of this, he stressed. Chair of the BSPC WG ESSRCCo-Chair: Dr Staffan Eklöf, MP Sweden,In that context, Johannes Schraps also called on his audience to take a look former Vice-President of the BSPCat the government responses, always delivered in spring. Governments toldthe BSPC what they had implemented in legislative laws of the resolution. Mr Carl-Oskar Bohlin, Swedish Minister for Civil DefenseThis showed the effect the resolution had. For the young people, this was Mr Rasmus Dahlberg, researcher, Royal Danish Defense Collegea way of seeing how much their recommendations carried through andwere put into practice.Chairwoman Carola Veit noted that all the recommendations had beenincluded in the resolution. She suggested that their home parliamentsmight invite the youth representatives but certainly to use their informa-tion to implement their ideas.Session chair Andris Kulbergs explained that he was intensively in-volved in the topics of the present session since he was the chair of thecurrent BSPC working group on these issues. These were of great impor-tance for the countries of their region, and there was not a single oneamong them for whom these were not at the top of the agenda. Recent-ly, it had been seen and understood what it meant to neglect the energysector. That had happened by being too dependent on Russian gas. 44 %of Europe had been relying on cheap Russian gas. Switching away hadbeen done very fast, and the EU had done a tremendous job in doing so.Russia had not anticipated Europe being able to do so. As for what tolearn from that, Mr Kulbergs pointed out that cheap gas was definitely apolitical weapon and a way of suppressing investments in green energy.48 49For a long time, the availability of cheap gas had prevented the develop- Presentation by Mr Carl-Oskar Bohlin, Swedish Ministerment of the energy sector. It had also impacted their societies, causing for Civil Defenceinternal disruptions. Consequently, it had also become clear how muchthe energy sector was part of inflation and how much governments hadto support their voters and their businesses. That was a result of neglect-ing the energy sector. Today’s session would also look at the importanceof the security of the energy supply.Recognising the strategic importance of energy security, the BSPC had es-tablished a dedicated working group on this topic. It was about politicalpositions and clear recommendations for energy security, self-sustainabili-ty, resilience, and connectivity for the Baltic Sea region. The interim re-port, including their calls for action, were available on the BSPC website.The following day, he would deliver a verbal report.Co-chairman Dr Staffan Eklöf remarked that geopolitics had been slum-bering for many years after the Fall of the Soviet Empire. At least, that hadbeen the case in Sweden and in official conversations. Now, though, it hadbecome of supreme interest. The first speaker was Mr Carl-Oskar Bohlin, Minister Carl-Oskar Bohlin began by zooming out to look at the ques-Sweden’s Minister for Civil Defence. He had played a key role in shaping tions of resilience in a broader light. To make sure they were all on theSweden’s civil defence policies, particularly in response to the growing same page, he presented a slide showing what they had to be prepared for.global security threat. Mr Bohlin had a background in law and had worked It could not be understated how important forums such as the BSPC were.extensively on issues related to public safety and national security. On a In the Baltic Sea region, they not only shared geography but also the samepersonal note, Mr Eklöf acknowledged Minister Bohlin’s strong fighting political outlook on what was going on in the world. Since Sweden andspirit. Finland’s accession to NATO, all of them belonged to the same alliance aswell. That gave them strength and the opportunity to work together evenmore closely as they found themselves in what was described in Sweden as“the most desire security situation since the end of World War II”. Thedemocratic societies ultimately had to be prepared to handle armed con-flict. One way of doing so was addressing the resilience with an all-of-soci-ety approach. It might sound like a cliché but was nevertheless true thatsociety was only as strong as its weakest link. What was seen today with thereturn of geopolitics was an increasing number of threat vectors directed atall of civil society, with the potential of reaching directly into civil societyvia hybrid methods. The threshold there might be even lower to create cas-cading effects with severe implications for modern society.In that context, Minister Bohlin added some more remarks on what washappening in Sweden. They were amidst revitalising and rebuilding theirTotal Defence concept. Some might remember it from the Cold War50 51period. One might have called Sweden of that time a militarised society strategy. Robustness and redundancy had to be better integrated into thethrough and through. There had been a comprehensive plan for how all of energy system. Sweden was currently diverting substantial amounts tosociety should partake in the resistance should Sweden come under armed transitioning their energy systems to more plannable energy production.attack from an aggressor. That was now being revitalised but in light of That was a contribution to European common security in a world that waswhat society was like in 2024 and the new threat vectors. This task re- multipolar and becoming more so. Civil defence was an integrated pillarquired a whole-of-society approach, making sure that resilience and ro- of the Swedish Total Defence concept, ensuring that the country lived upbustness was baked in in every societal sector so that civil society in a to its Article 3 obligations in NATO. Sweden saw this as an integral partworst-case scenario – namely, an armed attack against Sweden or an ally – of its defence posture and thus a contribution to the NATO deterrence.could funnel support towards the defence effort. Ukraine had shown thatthey had met total war with total resistance. The whole of Ukrainian soci- Chairman Andris Kulbergs agreed that by running away from the Rus-ety had fundamentally been turned onto a war footing, sustaining the sian bear, they should not run into the claws of the Chinese tiger. He in-most vital societal functions and thus maintaining the will to defend. In troduced the next speaker, Mr Rasmus Dahlberg, a leading researcher atMinister Bohlin’s mind, the importance of the security of supply as a the Royal Danish Defence College. His expertise was in disaster manage-means for resilience in the broader sense had become pivotal on the entire- ment and civil protection, particularly in the context of the Nordic con-ty of the threat scale. text. He would provide the conference with a deeper understanding of thesocietal resilience and its vital connection to the national security.Since the attack on Ukraine, energy supply lines had indeed been weap-onised by Russia, trying to blackmail Europe politically. This highlighted Presentation by Mr Rasmus Dahlberg, Researcher,how vulnerable modern society had become, due to its dependence on, Associate Professor, Royal Danish Defence Collegee.g., Russian energy. This was just one example. All of them had to lookdeeper into the interrelationship of security and supply. In Sweden, the Rasmus Dahlberg began by praising Minister Bohlin, citing a speech ofperception was that this issue needed to be attacked from many angles. his on 7 January which had resonated deeply in Denmark. He stressed thatFirstly, it was about not being critically dependent on countries which did he was not speaking as a representative of his college or the Danish armednot share the same security outlook. Specifically, this meant not being de- force but only for himself. He was the head of the college’s small centre forpendent on the West’s adversaries. That work had to be done throughout societal security which had been established on 1 March 2023.the entire European Union alongside the NATO countries. Secondly,more agility was needed in the industrial base of every country. A flavourof this was received during the pandemic when large sectors had been tak-en out of business, causing a scarcity of materials, of direly needed medicalequipment. This had led to an organic transfer within the industrial basewith product readjustments and redistribution. Traditional industries haddiverted to produce other things. Minister Bohlin noted that Sweden wasworking on giving these companies a better platform and cooperation withpublic bodies to accelerate this transformation than in the organic devel-opment during the pandemic. Thirdly, stockpiling in critical sectors with,for instance, raw materials was needed. This ensured more robustness andredundancy within the different systems. This concerned the energy sectorspecifically. The autumn and winter of 2022 had shown with brutality howscarce and vulnerable the European energy grid was. They had been bless-ed by a fairly mild winter. However, he underlined that hope was not a52 53Prior to that, there had not been a strong tradition for research into soci- was the primary crisis manager. COVID had highlighted this. The Euro-etal security in Denmark of any sort. He grudgingly admitted that the pean Union was good but too slow for fast-moving crises.country was lagging behind. Now they were behind Norway with the To-tal Defence concept, behind Sweden with a Ministry for Civil Defence, yet In the research project, they looked at sector responsibility as an examplethings were moving forward in Denmark. This week, a new Ministry for of how they could and should reorganise for future crises in this whole-of-so-Preparedness or something of the sort was expected to be announced. Mr ciety approach to preparedness and crisis management. The security of en-Rasmus Dahlberg gave his advice whenever he could, partly because he led ergy supply fit very well into that framework, in Mr Dahlberg’s mind. Asa project called ReSector, funded by Nordforsk together with a Swedish an example, he mentioned underwater pipelines, talking about seabed se-and a Norwegian university. They were investigating the lessons learned curity as the new concept within NATO. Together with a colleague trainedfrom COVID. Sometimes, the pandemic was called the great dress re- in law, they had tried to figure out how many legal regimes a pipeline trav-hearsal, providing the opportunity to test their systems under severe stress elled through on its way from shore through the ocean and arriving at thebut not so severe that everything broke down. The cause had not been mil- other shore. They had ended up looking at six or seven completely differ-itary aggression but a highly virulent disease. In ReSector, they were look- ent legal regimes. Over the last three decades, that was normal as organisa-ing primarily at the principle of sectorial responsibility. This was very tions had strived for efficiency and economy. Security had not really beenstrong in the Nordic countries. This meant that the sector was responsible a goal. Yet a new dawn had come upon them, and hybrid threats deliber-when everything was going well retained that responsibility during crisis ately targeted overlaps and gaps in security, uncertainties in the way thingsand times of war. As such, their work considered how sectorial responsibil- were organised. Oftentimes, it came down to legal questions of who wasity had been challenged during the pandemic, how it had been trans- responsible. This was another vulnerability that was used and exploited.formed, and what lessons – if any – had been learned. Mr Dahlberg admitted that this kept him awake at night, trying to figureout who exactly was responsible out there in the EEC. He had no idea whoA Danish professor several years earlier had said in a book that the world had blown up Nord Stream. He had lost track of that. However, he doubt-now lived in a “crisis society”. There were no normal conditions waiting on ed it was a coincidence that this event happened right outside the Danishthe other side of the crisis. At least, that was what seemed to be the case. and Swedish territorial waters, out in the legal nightmare called the EEC.Crisis was the new normal, and societies had to adjust to moving from cri- As such, it was necessary to take up sector responsibility for revision. Oth-sis to crisis. That called for new ways of thinking about crises, crisis man- erwise, they ran the risk of allowing sectorial responsibility to drift into aagement, preparedness, and policy as well as organisations. Luckily, there question of responsibility avoidance. They could not afford people beingwas a great deal of focus on this matter. Mr Dahlberg referenced Minister more interested in who was not responsible, especially between the apexBohlin’s speech about Sweden rebuilding their Total Defence concept. In points in-between crisis. Then it became a matter of economy and man-aside, he hoped Denmark would follow suit soon. In addition, the Euro- date, and this could be exploited as a vulnerability. This had to be takenpean Union and NATO had put great emphasis on societal security, the very seriously. New policies were needed as well as administrative struc-robustness of critical infrastructure protection. The European Directives tures to take this into account. Superstructures over the sectorial responsi-on Networks and Information Security as well as Critical Entities Resil- bilities were required as well as supernational superstructures. That meant,ience were examples of this, and they were currently being implemented in among others, NATO and the EU. But the nation states also had to benational legislation. Then there was also the renewed NATO focus on re- able to manage, to make decisions, to act, and – quite crucially – learnsilience as deterrence, as Mr Bohlin had spoken about. Mr Dahlberg point- from each experience.ed to his background in history as he noted that in the 1950s, there hadbeen a strong focus on Article 3 in the whole of society. The military forc- Chairman Andris Kulbergs thanked Mr Rasmus Dahlberg. He an-es could not be expected to fight and protect territories without strong nounced that the planned third speaker had not come to the conference,whole societies supporting them. Even with NATO and the EU having an so they would have to fill the gap. As such, he opened the debate.increasingly stronger focus on this aspect, it was still the national state that54 55Debate that Mr Kulbergs had highlighted a challenge with the ongoing green transi-tion. As welcome as it was, it had to be implemented sustainably – not onlyChairman Andris Kulbergs used this opportunity to kick off the debate in how the resources were used but also from a security point of view. This ledwith a question of his own. At a session on energy at an OECD meeting in to the conclusion that more plannable energy production was needed, allow-Paris, Mr Kulbergs had spoken with the chairman of an international energy ing greater control over the supply chain. For that reason, Sweden – whilecorporation that Europe. The West had successfully severed itself from Rus- welcoming any green and carbon-neutral energy source – was pivoting to-sian gas; pipelines had been turned off, they had converted to LNG and were wards rebuilding nuclear power. That was an asset that could ensure the en-heavily using Norway’s pipeline – a new vulnerability from a security point tire security of the supply chain in the long term. By the same token, thatof view. From said energy professional, Mr Kulbergs had learned that the would require more effort from Sweden and its partners. The country sat ongreen transition, though, bore with it a high dependence on China. For 17 out of 30 critical rare earths listed by the EU. That imposed a responsibil-windmills, this represented 82 %, and 98 % for solar panels. In electric mo- ity on Sweden to ensure the country and its partners could benefit from thesebility, that number was at 78 %. He wondered if they were creating an even resources rather than being critically dependent on adversarial countries.worse dependence on China now. With an eye to geopolitics, he believed alow price should not trump security. He further noted that the Baltic Statesmight become even more vulnerable, noting that Lithuania imported 73 %of its energy. Their own development went directly into wind and solar pow-er. Estonia had shell oil which would have to be cut out of its energy portfo-lio, but it also pursued a policy of rapidly expanding green energy. Thismeant that the West would become quite vulnerable and dependent ongreen energy technology. On top of that, there was the matter of the cables.Even if all the equipment had been acquired, the connections were still an is-sue. All the projects currently planned required 25,000 kilometres of cable.Yet there were only 6,000 kilometres available at the moment. That was be-cause they had been relying on Russia – which was sanctioned – as well asUkraine – which was bombed. This was an aspect where the EU would real-ly have to invest. He underlined that the price shouldn’t matter. The West Rasmus Dahlberg completely agreed. It did not make sense to exchangecouldn’t afford to be dependent on outside suppliers. one weaponised critical dependency for another. Their countries were strug-gling with a very unpleasant debate of who should have a say in this. DeepMinister Carl-Oskar Bohlin compared critical certain dependencies to a down, they still believed in globalisation and the free market. They did notdiver on the sea floor connected by an oxygen hose to a ship on the surface. like to come to the harsh realisation that the ball game was different now.Being dependent on gas was as crucial as being dependent on oxygen coming One example was the critical supply agency in Denmark, created as a resultdown that hose. It could be turned off over night. That was the most critical of the COVID crisis. It was established in October 2022 and did good work.of all energy dependencies. Being dependent on, e.g., components for wind- The problem was that the agency had no mandate. They could provide goodmills was like being dependent on the manufacturer of your oxygen hose. It advice to other authorities, but they could not tell anybody what to do. Go-was a critical dependency, but it was not of the same degree as the oxygen it- ing back to his point about super structures, they should move a bit awayself. It could not be turned on or off during the same time frame. Still, he from coordination as the basic principle and closer towards command. Anagreed that it was not a good idea to be dependent in the long term on coun- entity had to have a mandate to say that a decision went against what thetries whose security outlook we did not share. After all, that could be used as West wanted to do or that it might not be in the economic short-term inter-a bargaining chip against the West. Therefore, they had to make sure that the est but should be done because of the long-term benefits. At least from theWest’s energy supply chains were reliable in the long term. He also concurred Danish perspective, they were not well organised to do so.56 57Marc Timmer first wanted to highlight the very good example of Den- or a plan would be imposed through legislation. As a matter of fact, the in-mark. After the oil crisis of 1973, the country had taken the right path – dustry voluntarily created a nice structure which was still in existence.in his view – of energy supply, fostering renewable energy not only in the With that in mind, he suggested that history could provide more good les-electricity sector but also crucially in the heating sector. sons for the present day, in particular looking at how things were organisedduring the Cold War. Here, he pointed again to the whole-of-society ap-proach. Since the end of the Cold War, the West had done nothing butprivatise. A lot of the critical and important entities that had used to bestate-owned were now in private hands, some even foreign owned. He re-iterated that lessons from the Cold War should be translated into the cur-rent and future security environment.Elias Arndt from the Youth Forum said that he was also a youth represent-ative at the BSSSC. He said Germany was very good at one thing – notbeer or cars but making up new words. One such new creation was thephrase “Krisenmodus” which translated as “crisis mode”. It meant thatpeople – in particular, youths – were tired of the endless sequence of crises.Yet the public had to be involved and engaged in the solution. He askedhow the public should be brought on board and motivated to find a goodsolution for the future.They had built district heating systems, powered fully through renewable en-ergy sources. That was biomass in Denmark. Mr Timmer appreciated this asa solution to the energy crisis and phasing out fossil fuels. At the end of theday, that also benefitted security issues. He compared that to Germany wherethe last energy crisis had caused the country’s GDP to drop by 5 – 7 %. Atthe same time, he conceded that this was nothing compared to what theUkrainian people were going through. Yet that drop had been larger thanwhat the corona pandemic and the financial crisis had cost Germany. Assuch, it was very important to set up an alternative energy system. Germanywas trying, and it was proving quite challenging. Replacing an entire energysystem was different, though, from replacing some components in the man-ufacturing chain. He recognised that renewable energies were by their naturevolatile, so that reserve capacities were needed. These should be provided byhydrogen in 2045, which was climate neutral as well.Rasmus Dahlberg thanked Mr Timmer for saying something nice about Minister Carl-Oskar Bohlin believed Mr Arndt had put his finger on thea Danish example. In that vein, he highlighted another good Danish ex- problem. The one X factor in handling any type of crisis was the involve-ample. After the 1956 Suez crisis, Denmark had started another initiative, ment and engagement of all of society. Perhaps the biggest X factor in theunder pressure from NATO, to secure the oil supply. The government had Russian full-scale invasion in Ukraine – not taken into account by many –told the industry they could either come up with a good plan of their own was the enormous will to resist and defend. Winding back the calendar to58 5925 or 26 February 2024, many had been sure that this would a swift and wanted to be part of the Total Defence concept. That was because it pro-easy invasion for Russia. Things had turned out differently because Ukraine vided agency. They were telling people that they were not responsible forhad had the ability to mobilise the entire society for this fight. The Ukrain- the cyber security of the Danish nation state but rather to have water andian people had had a new-found confidence in their institutions and their food supplies for three days in their basement as well as a small handleadership, also thanks to an important amount of strategic communica- cranked radio to receive solid information from the authorities. That wastion. The people had been shown that the leadership of the country had all they had to do. But that included people in this whole-of-society ap-been there to stay and fight. That had contributed to the eagerness to par- proach. Mr Dahlberg said that Denmark had now reached the first level.ticipate in this existential fight. They were still fighting with great heroism. The next step should be how to integrate the private sector into the newMinister Bohlin saw this also resonating to crises lower down the threat Total Defence 2.0 concept in the country before moving on to the civil so-scale, namely, having institutions that people relied on as well as forums to ciety organisations afterwards.fight disinformation, to oppose those sowing division in the country. Thiswas important, as well as communicating directly with the public. This Bryndis Haraldsdóttir, President of the Nordic Council, explained thatmeant telling the people about their obligations in a crisis. People rose to she was also a member of the Icelandic parliament and used to be in thethe occasion if there was a clear message what each and everyone was re- delegation to the BSPC. It was always so nice to be at a BSPC conference.quired and obliged to do. For that reason, Sweden was communicating She remarked that the Nordic Council was always eager for more cooper-everyone’s obligations to every citizen between the age of 16 and 70. This ation in civil defence and security. That had been on their agenda for awas called the Total Defence Duty. People had a duty to partake in the To- long time, and they had been working for their governments to work moretal Defence effort. They had implemented a special information campaign closely together on these issues. Addressing the experts, she asked about in-for people turning 16 years old so that they were aware of these obliga- vestments, looking for both the political and the academic answer. Specif-tions. A brochure was sent out to the entirety of the Swedish population, ically, she was concerned with screening investments – especially foreignto every Swedish household. This brochure provided tips and tricks on ones – from the private sector in critical infrastructure. Ms Haraldsdóttirhow to take care of oneself but also what basic level of engagement in a cri- asked if the experts believed the Nordic nations had a good enough policysis was expected from the Swedish citizens. This transparency was impor- on this, whether they should cooperate with similar regulations. As theytant. It also made people reflect on what was possible. were at the BSPC conference, she added the question whether this shouldgo beyond the Nordic cooperation.Rasmus Dahlberg commented that Denmark had only ordered the smallpackage compared to Sweden. They were only implementing some of the Minister Carl-Oskar Bohlin conceded he could not speak about otherSwedish measures, and they were doing it six years too late. In mid-June, countries. As far as Sweden was concerned, they had moved the goal poststhe corresponding brochure had been introduced, but it was not distribut- in this area. The preceding December, they had implemented a screeninged to households. Rather, it was available on a website. Jokingly, he hoped mechanism. Before, there had not been any. It had taken considerable po-that everyone would download it before the energy crisis occurred and the litical debate to reach this point, going on since 2018. Some processes didinternet went down. The narrative in Denmark had been that Sweden was take a long time, he noted, adding that since the current government hadso very different because the country was not in NATO and Norway was taken office almost two years before, that domain had been prioritised toso very different because that country had incidents with trucks carrying ensure that this loophole was covered. There had been vulnerable foreignbrown cheese catching fire as well as isolated communities. The claim had direct investments into Swedish critical infrastructure and sectors; thosebeen that nothing of the sort could happen in Denmark. However, he should have been screened. As such, Sweden had addressed this issue. Yetagreed that it was extremely important to get the citizens on board in the he concurred that this was a pressing issue and part of a holistic approachwhole-of-society approach. The surveys after the publication of the Danish to security. It allowed better control over the national critical infrastruc-pamphlet had shown that there was a huge interest and demand for it. ture, to avoid ownership in these entities that created vulnerabilities.Moreover, there was a lot of good will from the population. The majority60 61Rasmus Dahlberg remarked that he was a big fan of Nordic cooperation.They had so much more in common than was separating them. They hada good history of cooperation, citing as an example the Helsinki Treaty andmaritime pollution control. With Finland and Sweden now also in Swe-den, new opportunities for the security and defence sectors had openedup. They should also look into leveraging Nordefco to new uses. He fur-ther asked governments to keep pouring money into societal security re-search. In a complex world, they needed to keep up with it.Marius Nilsson commented that, as a representative of the Norwegianparliament, he had earlier visited with Minister Bohlin in the Swedish par-liament. From that discussion, he remembered the minister talking abouta kind of reality check entering the discussion of this topic. Mr Nilssonnoted that he was an electrical engineer by trade and had worked in the en-ergy field. In Norway at this time, the ONS – offshore – conferences werebeing held. They had drawn a Swedish person, namely, Greta Thunberg, Minister Carl-Oskar Bohlin said it was not his place to step on anyone’sacross the border, trying to shut down the coast terminal supplying Europe feet. As for whether they had come to the realisation what this meant, thewith gas. From there, he stated that fossil fuel at 85 % was still the prima- answer was still, No. As Mr Nilsson had pointed out, the equation wasry source of energy. It had been at a similar level for the past 30 years, de- quite difficult to get around: If one wanted to be carbon-neutral while notspite billions and billions being expended. He and colleagues had also vis- being critically dependent on other countries producing intermittent ener-ited Germany, meeting with the climate and business department of one gy sources, there was no way to rule out nuclear power. It was this easy, inof the country’s head bureaucrats. There, they had learned about the “En- the minister’s point of view. That conclusion had to be clearly drawn; oth-ergiewende 2.0”. The problem with the first incarnation of this “Energie- erwise, they would find themselves critically dependent on LNG. LNGwende”, according to the bureaucrat, had been that not enough money had its drawbacks. Unfortunately, Norway could not produce LNG for allhad been spent and the installations had not been built fast enough. Mr of Europe. They were still dependent on energy supplies from other coun-Nilsson had asked if the engineers agreed or whether this was a political tries in the world. Furthermore, LNG dependence also led to carbon emis-view. The bureaucrat had had to admit that this was a political assessment. sions. Hoping for hydrogen was a good thing, he allowed, but estimatingAs such, all climate and energy policies had weaknesses. For instance, that hydrogen would serve as an energy storage in the future was not real-through its oil and gas, Norway supplied Europe with 2,600 terawatt istic. The energy losses from transitioning electricity to hydrogen and backhours a year, 7 terawatt hours a day. All the wind power in Norway, across to electricity would, even with the most efficient electrolysers, still reach63 wind parks, generated 17 terawatt hours a year. That was a big discrep- some 50 or 60 %. There would always be more economically viable out-ancy. The European Research Institute for the European Economy had looks for using hydrogen than using it as an intermittent energy storage.called the German economy “crumbling”. It was in big problems due to Hydrogen would always be more viable as a decarboniser within industrialenergy prices. On the other hand, back in Norway, Germany was hailed as processes, for example. The idea of relying on a huge hydrogen storagethe front runner in terms of energy and climate policies. Yet one had to when there was neither wind nor sunshine was not realistic because of thetake the geopolitical consequences into account as well as the scarcity of re- price of hydrogen and the inefficiency of the conversion process.sources, such as rare earth minerals. Finally, he came to his question, ask-ing if Minister Bohlin saw a reorientation and a reality check of these pol- Johannes Schraps commented that the views from the different perspec-icies. Some of the environmental policies might lead to less energy security tives of the Baltic Sea region on certain energy sources were different. Itand more energy dependence on adversarial countries. simply had to be stated that this was a fact. He was not an energy expert so62 63he couldn’t go too deeply into the matter. His remarks would have to be military support. So, the debate in Germany had piled up so much pres-more general. First, he picked up on the comment from Mr Arndt from sure on the government that after about two months, the lists of weaponsthe Youth Forum. The youth representative had spoken about moving deliveries were made public. This was not helpful since the Russians couldfrom one crisis to the next. In discussions with his constituents, Mr Schraps check these lists as well and prepare how to deal with those. Instead, thesesometimes mentioned as well that they were living in difficult times, but lists should be better kept confidential so the opponents would not knowvery often, he had heard from older people with more life experiences who what to prepare for. He asked about the stances of the experts to this con-replied that he might be right. Yet looking back a little further into the cern.past, they could think of other occasions that were not dissimilar. At thestart of the 1980s, there had been discussions in Germany about American Rasmus Dahlberg said that Mr Schraps had touched upon an extremelymissiles being stationed in the country. There had always been crises. It important point. As for the “crisis society”, this notion should constantlymight be that these crises were simply more visible in a more connected be challenged, in his view. This had a parallel to the discussion about andworld. Talking about always being in a crisis situation was also promoting fear of terrorism, back in the early 2000s. If they had all stayed at home,this idea. This was one of the challenges of the moment. Moving on to the had not taken the trains, had not gone to concerts, nobody would haveenergy supply security, he agreed it was a sensitive issue. At the Standing been blown up. But the terrorists would still have won. In a similar fash-Committee’s meeting in Maribo in November 2023, Tobias Liebetrau, a ion, it was necessary to fight against hybrid threats using the core values ofscientist from Copenhagen University, had been there, the necessity of im- their open, liberal democracies. They should not securitise everything andproving crucial connections and how crucial the protection of maritime allow divisions in their societies. But then the question arose why the sameinfrastructure had become more visible as a necessity. They had spoken disinformation and hybrid warfare was not levied against their opponents.about the balance between the necessary confidentiality with such sensitive The answer was that it would not work as well against autocratic states asissues and on the other hand the need for public information. It was a task against open democratic societies. Their openness could be used againstfor every democratic state to keep their own population informed so they them as a weapon. Yet they had to defend themselves with that open dem-could live a safe and secure life, knowing that they could do so. At the same ocratic conversation and find new ways to do so. Mr Dahlberg concededtime, they must not provide too much information about security issues. that they were talking about the very big picture here. This included someFor instance, providing details about how these interconnections were pro- dire paradoxes about classification. Over the past three decades of peace-tected would make them more vulnerable. The ones who would like to time, they had become accustomed to high-resolution maps and databasesharm this infrastructure would also know about these details. Sometimes, about their cables and pipelines being published. This served to avoid fish-Mr Schraps was reminded of the early days of the debate about supplying ermen accidentally dropping their anchors on them. As a historian, Mrweapons to Ukraine. In Germany, there had been questions about how Dahlberg reminded the conference that navigational charts had been clas-many and what kinds of weapons the country was giving to Ukraine. There sified until the mid-19th century. He believed that this approach wouldwas a confidential room in the German Bundestag where the government have to be rethought. He saw this paradox as a spectrum, with one extremehad to provide information about deliveries to other countries. Certain telling nothing and the other telling way too much. In their open demo-parliamentarians could only enter without smartphones, pens, or any oth- cratic forums, they had to have a constant discussion about where to finder means of fixing the information beyond just reading it. Every member the middle ground that was telling enough but not too much.of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Defence Committee, and Budget Com-mittee could do so. Mr Schraps himself had done this, as a member of the Minister Carl-Oskar Bohlin acknowledged that the world was currentlyForeign Affairs Committee, so he had known what weapons the country perceived as one of ongoing crises. Yet it was important to remind oneselfhad delivered after the invasion. But that had not been publicly available. of the frame of reference now and again. No Western European countriesThis information would have been quite valuable for the Russian side. He were sending their young men to the front, no Western European capitalconceded that they had learnt about these provisions in time, anyway. But was being bombed and shelled. As such, most of Europe had not experi-this had led people to believe that their country was not providing any enced a real crisis for more than 70 years. The rule-based world order had64 65created an unprecedented peace and calm over Europe. He underlined that United States and supported by other countries. Civil planning was sup-this did not use to be the norm before the liberal world order. Therefore, posed to be included within the NATO structure. Minister Bohlin notedthey had to remind themselves that, if they did not want things to get that NATO had already put forward the seven baseline requirements as na-worse, they had to stand behind Ukraine, stand up and fight against those tional obligations. National planning would feed into the joint militarywho were trying to dismantle the liberal rule-based world order. It was in- planning.deed being challenged at an unprecedented pace. He reiterated that theframe of reference was vital when one felt burdened by crisis. In that re- Rasmus Dahlberg had also seen the Finnish proposal from the spring. Ifgard, they were not burdened by crisis but should feel the obligation to they could succeed in exporting the Finnish comprehensive security con-help their friends in Ukraine and stand up for the rule-based world order. cept to the European Union as a whole, then they would be pretty well off.If they did not, Minister Bohlin cautioned, things could get a lot worse. He further remarked that he was currently writing a report on the NATOresilience requirements and objectives and how they intersected with theAndris Kulbergs noted that when preparing for European Parliament European Union legislation and directives. What he had sensed from hiselections, he had stumbled over a gap in the legislation. There was an EU interviews in Brussels was that there was rapidly increasing collaboration –policy for civil defence, how the countries should support each other and also at staff level – between NATO and the EU. NATO could do onecoordinate in cases of natural disasters, catastrophes, etc. What Ukraine thing, the EU another. They were working well together, which was muchneeded was a lot of fighters, medical assistance, food and water delivery, needed. He reiterated, though, that the states would continue to be theand the like. Mr Kulbergs had looked into the possibility of a threat of war practical crisis managers, but good and well worked out supernationalagainst any of the other democratic countries – a realistic proposition, he structures were also required.added –, only to find that the EU civil defence policy did not cover any-thing regarding a military attack. In Ukraine, help was needed not only Jens-Holger Schneider had researched energy supply security. In that, hemilitarily but also fighting fire, helping the innocents. Moreover, the EU had learned that several Russian ice-breaker LNG transporters – modernneeded to prepare for possible refugee flows or if the Suwałki corridor ships – going from the Amal Field to four different EU countries: France,should be shut down to cut off the Baltic States. He suggested that the Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Via two ports, LNG gas was also ex-BSPC countries should develop a policy for such a possibility, working out ported to Turkey, China, and Taiwan. This was a different type of energya clear reaction in terms of security. If one of their countries should be supply security.threatened, the other BSPC nations would immediately have a plan at theready to help because the EU would not help.Minister Carl-Oskar Bohlin stressed that there was already an initiativeon these issues, brought forward by Finland, supported by Sweden andmany other countries. This was to ramp up the capabilities of the Europe-an Union in handling these types of long-term civil crises and work withresilience in a more profound way than before. One of these aspects was torevamp the civil protection mechanism to better cope with long-term cri-ses. It had been deployed in Ukraine since the outbreak of the full-scalewar, yet it had not been shaped for that purpose from the beginning. Eventhough there was a lot of legislative and financial potential in the Europe-an Union, there was also work to be done within the NATO structure tobetter align the civil with the military regional planning. That was one ofthe deliverables taken at the Washington summit, put forward by the66 67Mr Schneider had been asked by his constituents how this was possible as enjoyed the benefits of the peace dividend; they had all thought that, asthis ran counter to the sanctions. Those should have blocked Russia from Francis Fukuyama had stated, history had ended, and they would all liveconducting any LNG trade. In the panel, it had been said that this was not happily in the unipolar moment and be friends forever. As it turned out,an EU but a national issue. It seemed that some states were continuing to do that was not to be. Minister Bohlin had reflected several times on the iro-business with Russia. Thus, he wondered how the panellists felt about this. ny that he – as a member of the generation of Eternal Peace – was tryingto rebuild what had been dismantled by the Cold War generation. It couldMinister Carl-Oskar Bohlin did not believe he was the right person to an- not be stressed enough that a long-term horizon had to be in place, realis-swer this question as he could not speak for the countries Mr Schneider ing that, in the near future, they would not come back to the world fromhad mentioned. However, he urged everyone to get out of their critical de- before 2008 or 2014 – and definitely not before 2022. It was their obliga-pendence on Russia. That applied not only to gas but, for example, to fer- tion to spread this knowledge to the coming generation to the best of theirtilisers as well. Europe was still critically dependent on Russian fertilisers. abilities. Sometimes, this was described as the Paradox of Defence Spend-The democratic countries should do everything in their might to get out of ing – namely, that the more was spent on defence, the more the publicany kind of dependency. They had largely managed this regarding oil and would perceive that spending as too high. That was because it was not usedgas, but some remainders might still have to be handled. Nobody wanted in a conflict. He also called it the Paradox of Deterrence. People would sayto see such a dependency on a state like Russia. that deterrence was sufficient so that money could be spent on otherthings. Then, though, it would turn out that the deterrence had been lack-Rasmus Dahlberg said they would have to accept the fact that there would ing for a very long time while the security situation was deteriorating fast-always be loopholes. And there would always be actors willing to exploit such er than the deterrence could be reconstituted. That was the general situa-loopholes. As he had said before, their open democratic debate would have to tion Europe was in at this point. Even though this was not convenient,counter the attempts from foreign aggressors to divide them. They could not they must not look away. Minister Bohlin said that he had been at the Mu-allow themselves to get caught up in internal fights and make sure that they nich Security Conference this year. From the podium, Ukrainian presidentwould act within their good common framework. They had to accept that Zelenskyy had spoken to the audience, made up mostly of Europeans, say-there would be bad actors and consequently develop the mechanisms to go ing that his listeners needed to get ready because they were not. It alwaysafter them and close the loopholes. He cautioned that this was not just about seemed inconvenient to speak of these matters because there were alwayssingle actors exploiting single loopholes, as there could be foreign state actors more pressing domestic issues. Judging from his experience, Mr Zelenskyybehind this. That was the new agenda needed to be addressed. had urged his listeners to get ready because Ukraine had not been readyback in 2014. Yet they had been forced to get ready between 2014 andDr Staffan Eklöf opened by noting that present-day society was struc- 2022 because part of their country had been under occupation. Ministertured around peace time and economic efficiency. Restructuring society Bohlin added that, had Ukraine not made that journey, Europe would bewould cost money, as the panellists had mentioned. It might be easy to get in a completely different place now. This was one of the most importantpopular support in the current situation, but he pointed out that people take-aways from the current security situation. There was no way to looktended to forget quickly. As such, he asked how the popular support could away from this issue anymore.be secured in the long run. Similarly, popular engagement was critical forsuccess, and this was derived from popular support. He wondered if cohe- Rasmus Dahlberg explained that research called this the Preparednesssion in society was a crucial factor and whether lessons could be learned Paradox. It was a difficult topic to work with politically because the returnfrom Ukraine and other countries. on investment was often invisible. It was hard to harvest votes from all thethings that did not happen. In an aside, he noted that he had some expe-Minister Carl-Oskar Bohlin remarked that this was the most difficult rience with this because he had engaged in a political campaign that hadquestion of them all. One always hoped that institutional memory would failed badly. The narrative had to be rephrased. Mr Dahlberg frequentlybe long-lasting. Yet that often did not happen. Everybody in this room had worked with preparedness and risk management for large corporations,68 69and it was always about changing the narrative from preparedness as cost Minister Carl-Oskar Bohlin agreed that food production was of pivotalto preparedness as an investment. It should be presented as an insurance importance for a country’s resilience and its ability to resist. The key to apolicy. That was difficult, but for societal cohesion, this was a fundamental resilient agricultural sector that could provide food during a crisis was topart of the security of society. He reiterated that none of these attempts ensure it was competitive during peacetime. One way of preventing thatshould be allowed to divide their societies. The focus should be on societal was to put an unnecessary burden of regulations on it and driving the tran-cohesion, on creating the common narratives on how to invest in their se- sition in such a way that farmers might be put out of business. There wascurity for future generations. No sane person would dream of buying a a very fine balance to be struck here. One aspect in particular was indeedhouse without an insurance policy against fire. If preparedness would com- how the fuel transition in the agricultural sector was to be handled. Inpete as a cost with other costs, it would lose because the return on invest- Minister Bohlin’s view, part of the answer was bio diesel or bio gas, anoth-ment was unfortunately invisible. er part was electrification, but fossil fuels should not be ruled out too ear-ly. The latter could result in production being driven off elsewhere, and theDr Staffan Eklöf commented that agriculture had not been in the focus of countries in question might find their agricultural sector less competitivethe present discussion. The fertiliser dependency had been mentioned. In the day it was badly needed.that respect, he pointed to some very exciting projects, in Sweden and else-where, on domestic fertiliser production. Yet there was also the problem offuel. It was difficult and highly expensive to build tractors that ran on elec-tricity. Biofuels were one alternative, but these could only be stored for ashort time. There were initiatives for farm-produced biogas which he con-sidered a good solution, with the fuel generated where it was needed. Still,he found it difficult to see how this equation worked without fossil fuel foragriculture, at least for the coming 20 years. He asked the panellists fortheir views.Rasmus Dahlberg remembered going to Stockholm the year before.There, he had seen an advertisement in the Stockholm metro. As far as herecalled, it had been from the Swedish Association for Agriculture, statingbluntly that they were part of Swedish preparedness. He had seen nothingsimilar in Denmark yet. Going back to his earlier remarks about sectorialresponsibility, he commented that there had to be a strategy defining every-body’s role in society, also regarding preparedness. That was the whole-of-so- Chairman Andris Kulbergs stated that they had had a very interesting ses-ciety thinking. Back in the days of the Cold War, there had been a strong sion. He thanked all the participants who had asked very hard questionsfocus in NATO and civil wartime agencies on food production and agri- and the factual information provided.culture. Later, when they had cashed in on the preparedness or peace div-idend, that had diluted into the market, so much that they had lost sightof it. Now they were trying to recapture that focus. It was a huge task todefine responsibilities and mandates. Yet there was no easy way around it:It was necessary to go through every aspect of society, make the plan, fit itinto strategy, and assign responsibility.70 71THIRD SESSIONPresentation by Mr Troels Lund Poulsen,Vice-Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, DenmarkSafety in the Baltic Sea Minister Troels Lund Poulsenspoke about Denmark’s particu-Chair: Ms Bryndís Haraldsdóttir, President of the Nordic Council, lar responsibility for the securityMP Iceland of the Baltic Sea region and theCo-chair: Prof Jānis Vucāns, MP Latvia, former President of the BSPC Baltic states. This had also beenemphasised in the government’sMr Troels Lund Poulsen, Danish Deputy Prime Minister and political platform and a positionMinister of Defense widely shared in the Danish par-Mr Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs liament. Danish security waslinked to the Baltic Sea and thesecurity in the region. He notedthe historic bond between Den-mark and the Baltic nations. Theyear before, the minister hadbeen at the NATO summit inVilnius, together with ForeignMinister Rasmussen. That loca-tion underlined the key role ofthe Baltic nations in that alliance. He thanked the BSPC for strengtheningthe ties between the Baltic Sea states, a very important task in these years.Russia’s conflict with the West and the war in Ukraine had a significant im-pact on the security in the Baltic Sea region. Moreover, the threat fromSession chair Bryndís Haraldsdóttir opened the third session, focusing Russia was serious and must not be neglected. On the positive side, Min-on a topic critical to their shared future: the safety of in the Baltic Sea. The ister Poulsen reminded his audience of Finland and Sweden’s accession toBaltic Sea was not only a crucial artery for communication and commerce NATO. That had also sent a very clear signal to Russia and made the Bal-but also a region of significant geopolitical importance. Recent develop- tic Sea an even more important place. All the Baltic Sea states – exceptments including Russia’s illegal, unjustified, and unprovoked war of ag- Russia – were now members of NATO, a clear response to Russia’s aggres-gression against Ukraine, rising tensions worldwide, and environmental sion. NATO had also established a strong defence and deterrence with itsthreats had underscored the need for advanced cooperation and strategic military presence in the Baltic states and all eastern allies. Denmark wasplanning to ensure the security and sustainability of this vital region. lifting more than their share in Latvia at the moment, with about 800 sol-diers that would be stationed there this autumn. Moreover, the countryShe introduced the first speaker, Mr Troels Lund Poulsen, the Danish also was responsible for NATO’s divisional headquarters. According to theVice-Prime Minister and Minister of Defence. Mr Poulsen had been in- Danish intelligence service, Russia would seek to deter NATO memberstrumental in shaping Denmark’s defence strategy and the evolving securi- states from conducting military activities close to their own territory. Fur-ty landscape of the Baltic Sea region. His insights would be invaluable in thermore, they deemed it highly likely that Russia intended to use its mil-the discussion how to fortify their collective safety. itary power to challenge NATO countries below the threshold of the72 73alliance’s Article 5. Russia’s military activities would likely take on a more Presentation by Mr Lars Løkke Rasmussen,unpredictable nature, with occasional threatening behaviour in the form Minister for Foreign Affairs, Denmarkof frequent military actions against NATO vessels and aircraft in the Bal-tic Sea. In other words, more harassment by Russia in the region could not Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen referenced the historic significance of thebe ruled out. That country was already testing NATO with hybrid threats. narrowest passage into the Baltic Sea right where the conference took place. InAs per the Danish intelligence service, there was no reason to expect that particular, he noted one Danish king centuries ago. To ensure that captainsthis would end in the years to come. The latest GPS jamming incident in did not lie about the value of their cargo, a regulation had been introduced,the Baltic Sea was one example. However, Russia would be careful to avoid giving the king the right to purchase said cargo at the captain’s declared value.triggering NATO’s Article 5. The minister said that they had to maintain This had been a smart manoeuvre, the minister commented. In the presenta strong presence and cooperation in the region to remind Russia of this. day, Denmark no longer controlled the entrance into the Baltic Sea. No longerwere they pointing their cannons at passing ships. This friendlier approachNATO was committed and able to deter and defend every inch of the alli- was generally appreciated, he added humorously. Yet all of them still wantedance, including their eastern flank in the Baltic Sea region. To keep this po- fair principles. For that reason, they had gathered at the conference to discusssitional defence, everything possible had to be done. They also had to be opportunities for trade in the Baltic Sea as well as to protect their critical in-willing to invest in their future defence capabilities. Firstly, the right capabil- frastructure and marine environment. All their nations shared a significant ge-ities and plans had to be in place to defend themselves if necessary. Denmark ographical similarity – a coastline along the Baltic Sea. In today’s world of ris-was now – and was planning to do more – investing in Danish defence, ing geopolitical tensions, the value of regional cooperation was more evidentmeeting the 2 % GDP goal set by NATO on an enduring basis. They had than ever. For the first time in more than 500 years, all the Nordic countrieshad many discussions about this in Denmark, but there was now huge and along the Baltic Sea were now part of the same defence alliance. But it was in-broad support for this. Nearly all the parties in the Danish parliament had deed the very first time in history that everybody assembled in this room rep-agreed. In spring, they had also decided on major investments with NATO resented NATO member states. This was indeed a milestone, the result ofcapability targets, including e.g., fast-track plans to set up a heavy brigade, hard work and dedication. Therefore, he acknowledged the tireless efforts ofinvesting in ground-based air defence systems, and also anti-submarine war- the parliamentarians and thanked them from the bottom of his heart.fare capabilities. The minister reiterated that Denmark was doing what thecountry could to support defence and deterrence in the Baltic states. Minis-ter Poulsen remarked that he had recently signed a letter of intent at theNATO Washington Summit, allowing for further cooperation in the Balticstates regarding sea mines. This had been signed by all the Baltic Sea states.Lately, Denmark had also stepped up their military support for Ukraine.Such initiatives benefitted all of them, he added. The country would contin-ue its own active engagement as well as encourage its allies to step up in plan-ning and investing in security and defence. The signal should be that all ofthe democratic nations should do even more in the years to come.Chairwoman Bryndís Haraldsdóttir thanked him and presented the nextspeaker, Mr Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs.Mr Rasmussen was a former prime minister of the country, with a distin-guished career in both domestic and international policy. He had been a As they were all too aware, the situation in the Baltic Sea was faced bystrong advocator for Denmark’s active rule in global defence, particularly growing threats and increasing insecurity. There was an increased level ofwithin the Nordic and Baltic region. hybrid activities, planned and carried out with a malign intent. Russia was74 75testing the West’s threshold; Russia was testing their responses. Effective implemented and that they would remain legally sound within interna-defence required strong alliances and proactive measures. Russia would tional law. As Baltic Sea states, they depended on the freedom to navigateundoubtedly persist in adjusting its tactics, potentially escalating tensions, across the globe and must not end up in a situation where their regulationsyet that would not deter the democratic nations from their support for were copied in a misinterpreted fashion.Ukraine. The British historian Mark Galleoti had recently noted that theCold War had been more stable than the current situation. Back then, the The overall aim of many of these hybrid threats and activities was to un-rules had been somewhat clear. Mr Galleoti had suggested that today’s dermine state authority, thereby creating uncertainty in the population.global environment felt like the uncertain period just after World War II This raised a number of questions, such as how to manage a power failureand before the Cold War when the rules had not been well defined. To without causing fear, how the West was prepared practically and mentally,some extent, Minister Rasmussen agreed. The situation at this point and whether they were resilient enough, and what they could do to protecthow it would develop was filled with uncertainty. In the Baltic Sea, they their nations. It was necessary to be much more mindful of where to placehad to be especially aware of the security risk this posed. In the coming critical infrastructure. In that, they could all learn valuable lessons fromyears, the Baltic Sea region would see major investments in new projects – their neighbours across the coast of the Baltic Sea. For years, countries inoffshore wind farms, new pipeline connections, nuclear power plants. the Baltic Sea region and central Europe had been aware of the geopoliti-These projects would create interconnected energy sources across their cal implications of energy security – something that they had learned thecountries, improving their security of supply but also widening their vul- hard way most recently. Strong security measures had been implementednerability to attacks. Their region was vulnerable to hybrid attacks. They for new infrastructure projects. These were just a few examples, Ministerwere enjoying a good level of welfare and expected a number of good ser- Rasmussen noted, adding that he was very much looking forward to dis-vices. All of this required fuel, electricity, internet connections, and much cussing the future and further solutions.more. At the same time, it made the West vulnerable to disruptions.In conclusion, he revisited a point from the beginning. All their nationsThe Russian shadow fleet of oil tankers was yet another risk in their waters. shared a significant geographical similarity. They had a coastline along theThese ships were trying to circumvent the price cap on Russian oil. The Baltic Sea; they had a shared sea. Minister Rasmussen personally had oftengoal of that measure, the minister noted, was not to prevent Russia from spoken of his unborn grandchildren, just to remind himself why he was aselling any oil but to secure the price cap as a part of the regime of sanc- politician. That task was not about this day or the next but about the fu-tions against that country. By circumventing said regime, these shadow ture. The autumn before, though, he had become a grandfather, so now heships were financing the Russian war machine. An accident with just one was thinking about his future great-grandchildren. That gave him purposefully loaded oil tanker could result in severe pollution and cause havoc in life. He wanted a safe and clean sea for them and for all future genera-across their coast and in their waters. Dreadful damage, destroyed marine tions. He wanted them to witness unity among the Baltic Sea countries,life, devastated coasts. Therefore, Denmark wanted to take this very seri- and this was crucial not just for security but for their shared cultural herit-ously and tackle the problem in an appropriate way. They were close and age, their identity, and their values. While they had long looked across thecooperating with their partners – not only Baltic Sea states but all of Eu- Atlantic to the United States for security – and to some extent perhaps, forrope – on this issue. Minister Rasmussen underlined that the shadow fleet identity -, Minister Rasmussen believed it was time to focus more on howwas an international problem. As such, it required international solutions. Europeans could contribute to trans-Atlantic security by taking more re-Accordingly, Minister Rasmussen was very pleased that the European Un- sponsibility for their regional neighbours across the Baltic Sea.ion after some discussions had imposed sanctions on 27 ships. Such jointaction limited their ability to operate and increased the cost for Russia. Co-chairman Prof Jānis Vucāns thanked the minister for his insightfulThis course had to be sustained. Moreover, it was incumbent to consider speech. He noted that he and Ms Haraldsdóttir had participated in a po-what the next step would be. The West had to remain engaged while at the litical debate about the future of the Nordic and Baltic regions in Latviasame time ensuring that any further measures could be effectively this summer. He opened the political debate.76 77Debate Pauli Aalto-Setälä also picked up on Mr Rasmussen’s comment, saying thathe had four grandchildren which he described as a good reason to be a poli-Saku Nikkanen noted that three cities in the wider region had a similar tician. Russia’s illegal war of aggression had fundamentally changed the secu-name to the conference’s host city, including Helsinki. rity environment in all its dimensions and perceptions. Plagued by a plethoraof hybrid, shadow, and sabotage actions, questions related to the Baltic Searegion would undoubtedly remain centre stage of international affairs. MrAalto-Setälä offered a brief outlook on the topics that the Finnish Foreign Af-fairs Committee had covered, such as Russia’s attempt to redefine the seazones in the Gulf of Finland, damage incurred to underwater infrastructure,and GPS interference in Finland and surrounding areas. Finland was work-ing closely with their partners to enhance the security and stability in the Bal-tic Sea region, although some referred to it as a NATO lake. Additional meas-ures were still needed to secure the area, given its ongoing strategic impor-tance to Russia. The West had to remain vigilant and fully prepared to tacklethe unrestrained aggressive behaviour of the Russian Federation, fuelled byauthoritarian rule. This called for strengthening democratic resolve and deep-ening cooperation, as the young delegates of the Youth Forum had men-tioned earlier. Additionally, he stressed that all of them had to listen to theircolleagues from the Baltic countries more carefully. To achieve all of this,He saw this as an allusion to their need to stand together in these histor- their governments had to stand united and cooperate even more closely acrossic times. As a member of the Finnish parliament, he was greatly con- all areas. One specific focus area was enhancing the stability of the Baltic Seacerned about the Russian shadow fleet – the oil tankers roving the Baltic in terms of the supply chain security, ensuring the uninterrupted shippingSea. They were carrying about a third of Russia’s seaborne export oil which was in the vital interest of all of their nations. For Finland, the impor-shipment, representing 1.5 % of global supply. The media had reported tance of safe and secure sea transport was enormous, and securing it was cen-that Denmark was considering ways to stop these tankers and had gath- tral to the country’s resilience.ered like-minded states to evaluate measures to that end. Mr Nikkanencalled on the BSPC to support this. The average age of these tankers de-parting from the Russian Baltic Sea port of Kaliningrad was over 30years. The overall assessment was that these ships had fallen into poorcondition and were posing a significant threat to the environment of thealready vulnerable Baltic Sea. Mr Nikkanen was also concerned aboutclear waters; in reference to Minister Rasmussen, he also hoped for un-born grandchildren to one day enjoy those. Their countries should begravely concerned about this matter. Considering the ongoing Russianaggression against the sovereignty of Ukraine, he asked the BSPC to takea unified stance on banning Russia’s unidentified shadow tankers carry-ing sanctioned oil. This would stress that the BSPC stood for strong andunified cooperation, underlining security, respecting territorial integrityand promoting a better ecological state of the environment of their re-gion.78 79Any disruption of maritime traffic by Russia would pose a significant chal- Oddný G. Harðardóttir said it was clear that their countries had to be onlenge as the nation relied heavily on shipping. Ensuring the safety and sta- the alert regarding security and defence.bility of shipping on maritime roads required them to be prepared for allpotential scenarios. Finally, since the outbreak of the war, environmentalcooperation had diminished, yet Russian oil exports from the Baltic Seahad continued on the shadow fleet. These issues had to be addressed asthey were threatening not only their safety but also the fragile environmenton the already heavily threatened Baltic Sea. Mr Aalto-Setälä added thatthey should be all in for Ukraine.Himanshu Gulati considered the Baltic Sea a good example of how it boundnations together, not just through cooperation but now also through alli-ance. So was the BSPC. It had not always been like this, he reminded his col-leagues. The Baltic Sea had earlier been a hotspot where democracy, the freeworld, had met those regimes with different intents. The invasion of Ukrainehad reminded the West that the sea representing opportunity could alsopresent challenges. It had also become a hot spot for hybrid warfare, not least At the same time, they always had to seek peaceful solutions and dothe weaponisation of energy. Mr Gulati noted that he represented Norway – everything possible to negotiate peace in conflicts. As such, she asked Min-a country with many oil and gas installations in the North Sea. Recently, ister Rasmussen for his thoughts on the best way forward, how to ensurethere had been a good deal of suspicious activity around these installations peace for the future, and prevent war. Peace was what they needed for theirwith drones and the like; moreover, there had been the Nord Stream inci- values, democracy, and freedom as well as for their grandchildren.dent as well as other examples. He asked the Danish ministers if they wereconfident that the measures currently in place were enough to secure the im- Kaarel Taimla from the Youth Forum noted that he was from Estonia. Heportant energy infrastructure in the Baltic Sea or if they could recommend referenced history, noting that enemies of the state in the Soviet Unionspecific actions to further enhance that security. had found themselves in gulags in far away parts of Russia, like Siberia.80 81Estonia alone had lost around 30,000 people through these deportations. Back then, he had described Europe as an economic giant, political dwarf,Less well known was that during World War II, when imperial Japan had and military worm. At that time, he had received a lot of attention for thatbombed the United States, this had led to 120,000 Japanese or people of statement. The current situation cast a different light on these words. ToJapanese descent had been locked up in internment camps. Two thirds of Mr Mørup, it seemed that Europe had failed politically to prevent the war,them had been US citizens. With that, Mr Taimla wanted to point out that and now, they were incapable militarily to end the war. Young people insometimes, people over-reacted gravely to what was happening. In the general had often accused politicians of being too slow. He asked the min-present day, they could neither over- nor under-react. He noted that many isters if they shared Mr Eskens’ view and how to secure the Baltic Sea re-Russian-speaking people lived in Europe, especially in the Baltic region. gion fast enough from the Russian threats.The majority of them were absolutely good people, yet there had beenpro-Russia protests on almost all the streets of Europe. As an example, he Johannes Schraps remarked that the Standing Committee the day beforecited Germany. Furthermore, pro-Kremlin talking points had even come had discussed intensively the resolution that would be adopted the day after.from parliamentarians. As such, he wondered if this was acceptable. They One point had been that the countries around the North Sea had signed awere speaking about how to protect themselves from physical threats. He joint declaration on cooperation regarding the protection of infrastructure.insisted that he did not consider the people living among them as threats, The BSPC would call on their governments to consider whether to adopt abut the question for him was which society they all wanted. Without be- similar initiative in the Baltic Sea. As the ministers represented a country bor-ing unreasonably fearful, he asked how to make sure that the people shared dering both the North and the Baltic Sea, he asked the Danish politicians totheir values rather than considering them as an artefact of history. He comment on this. Secondly, as the outgoing Vice President of the BSPC, Mrwanted to make sure that the language he spoke at home could be used Schraps highlighted his appreciation for both serving ministers to attend theeverywhere, that he did not have to worry about mis- and disinformation. conference and discuss with the parliamentarians as well as for the CBSS hav-Mr Taimla called on the attendees not only to focus on the physical aspects ing taken into account the parliamentary dimension of the Baltic coopera-but also the people who may have been disinformed. These had to be tion. In that respect, he noted that the year before, when he had been presi-brought along and integrated to live prosperously. dent of the BSPC, Mr Schraps had been invited to the CBSS Foreign Minis-ters’ Meeting in Wismar. He remembered the lively debates back then. AsTobias Mørup from the Youth Forum noted that, as a young person, he such, he asked his colleagues to keep up this close cooperation and from timesometimes liked to take the advice of the elder generations. He to time invite each other to their meetings. It was always good for the BSPChighlighted what the former Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Mark presidium to be present at different events, such as the Ministerial Meeting.Eskens, had said in 1991.Claudia Müller picked up on something that Minister Rasmussen hadsaid, regarding the early Cold War when the rules had been established.Part of these rules had been to accept that the world had been divided intospheres of influence, that some countries could not choose freely whatpath they would follow. There were those among them who had lived inthese countries, remembering what it had felt like not to be free and to seethe Baltic Sea as a border. It had not been a sea uniting the peoples but di-viding them. At the same time, though, it had been a beacon of hope, forexample with the Helsinki Accords. Those had opened up the world forthose people a little. With that in mind, she asked what the world wouldlook like after the end of the war in Ukraine, whether Russia would win orlose. Ms Müller wished to know how to ensure that the Baltic Sea wouldnever again divide them but would always unite them.82 83Canada and Sweden. However, a more long-lasting plan should be consid-ered for the years to come. That was one of his recommendations for thefuture. Another was to hold more military exercises together. There was abroad potential for this. In addition, when buying military equipment,that should also be handled jointly. Quite many countries were focused ontheir own needs, yet these were often shared, especially in maritime affairs.They could easily do more. He segued to speak about critical infrastruc-ture. Securing these could be an object of their common cooperation. Re-lated to this, exchanging lessons learned on hybrid warfare was valuable, inparticular what had been successful. As for public awareness and misinfor-mation, Minister Poulsen believed in a very open and direct discussionwith the voters on the outcome of Russia gaining more land in Ukraine.That would create huge problems in the Baltic Sea region. Thus, this wasconnected to investments in greater capabilities. But that money had to bespent wisely in a behaved manner. He suggested that the BSPC could be aMinister Troels Lund Poulsen first commented on the situation in forum to discuss this further. He agreed with Mr Schraps that the govern-Ukraine. It was of great importance that European nations stuck together mental and parliamentary levels talking together was the way forward toand were willing to invest in the future, not only in the current year but find good solutions for the future.through a long-lasting plan to help Ukraine. Denmark had established afund for Ukraine allowing the country to invest in military support over Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen remarked that Minister Poulsen had al-the coming years. This was a much-needed way forward because so much ready answered most of the questions, adding that he agreed with everydepended on providing military aid. He spoke about what Denmark had word his colleague had said. Picking up on Mr Gulati’s question if currentdone in this regard, first of all the donation of F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine. security measures were enough, Minister Rasmussen definitively said thisTogether with the Netherlands and the US, the country had created a co- was not the case. For that reason, the cooperation had to be continued.alition – also joined by many of the member states of the BSPC – to allow The good thing was that now, they were together.Ukraine to use F-16s and build up their own air force. That had been ahuge and difficult task, but the first F-16s were now active in Ukraine. Heexpected more to follow. This was another way of helping Ukraine withtheir own security. The second part was to help Ukraine establish its owndefence companies. The country had much to offer for a strong defence in-dustry. They were already able to produce for about 20 billion US dollarsper year, but they only had about 6 billion. This was a huge gap. As such,more countries should invest directly in Ukraine to that end. This wouldalso speed up the donations because producing military equipment inUkraine would be a fast way to make this available to the nation. Somecountries were already doing so. Denmark had taken the lead in investingdirectly in these defence companies. He suggested that the Baltic Sea re-gion could band together for such investments. Moving on, he spokeabout doing more to support the Baltic states. Minister Poulsen reiteratedthat Denmark was about to post 800 soldiers to Latvia, together with84 85When the BSPC had been established after the Fall of the Berlin Wall, its ne- Addresses by Representatives of other Parlamentarycessity had been obvious. But in the following decade or two, that had not Assemblies, international Guests, and BSPC Observerbeen quite so easy to see. Now, it was once again clear. With Finland and OrganisationsSweden joining NATO, there were now two combined circles in which com-munication was well implemented. Minister Rasmussen went on to assure Chair: Ms Oddný G. Harðardóttir, Vice-President ofMr Schraps that the joint discussion in Wismar had been a good thing and the Nordic Council, MP Icelandshould be repeated. It was not just intergovernmental cooperation, not just Co-chair: Ms Beate Schlupp, Vice-President of Parliament,interparliamentary collaboration, but all of it was linked, and they should Mecklenburg-Vorpommerntalk closely. They had to find the right solutions within the NATO or Euro-pean Union framework or in bilateral agreements. Discussion was needed. Chairwoman Oddný G. Harðardóttir, Vice-President of the NordicMoving on, he reflected on what Ms Harðardóttir had said on preventing Council, explained that the cooperation here mirrored the strong and ef-war. The best way to do so was to learn a lesson. That lesson was that the fective collaboration essential for addressing the many challenges facingWest had to stick together and be steadfast in their support to Ukraine. This the Baltic Sea region. The first address would be given by Mr Hendrik-Janwas a crucial time in history, Minister Rasmussen said. He was proud to rep- Talsma, head of the delegation of the Netherlands Parliament, part of theresent a country that, according to the Kiel Institute, was now the number Benelux parliaments. In June, the BSPC, the Nordic Council, and the Bal-one military supporter per capita and number four in total numbers. Per tic Assembly had participated in a crucial general assembly of the Beneluxcapita, that was good, but in total numbers, the small country of Denmark parliaments, focusing on the vital issue of port security. This topic alignedshould not have to rank that highly. Therefore, he called on everybody to perfectly with the core themes of the present conference.step up. They could not allow Putin to win this war. If that were to happen,that would create uncertainty for generations to come. The best way to pre-vent war in the future was to ensure that Ukraine would win this war. Thiswas about deterrence and unity. In his view, the West had managed this verywell so far. Putin had not expected that coherence as well as the great cour-age in Ukraine. As for the quote from the former Belgian minister, the min-ister shared some of that view. He had been in the US the week before, at theDemocratic Party’s convention. While the Europeans could not influencethe US elections, whoever would take the Oval Office, Europe would stillhave to step up. Minister Rasmussen noted that he had met former presidentTrump on several occasions in the past, and that would be more straightfor-ward. Europe would have to pay a greater part of its own insurance, build aEuropean pillar within the NATO framework, and develop their defence in-dustry capacity. In short, Europe had to do more. In that regard, MinisterRasmussen was pleased that Ms von der Leyen had been easily re-elected aspresident of the European Union. He assured the attendees that when Den-mark would take over the presidency of the EU in the second half of 2025,they would continue this agenda of creating a more competitive Europe aswell as building a stronger bridge between the military pillar within the Eu-ropean Union and NATO. In conclusion, he saw cooperation as the onlyway forward. Minister Rasmussen noted with pleasure that everybody whohad spoken in this session had suggested the same measures.86 87Benelux Parliament Mr Talsma noted that this conference was held against the background ofworldwide geopolitical turmoil and even an ongoing war nearby, affectingHendrik-Jan Talsma, head of the delegation of the Netherlands Parliament, all of their countries and putting their mutual commitment as allies andthanked the BSPC for inviting a delegation from the Benelux parliament, their support to the victims of aggression to the test. What the Baltic Seathe parliamentary assembly of Belgian, Netherlands, and Luxembourg, to meant for the BSPC member states, the North Sea did for Belgium, thethis extraordinary event. Well organised, it was held near a location repre- Netherlands, and to a certain extent to Luxembourg. It was an economicsenting the historic ties binding their nations together. Elsinore had been a and strategic artery for their countries. The increased economic, ecological,place of utmost strategic importance for ages. It had been right here that scientific, and military importance of the North Sea implied that it was be-they had met before – or rather, some of their ancestors had done so. In No- coming an area where security played a vital role, more than ever. This wasvember 1658, the Battle of the Sound – Øresund –, had been fought right not only because of the challenges within the limited maritime space of theon the waters they were looking at. Dutch warships from the Netherlands North Sea but also because of its geopolitical position, with growing num-had engaged a Swedish fleet in order to lift the siege of Copenhagen and re- bers of Russian military and scientific vessels passing along their coasts,open trade routes to and from the Baltic Sea. From Kronborg Castle, the data cables, wind farms, and gas pipelines. Of course, the right of free pas-Swedish king had been supposed to fire the first shot in this battle which sage – mare liberum – had to be respected. Yet Belgium and the Nether-eventually would lead to the end of the blockade of Copenhagen and free lands were following these developments very closely, cooperating with in-passage to the Baltic Sea. The Swedish side had lost the battle. Yet Mr Talsma ternational partners, including BSPC member states. Escorting non-NA-hurried to say, looking at his Swedish colleagues, that the relationships be- TO ships in the North Sea had become a regular tasks for the naval forcestween the countries had changed dramatically since those days, in a positive of the North Sea states. Furthermore, arrangements had been made re-way. The Benelux parliament highly valued its contacts with the BSPC and garding the security of, for example, wind farms, including the deploy-all of its members, representing the most successful form of interparliamen- ment of drones. More and more, they had come to realise that if theytary cooperation. More than highly esteemed colleagues, he called the BSPC wanted to put additional effort into the security of critical infrastructure,their friends. So, it was an honour to attend the conference, with the empha- resources were needed, such as software allowing better detection andsis on the overarching theme of security in the Baltic Sea, including defence tracking of suspicious activities, camera surveillance at sea, drones withcooperation, energy supply security, and climate initiatives. mobile cameras, and more stringent security plans by both private andpublic actors. Given the cross-border nature of this challenge, this couldonly be accomplished by efficient use of cooperation with partners such asthe BSPC, other North Sea states, and other partners.On 25 October 2024, the Benelux Parliament would host a conference inOstend, Belgium, where authorities and stakeholders could present theiropinions and their advice on this subject. He would be happy to receive aBSPC delegation to this conference. Referencing the BSPC president’s in-vitation to this conference, Mr Talsma agreed that the challenges weregrowing, and the tensions were high. Things seemed to become more andmore complicated which led the speaker back to 1658 one last time. TheDutch fleet commander Jacob van Wassenaer Obdam had received highlycomplicated instructions before the start of the battle. He had been giventhese instructions by politicians in The Hague. These had been vast anddifficult, confusing van Wassenaer. So, the commander had requested thepoliticians to redraft the orders in just three words. From The Hague, he88 89had then received – while not just three words – a single sentence reply, Proceeding on the principles of continuity and long-term perspectives, their“Save Copenhagen and punch in the face anyone who tries to prevent it.” presidency was built on the achievements of its predecessors – the GermanThat was clear language, Mr Talsma remarked. In the present day, amidst and Finnish presidencies. Estonia continued to stress the political dialogue.all the complexities and confusion, he called upon the BSPC to be likewise It was a highly important part of the CBSS. A fine example was the Porvoocompact. They should stand together. meeting in June, organised by the Finnish presidency. The Ministerial Meet-ing had reaffirmed the support for Ukraine to counter the Russian aggres-Co-chairwoman Beate Schlupp thanked Mr Hendrik-Jan Talsma for his sion, noted that the war had profoundly shifted the security landscape in theinspiring address. She introduced the next speaker, Mr Tõnis Nirk, Am- Baltic Sea region, and had paid particular attention to the hybrid threatsbassador-at-Large for Baltic Sea Cooperation, Chairman of the CBSS posed by Russia and Belarus. In its presidency, Estonia aimed to continueCommittee of Senior Officials during the current Estonian CBSS presi- these political discussions, not least during the next Ministerial Meeting, todency. Mr Nirk would update the BSPC on the core issues of the Estonian be held in the coming spring. In terms of practical cooperation, all threepresidency. long-term priorities remained highly topical: a safe and secure, sustainable,and prosperous Baltic Sea region as well as the regional identity. Taking intoCBSS, Estonian Presidency account the security situation, the main focus during the Estonian presiden-cy would be on strengthening resilience and sustainability. Secondly, theTõnis Nirk, Ambassador-at-Large for Baltic Sea Cooperation, Chairman CBSS would continue its support for Ukraine, especially on issues impor-of the CBSS Committee of Senior Officials, introduced the main priorities tant for the country and where the CBSS possessed substantial competence.of the Estonian presidency of the Council of the Baltic Sea States. As such, they would continue the good practice of inviting the Ukrainianrepresentatives to the CBSS meetings as well as organising special meetingstogether with their Ukrainian counterparts. Thirdly, the Estonian presiden-cy placed a great deal of attention on the well-focused and mutually benefi-cial cooperation with other regional formats. Here, the BSPC played a spe-cial role as it was and had been a highly valued partner.Regarding the three long-term priorities, Mr Nirk noted that, regardingthe safe and secure region, political dialogue and cooperation would focuson civil protection, children’s protection, and anti-trafficking. Expertgroups on these issues would continue their active work. He underlinedthat they had a dense schedule ahead of them in the coming ten months.As for the sustainable and prosperous region, work would continue on thegreen corridors in the Baltic Sea. A new initiative by the Estonian presi-dency concerned creating a digital twin of the Baltic Sea. In regional iden-tity, the focus would be on the preservation of cultural heritage and also onthe implementation of several important ongoing projects. A very impor-tant aspect of the work of the CBSS was and would be the youth involve-ment. The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum had just concluded itsmeeting the preceding weekend. It was a very important feature of theCBSS cooperation. He highlighted that the first meeting during the Esto-nian presidency had been that of the CBSS Summer University which hadtaken place in Tallinn in mid-July.90 91As for the organisation itself, the CBSS had appointed a new director gen-eral of the secretariat. On behalf of the CBSS, Mr Nirk extended his deepgratitude to Ambassador Grzegorz Poznański for all his dedication, hardwork, and energy leading the secretariat over the past years. He also wel-comed Mr Gustav Lindström who would take over that position on 1 Sep-tember. Regarding the future of the CBSS, Mr Nirk said that the ministershad decided in Porvoo to conduct a review of the organisation, with a viewto how it was doing and provide recommendations for the future. The re-view would be led by a vice president, supported by representatives of themember states. None had been appointed yet as vice president, but the Es-tonian presidency would fully facilitate the work of the review. Mr Nirkhoped that the results would be presented by the next CBSS presidency,Poland, at the 2025 BSPC conference.Co-chairwoman Beate Schlupp thanked Mr Nirk for his valuable insightand highlighting the significant work done by the CBSS under Estonianleadership. The next speaker was Ambassador Grzegorz Poznański, outgo-ing director general of the CBSS secretariat, who had been a steadfast part-ner of the BSPC over the past four years, consistently providing compre-hensive updates on the work of the CBSS. As he prepared to transition toa new role, the BSPC was fortunate to have him share his final reflections.They also welcomed his successor, Mr Gustav Lindström, who would con-tinue this important work.CBSS, Secretariat This was a good old tradition going back to the councils in this region. Inthe Nordic countries and Germany, there used to be so-called things a veryAmbassador Grzegorz Poznański, outgoing director general of the long time ago. People had gathered, determined the problem, and tried toCBSS secretariat, remarked that practically everything had already been find a solution. From the word thing, today’s Riksdag and Bundestag assaid by Ambassador Nirk, speaking not only about the priorities of the names for parliaments were derived. In the Slavic nations, they had a sim-Estonian presidency but also the key areas and future work of the CBSS. ilar tradition, marked by a word that was the predecessor of the mod-Therefore, he spoke more generally about his work in the Baltic cooper- ern-day Sejm in Poland or Seimas in Lithuania. The main slogan of theation. Firstly, their everyday cooperation was a reflection of the mul- CBSS was to build collaboration and trust. In 2022, Russia had opted outti-level governance of the region. Parliamentarians had a very important from this collaboration – not just in the Baltic Sea region but on a globalrole. Governments in the form of the CBSS and other intergovernmen- scale. Very often, the ambassador explained this with the thing tradition.tal organisations did, as was the case of regions, such as via the Baltic Sea As a matter of fact, there had also been a similar moment in Russia exper-States Subregional Cooperation. The same applied to cities, working in imenting with such a council. That had been called the Novgorod Repub-the Union of the Baltic Cities. There were many other networks and col- lic. Unfortunately, it had literally been butchered by Ivan the Terrible.laborations moving the region forward. This stemmed from the convic- With that, the council experiment in Russia had come to an end. The am-tion that, whenever they encountered a problem, they tried to find a bassador supposed that this probably explained why it had not been easysolution. to find common ground.92 93However, he had been very proud to represent the Baltic Sea region since Baltic Sea NGO Networkit was a true role model for many parts of the world. Other regions weretrying to develop regional cooperation and looking to the Baltic Sea re- Jens William Grav, coordinator, noted that he had previously been in thisgion. For instance, Ambassador Poznański had spoken to the countries room in 2009, at a CBSS Ministerial Meeting which had discussed thearound the Red Sea who were impressed by the multi-level governance Nord Stream 1 pipeline. The vice foreign minister of Ukraine had beenstructure in the Baltic Sea region. When necessary, this involved politi- present as an observer while Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov hadcians; when necessary, this involved cities or regions. That was something been a participant. They had also spoken about different energy sources,that worked and a true example for other regions. Moving on, the ambas- such as nuclear energy. In other words, there had been some changes in thesador conceded that it was not fair to ask who was doing more for Ukraine meantime, but other things had remained the same.as it was good that all of them were helping that country. But the Baltic Searegion was doing the most, on every level: on those of politics, cities, citi-zens, civil society. He was very proud that this region had managed to en-gage in a very practical cooperation with Ukraine, plugging the countryinto many CBSS collaborations and projects where they could share ideasand knowledge. At the same time, the other countries were learning a lotfrom Ukraine and their painful experience. Attachment to democratic val-ues, pragmatism, awareness of threats and challenges but also opportuni-ties, ability to come together, and cooperation – all of that had allowed theregion to flourish in the past. Ambassador Poznański was convinced itwould do the same in the future as well. He reiterated that it had been anhonour and privilege to serve the people in the Baltic Sea region for fouryears. He was very happy that they had managed to find cross-sectoral,multi-level answers to very complicated problems of the present day. TheCBSS, together with its partners like the BSPC, could indeed find thosesolutions to the current challenges. He was leaving the CBSS, confidentabout the organisation’s future and that of the Baltic Sea cooperation. Re- The Baltic Sea NGO Network was a cooperation of NGOs in the Balticgarding the former, he praised his successor, Mr Lindström, who had pre- Sea region. Its purpose was bringing NGOs from different countries andviously worked on CBSS and EU assignments. Ambassador Poznański fields together, creating partnerships, influencing democratic deci-wished him and the people in the secretariat good luck. He went on to re- sion-making in the region, and supporting development of intraculturalmark that he had been recruited during the Danish CBSS presidency in activities. Another goal was raising public awareness and understanding2020, and, fittingly enough, his final appearance was at this conference in for the work of NGOs, citizens’ activities, and encouraging people to getDenmark. This created a fantastic framework for his service to the states involved and take interest in their own affairs. People-to-people contactand people of the Baltic Sea region. and human rights issues had also been the focus of their cooperation. Therecent developments had also had consequences for other parts of their co-Chairwoman Oddný G. Harðardóttir thanked the ambassador for his operation. They used to have platforms in all the Baltic Sea countries, butdedication and sharing his reflections. The final speaker was Mr Jens Wil- over the last years, their platforms in Finland and Iceland had shut down.liam Grav, the coordinator of the Baltic Sea NGO Network in Denmark. One of the issues they had been focusing on in their cooperation betweenMr Grav had addressed the BSPC previously, providing critical updates on the NGOs had been the participation in the EU macroregional strategy.the network’s activities and priorities. Some of their platforms were coordinators for some of the priority areas.Sweden covered the education area, Poland tourism. Mr Grav next spoke94 95about what the Network could offer as partners of the BSPC. Civil society Status Report from the Working Group and Reports bywas important for the development in the Baltic Sea region. He noted that BSPC Rapporteursthey had spoken a great deal about democracy. Democracy began in theNordic tradition in NGOs. One was a member, paying a membership fee, Chair: Mr Kim Aas, MP Denmarkelected a board annually. That was an experience one took along to all or- Co-chair: Ms Eka von Kalben, MP Schleswig-Holsteinganisations, such as political parties. It was important to share this tradi-tion so that there were no single person NGOs. He remembered partici- Chairwoman Kim Aas said that they started on the presentation of thepating in a project in Belarus, with a special construction of NGOs. They current BSPC working group. As a member of the group, Mr Aas washad discussed how an NGO was to be set up. The Network’s point of view proud of the high-level results and recommendations they had achieved af-had been clear: If one wanted to create and sustain a democratic society in ter only one year. BSPC President Henrik Møller had highlighted this inone’s country, that started in their own NGOs. From there, one could go his opening speech the day before. He gave the floor to the Chairman offurther and democratise the society. That was something that should be the Working Group, Mr Andris Kulbergs.more in focus in general because there were problems with democratic de-velopment in Western countries as well. Interim Report of the Working Group on Energy Security,Self-sustainability, and ConnectivityThe Network’s remaining platforms were used to arrange activities at dif-ferent national and international levels. They were open for new coopera- Andris Kulbergs opened by saying that it had been a true pleasure work-tion partners. Over recent years, they had been involved in the EU Baltic ing with his colleagues. It had just been a year, yet they had achieved a lotSea Strategy, bringing citizens and NGOs into that strategy. On the na- of success. They had seen practical things; they had met in detail; theytional level, they had also done different things. As for what had happened could learn from each other. There was still much ahead of them.since he had last spoken to the conference the year before, Mr Grav re-marked that he had offered a closer cooperation between the Network’splatforms and the BSPC, similar to the cooperation with the CBSS on theBaltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum. Mr Grav’s side had asked if theycould put together similar events with NGOs, in different formats and ondifferent issues. He had spoken with BSPC President Henrik Møller andhoped that this discussion could continue with the next presidency. Assuch, he was looking forward to involving the more general civil society inthe conference of 2025. For the NGO Network, this would be quite im-portant. For a better development of the Baltic Sea region, all parts had tobe involved.96 97One aspect he found very favourable was that, at the start of the two-year laid out like that, from roads over pipelines to railways. Deliberately, theperiod of the working group, there had been a competition by members of north-south direction had been avoided. Now, it was incumbent to devel-the BSPC on who would host the meetings. To his knowledge, that had op these routes from north to south. That meant routes like Rail Baltica,not been the case in previous working groups; instead, it had been about which was also a military necessity, but also bridges and roads. Indeed,asking for parliaments to step up. Ukraine showed the crucial importance of railways. Russia could sustainthe whole war because of its railway system. That was the only logisticsLooking back on the events of the past years, the West had smartened up. they could manage. On the Western side, the expansion of the railway inThey had realised that Russian gas had put them to sleep for a very long the north-south direction was paramount for the Baltic states. Indeed,time. It had been comfortable, good for the people as well as for business with Finland and Sweden now in NATO, this project had also become– especially chemical enterprises –, district heating, and so on. The price somethings that countries did not have to implement individually but inhad been 7 euros per megawatt for gas, and in competition with that, concert with their partners. Rail Baltica would open new opportunities be-nothing else could have been developed. There was little investment in the cause it was not just a railway but also contained energy and digital con-energy sector, such as renewables. Russian gas was too comfortable. No- nections. It offered military connectivity as well, Mr Kulbergs said. Thebody had thought about the gas actually being a weapon – a tool of ma- project added a very necessary input in security.nipulation. The consequences had become clear by now. Everybody hadwitnessed what the energy sector could do to inflation. Latvia had been hit In March 2024, the working group had gone to Helsinki. They had vis-hardest, Mr Kulbergs noted. The country had had 22 % inflation. The ited the hybrid threat centre which had opened their eyes to how poorlygovernment had supported the consumers paying their bills as well as the West had been dealing with propaganda and that their informationthose of manufacturing companies. They had spent so much money on the dissemination had been too slow. The example brought up had been themistake of having relied so much on the cooperation with Russia. Not just comparison between the Nord Stream explosion and the BalticconnectorLatvia but Europe as a whole had become vulnerable. This had led to in- incident. In the former case, the information had been slow to flow whiledustries searching for alternative, cheaper but reliable energy sources. As the latter case had been handled much better. In general, the democraticone example, he pointed to the effect on Germany’s chemical and manu- nations had to get better at this task. Mr Kulbergs lamented that, even infacturing industry in particular. The fallout from the energy situation was private discussions, some of the attendees had been convinced of theaffecting all of them. He also raised the spectre of what could have been if propaganda news. Indeed, so had he been. Politicians, though, had tothe Nord Stream pipeline had been put in place – it would have been a know the truth – or as much of it as possible. Furthermore, the hybridhook that Europe would not have been able to shake off. Instead, Europe threat centre in Helsinki had informed its visitors that the upcominghad shown very good resilience. They had gotten off that hook. And that winter posed a vulnerable target to weaken the West. The chairman re-was something that Russia had not anticipated. That had been a very good minded his audience of Friday, 5 January 2024. On that day, Finlandpolitical achievement across all the European countries. It had proved that had reached the 2.000 euros per megawatt price for electricity. Mr Kul-by working together, they could achieve a great deal. Yet there was still very bergs underlined that this would have been the most advantageous daymuch left to do. for Russia to switch off the Baltics and cause major chaos. It had been avery cold winter, he noted, and on that day, the Nordics had failed theirThe working group had held three impressive meetings. One had been in energy sector. It was an excellent example of what the working group wasRiga where the members had visited the Soviet-era hydro plant which al- for. Mr Kulbergs had investigated this day with a committee. It had hap-lowed Latvia to be among the greenest manufacturing sites in Europe. pened because Denmark’s propellers on wind farms had frozen solid.That plant was also important in the security context, in light of the threat That had cut off wind power. Because of the dense cloud cover, solarof war. In that city, they had also seen Rail Baltica, a vital project across the power was also lacking. Sweden’s coal power plants had had technical is-Baltic Sea region. That was the case because the Soviet Union had politi- sues and could not compensate. When the Finns had gone home on thatcally focused on the east-west direction – all the infrastructure had been Friday after work, they had turned on their saunas. Demand for power98 99spiked so much that the whole grid could not meet it. That highlighted meeting in Finland. The centre currently consumed 15 megawatts of pow-the vulnerability of renewable energy. It meant that a base energy source er in the present day, but because of the rapid rise of artificial intelligence,had to be in place. Back then, in the Baltics, Latvia had decided to run that would skyrocket to 300 megawatts in five years. In that respect, Mrmaintenance on one of its two hydroelectric turbines. In fact, half the Kulbergs explained that one Google search represented ten seconds of aplant had been out of commission for half a year. If the other turbine had lightbulb burning. The internet was not green. Any AI search consumednot still been operational, the price of electricity would not have simply 35 times as much. That was a major reason why AI apps limited their usegone up, but there would have been a disaster across the whole grid. That to only three images generated in each search. The requirements by Goog-showed how much the countries were interconnected and how much le, Microsoft, and so on were enormously demanding. Yet they neededthey would have to think about in total. Yet they were lacking in inter- green, sustainable, and cheap energy. But they produced heat which wasconnection in their region as well as the base power in these circumstanc- not being put to good use. It was highly important for politicians to focuses. Mr Kulbergs stressed that they could not simply announce renewa- on base power. Sweden, for instance, had changed its policy to bring backbles were the future of energy sector. While renewables were the way to nuclear power. Poland had done the same and taken 24 licenses for nucle-go as they made the energy sector greener but not necessarily safer. Ac- ar potential projects. At least three big plants were being built. The Balticscordingly, there had to be a hybrid and balanced power grid, shared by were an issue. All of them had to think about this matter and synchronisetheir nations. Nordpool, the Nordic price market, only worked if there their approach.was competition. Without it, it created the opposite. That was where theprice spikes came from. Competition could only be brought in through In conclusion, he cautioned his listeners that they would have to work to-interconnectivity. He warned the countries from hoarding their energy, gether to completely leave the hook of Russia’s energy. They could not givefrom not sharing connections because of dislikes. Instead, they should Russia another chance like 5 January 2024. Furthermore, they should bethink of energy as a common good. Renewables required connectivity. If ready for any Russian thug presence in the Baltic Sea, i.e., monitoring thethere was an abundance of wind and/or solar, one needed a market where sea and the crucial infrastructure there. This also had to be coordinatedto sell it. Without connectivity, it could not be stored and saved for an- much better. Moreover, digital firewalls had to be raised to prevent anyother day. As such, politicians had to go back to their parliaments and vulnerabilities in their systems, across all of their countries. They also hadincrease the importance of connectivity. to respond fast to all information threats and propaganda. Mr Kulbergsbelieved they were on the right path, that the working group was doingIn spring, the working group had conducted a survey of the governments great, and he was looking forward to their next meetings.to create a database they could rely on. The member states and regions ofthe BSPC had answered about the consumption, energy production, and Chair Kim Aas thanked Mr Andris Kulbergs for his presentation.connectivity plans. Mr Kulbergs saw one problem: All of them were un-derestimating the future demand for electricity. This was especially true of Co-chairwoman Eka von Kalben announced that they would now moveLatvia. The country had plans for the future of a 5 – 7 % increase in elec- on to the reports by the BSPC Rapporteurs. Mr Jörgen Pettersson, BSPCtricity demand. To Mr Kulbergs’ mind, this was completely wrong. The Rapporteur for Integrated Maritime Policy, and Ms Birgit Hesse, BSPCRail Baltica project represented a three-percent increase on its own. A Lat- Rapporteur on Sustainable Tourism, had already provided comprehensivevian concrete producer wanted to switch its production to carbon neutral. written reports which were available on the BSPC website. Ms von KalbenTheir energy production would rise by 6 %. By 2040, the car pool would highlighted their value, offering a comprehensive overview of the politicalrequire 16 % of the energy. Everyone always forgot that transport would landscape, recent developments, and areas where further attention wasbe the major demand for energy. Moreover, phasing out fossil fuels in heat- needed.ing meant increased electricity demands for heat pumps. In addition, therewas the extreme demand for power by AI. Some of the BSPC representa- Mr Pettersson would contribute the first oral report.tives had visited one of the fastest data centres in Europe during another100 101Report by Mr Jörgen Pettersson, BSPC Rapporteur for were also the keys to a more sustainable future. Shipping was the base inIntegrated Maritime Policy any Maslow pyramid, bringing humanity’s basic needs to them. But theywere also facing regulations, competition, policies, and more, invented byJörgen Pettersson opened by telling the audience that, wherever they themselves and something for them to address and remember. 15 % ofwould go, he and the others would be their friends until all the days end- global shipping were present in the Baltic Sea. 2,000 ships were constantlyed and the twilight stars went away forever. He followed that with the wry present in the sea. It was major, Mr Pettersson underlined before sayingremark that nobody had expected this statement. These words stemmed that the maritime report could be downloaded on the website. Basically, itfrom an unfortunately unknown author Mr Pettersson attributed to the covered three large policy area: future fuels/engines, the ETS (Emissionpresident and the organisers of the conference. Simple gratitude was not Trading System) – a first in the world launched in Europe that would causeenough for everything they had done for the attendees and for their belov- enormous challenges for shipping, both technical and financial. Future fu-ed BSPC. The BSPC stood stronger on this day than it had the day before, els and the ETS would have an impact on everything. That came with in-and their determination to form a common future was solid. The BSPC frastructure imports, as mentioned in the report, maritime safety spatialwas a peace project that the people from the Åland Islands saluted. These planning, technologies. The report also dealt with the Russian shadow fleetislands, Mr Pettersson’s home, were called the islands of peace and the re- which had been mentioned several times before at the conference. It posedsult of a strong global rule-based world order that all of them were so des- a significant challenge for the global maritime economies and regulators.perately looking for. Roughly more than 400 tankers were not registered or misregistered andtrafficking below the radar. There were ship-to-ship transfers, AIS manip-ulations, very complex ownership structures, alternative finances and in-surances, disguised routes, and the like. All in all, it was about economicstrategic aggression. All of these tankers represented multiple threats to theBaltic Sea as well as economic disruption and geopolitical instability.The integrated maritime policy might not provide solutions to all of thesechallenges, but it did provide a pretty good start to address them. Morethan that, it also created opportunities. Wherever there was a problem,there was a solution. They wanted to ensure a sustainable and competitivefuture for the maritime sector because it meant so much for each of them.Even though one might not see a ship every day, one would surely makeuse of what they were carrying every day. As such, they were looking for-ward to intense collaboration among the BSPC member states, the indus-try stakeholders, and regulatory bodies. All were essential to achievingthese very ambitious goals. Mr Pettersson asked his audience to remember,The unsung heroes of these times were the women and men at sea, making when seeing a ship, that it was not just a boat but part of everyone’s lives.sure that the rest of humanity had their basic needs covered – heat, elec-tricity, cars, fruit, meat, vegetables, food in general, drinks, cell phones, Co-chair Eka von Kalben thanked Mr Jörgen Pettersson for his presenta-computers, etc. Basically, everything one saw that kept people alive and tion, adding that he had served as President of the BSPC and currently wasliving reached them by sea. He saw no better place in the world than Hel- president of the Åland parliament. She also agreed wholeheartedly with hissingør to describe this. One just had to look to the back to see the ships introduction thanking BSPC President Møller. The next speaker was Msproviding all of this magic every day, 24/7. These men and women were Carola Veit, president of the Hamburg parliament and also a former pres-not only facing unpredictable forces, from Mother Nature herself; they ident of the BSPC.102 103Report by Ms Carola Veit, BSPC Rapporteur for Migration This raised the question what risks this imposed on their liberal, democraticand Integration values. Ms Veit explained that the UN Refugee Agency had stated that untilJuly 2024, around 6.5 million refugees from Ukraine had been recordedCarola Veit said that the BSPC working groups had proved to be the back- globally. 6 million of those had sought refuge within Europe. This numberbone of their interconnected work and annual conferences. She was there- was already staggering in itself, but none should forget that more than 117fore honoured to report on the current situation of migration and integra- million people worldwide had been refugees in 2023. According to Eurostat,tion. Ms Veit noted that she was the remaining vice chair of the working relative to the size of their total population, Chechia, Estonia, Poland, Lith-group that had been headed by their esteemed colleague, Mr Hans Wall- uania, and Latvia had accepted the most Ukrainian refugees. These numbersmark, who had just been appointed Swedish ambassador to Denmark. illustrated vividly that all members of the BSPC were confronted with thequestion of integration.Considering the labour market integration of Ukrainian refugees by thefirst quarter of 2024, Ms Veit noted that the German Institute for Employ-ment Research had created a huge database from different sources. Said da-tabase revealed that Lithuania had the highest employment rate at 57 %,followed by Denmark at 53 %, and Poland at 48 %. An employment ratebelow 20 % had been reported by countries such as Finland, Norway, andRomania. There were two dominant approaches to integration: languagefirst and work first. These partially explained the variance in the employ-ment rates. There was a trade-off between speed and sustainability of inte-gration. The aforementioned study nonetheless suggested that Norwayshould be taken as a role model. Norway’s 6- to 12-month programme forUkrainians was offered part-time, allowing the refugees to work while par-taking in the programme. Ms Veit also pointed to a comparable best prac-tice in her hometown of Hamburg in their approach to under-age mi-grants, combining vocational training with language classes. This hadproved quite successful since 53 % of the participants had obtained posi-tions in further education or employment. This approach offered betteremployment opportunities for under-age migrants, facilitated their inte-gration in Germany, representing personal empowerment and preventionfrom getting into mischief. Two policy decisions in Latvia and Estonia un-Migration and Integration remained among the most discussed topics, not derlined the importance of language skills for integration. Latvia’s state ed-least evidenced by the recent European elections. Overall, challenges around ucation system had discontinued Russian as a mandatory second language,the issue had surely not become less pressing since the BSPC’s last confer- starting in 2026, with the aim of offering a wider set of languages. Estoniaence. Europe was still experiencing the largest movement of refugees since was following a similar path by making Estonian the only language of in-the end of the Second World War. Ms Veit highlighted the importance of struction from 2029 on.paragraphs 4, 6, and 8 of the current BSPC Resolution, namely, integratingmigrants and vulnerable groups into the labour market in regard to social Ms Veit said that the purpose of working groups and conferences was tosustainability as well as support of Ukraine. Secondly, migration, the chal- facilitate the exchange of best practices. Recent debates had increasinglylenges of hybrid warfare, and border control were increasingly intermingled. intermingled migration, border control, and hybrid warfare challenging104 105their democratic values. The new Nordic NATO members, Sweden and Presentation by Ms Anna Kassautzki, BSPC Rapporteur onFinland, were particularly challenged by attacks on their cyber infrastruc- Sea-Dumped Munitionsture, as had been mentioned on both days of this conference. She pointedto four policy decisions seeking to tackle the huge challenge and show how Anna Kassautzki said that they were living during a tense security situa-crucial these turned out to be. Finland had recently decided to allow push- tion in Europe. Russia had started a war by invading Ukraine. This had notbacks of refugees at the Finnish-Russian border in response to hybrid war- been in 2022 but in 2014. As they had heard repeatedly over the last days,fare. Jurisdictional experts heard by the parliament so far had opposed this this situation had a massive influence on the Baltic Sea. The focus wasbill that had not yet been passed; the experts felt that the bill was violating placed on security, strengthening their bonds, and becoming more inde-both international and EU laws on human rights. Finland and Lithuania pendent because that was necessary. However, they should not – and couldwere both confronted with Russian plans to unilaterally redraw Baltic Sea not – forget the mistakes of the past, and they had to act on it. This con-borders in an attempt to cause confusion. Sweden was working on a pro- cerned the sea-dumped munitions. After the World Wars, a lot of muni-posal often called a “snitch law” into legislation; the law would require ser- tions had been dumped into the sea. An estimated 400,000 tonnes of con-vice workers to report any contact with undocumented people to authori- ventional munitions and 40,000 tonnes of chemical warfare agents wereties. This initiative was facing opposition from many Swedish municipali- lying at the bottom of the Baltic Sea. Ms Kassautzki cautioned that theties, trade unions, and civil society groups with concerns that professionals number of 400,000 tonnes had to be taken with care because the actualwould be forced to breach their work ethics. In accordance with the Schen- number was unknown. Experts were estimating that in German Baltic Seagen codex, Germany had re-introduced temporary border checks on all its waters alone, there were 300,000 tonnes of conventional ammunition, andborders, as a reaction to more than 260,000 unauthorised border crossings the Rapporteur highly doubted that the rest of the Baltic Sea containedin 2023. Under the pretext of a hybrid warfare – a term heavily used by just 100,000 tonnes.Russia –, refugees were increasingly reduced to an instrument of war.It was not just a problem of the Baltic Sea but especially dire here. MuchThe task of parliaments and parliamentarians was to strike the balance be- of this munition stemmed from World War II. It was not just dangeroustween fighting against hybrid threats and defending their democratic val- if it exploded. In the eighty years that the shells had been on the seaues. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and the new Nordic member states floor, they had been rotting and corroding, exposing the explosives toFinland and Sweden were particularly familiar with the defence of demo- direct contact with the sea water and thus poisoning the ecosystem. Itcratic values vis-à-vis hybrid threats. A strong democracy was their best took on average 30 years for the waters of the Central Baltic Sea to beprotection. In fact, paragraph 9 of the draft conference resolution encour- exchanged. As the water was more stationary, so were harmful substanc-aged them to combat disinformation. However, they must not forget that es. This did not just lead to 60,000 square kilometres of Baltic Sea withtheir aging societies needed people. The presented approaches of language so low oxygen levels that they were considered dead, but that fact alsofirst and work first had shown the potential for their labour market. In an made the topic of sea-dumped ammunition far more dangerous for theaside, Ms Veit noted that this argument might also work against xenopho- ecosystem. Just outside of Kiel, there was one of the larger ammunitionbic approaches to the topic. Migration should be understood as one key dumpsites, called the Kolberger Heide. Scientists from the Geomar In-solution to the future of the Baltic Sea and Europe. According to the Eu- stitute had researched the influence of the TNT and its decay productsropean Commission, the demand of talent could not sufficiently be met by since those were already present in those waters. They had found thathigher intra-European work force mobility alone. It was their task as dem- mussels were absorbing TNT when exposed to munitions. Even moreocratic stakeholders to present these facts and work on solutions. shockingly, 25 % of the caught fish from the dump site had showed liv-er cancer. Since this was happening below the water surface, it had beenCo-Chairwoman Ms von Kalben thanked Ms Carola Veit, adding that out of sight for many years and thus out of mind. The Baltic Sea Parlia-the final point was very important. The final report would be given by Ms mentary Conference had to pull this topic out of the water and on theAnna Kassautzki, BSPC Rapporteur on Sea-Dumped Munitions. political agenda.106 107Ms Kassautzki explained that they were not the only ones. Sea-dumpedammunition had also been a focus point in the work of the CBSS, HEL-COM, and other organisations. Scientists were currently employing artifi-cial intelligence to identify munition sites on and below the seabed,through real-time data sets from sonar and other technologies. Complexalgorithms, such as artificial intelligence, was not a kind of magic, she cau-tioned. They were very good at processing huge data sets which were toocomplex to be handled manually. With the EU Maritime Security Strategyand the Action Plan from the year before, the European Union was mov-ing into action to coordinate scientific action, operations, and data sharingwith the Commission, the CBSS, and HELCOM. They wanted to devel-op tools and technologies as well as cooperation with civilian entities andthe industry, setting up a campaign aiming to clear the Baltic Sea ofdumped munitions. In combination with the planned German mobileplatform, this could be a gamechanger in handling sea-dumped muni-tions. Finding, recovering, and destroying these on the spot, above the wa- Session Chair Kim Aas thanked Ms Anna Kassautzki for her presentationter line, would be the most efficient way to address this problem without as well as the fantastic work she was doing. This was very important. Hefurther destroying the ecosystem or having to transport the munitions to extended his gratitude to all the speakers and their important contribu-shore. Unfortunately, this was not progressing as fast as had been hoped. tion. He added that the Rapporteur for Climate Change and Biodiversity,The German parliament had put 100 million euros into its budget to de- Mr Philipp da Cunha, had not been able to attend the conference. How-velop this prototype platform, and they would start clearing their seas, be- ever, his written report could be downloaded from the BSPC website.ginning with the Baltic Sea.If her audience was interested, Ms Kassautzki highly recommended herwritten report from the previous year’s conference. It was still up to date.Even though the BSPC strongly welcomed the intensive consideration andclose cooperation of their governments, the process had to be accelerated.The governments of the Baltic Sea region, the CBSS, and the EU had tofurther intensify their work and needed to initiate a joint strategic ap-proach and effort. There was not much time left, Ms Kassautzki warned.The corrosion process was ongoing, and the time frame for extracting theammunition was closing. As such, she pleaded with her colleagues to con-tinue the close cooperation between the CBSS, HELCOM, and the otherrelevant organisations to fill the knowledge gap and share best practices.She asked the governments, the CBSS, and the EU to find a funding mech-anism. It was their responsibility towards the next generation to clean upthe messes of the generations before them. They were stronger together;they were on the right track; they just had to shift up a gear.108 109FOURTH SESSIONPresentation by Ms Eva Jensen, European EnvironmentAgencyClimate InitiativesChair: Mr Jarosław Wałęsa, MP PolandCo-chair:Ms Eva Jensen, European Environment AgencyMs Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, professor and vice-chair for the EuropeanScientific Board on Climate ChangeMr Stiig Markager, professor, Aarhus UniversityEva Jensen noted that the BSPC conference was centred on security, add-ing that this was very much the framework around the climate policy inthe upcoming cycle of the EU institutions. In many ways, this accuratelyreflected the present situation. At the European Environment Agency, MsJensen was head of their climate change department. The Agency providedknowledge and data to policymakers, assessing the data on climate changeand many environmental measures and how far reality was from the tar-Session chair Jarosław Wałęsa said that in response to the environmental gets. Moreover, her institution was identifying coming areas where theychallenges, the BSPC had established a Working Group on Climate believed more policy was needed.Change and Biodiversity in 2020. In 2023, the group had presented its fi-nal report with critical recommendations at the 32nd BSPC, reflecting the On the topic of climate change, it was becoming more and more commonorganisation’s commitment to addressing climate change at both the re- to claim that there were several ways of looking at the issue. To countergional and global levels. The present session would further their under- such an attitude, she presented a fairly clear graph on climate change prov-standing of this crucial topic with insights from leading experts. ing that it was getting warmer. Earth had already warmed by 1.5 °C. Inother words, it had already passed the Paris Agreement’s target. Clearly,The first speaker was Ms Eva Jensen, a senior official at the European En- there should not be any more global warming, according to the interna-vironment Agency. Ms Jensen was leading efforts in assessing environmen- tional agreements. This was not going to be the case, Ms Jensen stated, buttal trends and policies across Europe, making her a key figure in under- it said something about the urgency of the effort. If this trend were to con-standing the long-term impacts of environmental changes on regional and tinue, temperatures would rise by 7 °C at the end of the current century. Itglobal scales. was enormously hard to imagine how human society could be adjusted to110 111such a change. Fortunately, a lot of effort was being made, globally and in- measures. The chart showed that the dotted line still overshot the 2030 tar-ternationally. In the spring of 2024, her agency had published a report, the get, yet she underlined that Europe was heading in the right direction, al-first ever comprehensive risk assessment of Europe. In other words, it ana- though some effort was still needed. The reduction success so far had beenlysed what the risks from climate change in the European setting were. driven by the energy transition as a major part. Renewable energy hadMoreover, it looked into whether Europe was ready for these risks. The achieved 23 %, doubling since 2005. Without any expansion of renewa-very clear message was that this was not the case. European society had to bles since 2005, there would be 17 % more emissions in Europe. Moreo-become a great deal more resilient to ensure they could adapt to the cli- ver, phasing out fossil fuels had contributed significantly, as had electrifica-mate change that was coming. A number that had come as a surprise to tion. Electric vehicles were an example of the latter. However, she reiterat-most people had been that Europe was warming twice as fast as the global ed that not only was there more to be done, it also had to be done faster.average, meaning that the continent would have to adapt to more than the In the years until 2030, they would have to double the greenhouse gas re-rest of the world. 1.5 °C more on the global average meant considerably duction of the previous years. The most challenging target was carbon re-more for Europe. Currently, extreme heat, drought, wildfires, flooding moval, as carbon sinks in forests were not sufficient, along with increasedwere being experienced, among others in the countries represented in the harvests together with negative impacts from climate disturbances. Emis-BSPC. This was also costly, Ms Jensen noted. In 2022, these costs had sions from natural sources would be accelerated in a warmer climate. Inbeen estimated at 52 billion euros for damage caused by climate change. the energy sector, the effort to install renewables would have to be tripledThe risk assessment had identified 36 major climate risks for Europe, in before 2030.five categories: economy and finance, health, food, infrastructure, and eco-systems. Out of those, 21 had been identified as requiring urgent action. It was up to the member states to implement these measures. The overallThese included food production in southern Europe, with crop failures legislative framework would be done by 2030. For politicians, the wholedue to heat or drought. Homes and infrastructure were also collapsing due implementation of Fit for 25 was a national prerogative. Yet, Ms Jensento flooding. Ecosystems in the oceans were affected by rising temperatures, warned, climate change would not stop at 2030. Also in light of securityimpacting plant and fish populations. The report also featured a more re- as one of the big issues, she added that competitiveness was a massivegional breakdown of what to expect in the various regions of Europe. In concern. Many of these issues were related to the energy systems andthe Baltic Sea, warming in combination with eutrophication from nutri- thus were interlinked – climate change, carbon neutrality, food security.ents was causing an increase in oxygen depletion and dead zones. The Bal- Accordingly, the political guidelines for the coming five years featuredtic Sea warming also increased the suitability for algae blooms and danger- climate change everywhere, but it was wrapped up in matters of compet-ous micro bacteria. itiveness, security, and a just and fair transition of the society. She be-lieved this was appropriate since climate change was so deeply inter-The European Union had enacted the Green Deal, i.e., the current Com- twined with society.mission’s overall vision for a greener and more sustainable Europe. TheGreen Deal had also been part of the outline of the upcoming policy cycle. Session chair Jarosław Wałęsa thanked Ms Eva Jensen for her contribu-It would continue to serve as the basis for the policy programme of the tion. He introduced Prof Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, Professor of Environ-next Commission. The idea was to reduce carbon emissions by 55 % in mental Economics, Vice-Chair for the European Scientific Board on Cli-Europe, through a number of policies. This included the largest policy mate Change. Prof Jacobsen’s research focused on economic aspects of en-package ever had been passed in the EU, covering about 3,000 pages. vironmental policy. She had been a key adviser to the European Commis-Among the policies was carbon pricing and many other issues. Ms Jensen sion on climate-related issues.commented on how well the EU was doing in this regard. Her agency wascollecting emission data from member states. On her chart, she showedthe historic data with the projected emissions extrapolated in a dotted line.The projections were based on already implemented as well as planned112 113Presentation by Prof Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, Vice-Chair for It had to be considered what would be a fair contribution by Europe. Onthe European Scientific Board on Climate Change the other hand, there was the element of what was possible. Therefore,they had looked into what was actually possible but also what a fair sharewould represent. The feasible pathways uncovered from the first perspec-tive led to a range of up to 95 % reduction. Going beyond that wouldchallenge the technologies and the speed in which they could be accelerat-ed as well as the sustainability concerns – one example here was the use ofbiomass as a barrier. The second part of the approach had led to a huge dis-cussion about how scientists could determine what a fair share was. In theend, they had set out different criteria for such a fair share. Prof Jacobsenadmitted that she had been surprised that it hardly mattered which criteri-on was applied, the fair share exceeded that which was possible. Thus, theirrecommendation had targeted a 90 – 95 % reduction by 2040, supportedby contributions to climate mitigation outside Europe. She acknowledgedthat a lot of policy considerations went into deciding fair shares. This re-quired more than one way to reach this goal. Rather, there was a space ofdifferent options and different political and technological priorities. Thatspace allowed flexibility in how to reach the 2050 goal. Prof Jacobsen ex-Prof Jette Bredahl Jacobsen noted that her advisory board was relatively plained that some of the pathways had a demand-side focus, as in how tonewly established, to be precise two years earlier. It consisted of 15 inde- change people’s behaviour to eat a more climate-friendly diet or have lesspendent scientific advisors whose daily jobs were at universities and the energy-consuming transport patterns. She also pointed to a previous speak-like. They met and discussed European climate policies and how they er talking about the rise in electricity consumption. There were also capscould provide guidance to European policymakers on how to transition on the need for some aspects. Another pathway was about a high degree ofsociety and live up to the climate goals. The Board decided on its own renewable energy. Other policies were more mixed. In general, all the path-work programme, with an eye on the policy cycle and what topics were rel- ways the Board had considered were characterised by requiring more thanevant at the time. In addition, sometimes, requests were brought to them. a single sector or technology. If they wanted to reach their targets, their ef-Their work so far had focused on two policy cycles: One was the policy forts had to involve all the policies and decisions to be taken. The Boardframework for 2030 – how to go from the Green Deal and implementing had been quite happy that the European Commission had listened to theirit – while the other was the plan for 50 % reduction by 2030 as a stepping recommendations in setting a 90 % target in emission reduction for 2040.stone. In 2050, Europe had to be carbon neutral and even negative. Since She conceded that this was an ongoing process but underlined that thisthat year was not so far off, action had to be taken right away. Otherwise, was the political decision.this would have to be implemented in a rush and at very high costs to-wards the end. The Board had produced a report of 200 – 300 pages on Chiming in with what Ms Jensen had said in her previous presentation,each of these topics. Prof Jacobsen stressed that the efforts would have to be accelerated in or-der to reach the target of net zero by 2050. The key message of the Board’sIn June of 2023, the first of these reports had been published. The request second report was that greater speed was needed to achieve the many sec-had also been reflected what European targets should be regarding 2050. tor goals. Their analysis had focused on what was needed but also on theThe Board’s approach had been to consider the Paris Agreement and the gaps. Gaps, she underlined, could range from a yet-undecided policy –goal of limiting global warming. As such, the question was what Europe such as a 2040 target not yet having been set – to ambitions, i.e., whetherwould have to do to reach the 1.5 °C limit. This was a normative element. there was enough ambition to reach the target line. It was also important114 115to keep in mind that after the EU had decided on measures such as the had gone to a complete stop of all fisheries – both commercial and recrea-Green Deal, those had to be implemented at the national level. Indeed, tional. Prof Markager pointed out that the latter was a major tourist attrac-this was a crucial element that often involved a lot of actors along the tion, thus involving a great deal of the economy. An entire tourist industrychain. Moreover, climate was only one policy. There was much that was had collapsed because there was no cod anymore. The same was true ofwanted in Europe, for instance, security. This occasionally led to policy in- other major fish species, e.g., herring and the various flounders.consistencies when they were in conflict with each other. These had to beaddressed. After looking through these aspects sector by sector as well incross-cutting perspectives, the Board had developed 13 recommendations.These had been sorted by criteria such as urgently needed to reach the2030 target. Here, the implementation at the member state but also theEuropean level was mainly in play. However, there was also the preparationfor the path to 2050. Prof Jacobsen reiterated that this year was not faraway. If these measures were to be implemented in a less costly manner,then they would have to be put into place early. That would allow for theneeded adaptation. Prof Jacobsen added that her side was aware that poli-cy processes took a long time which only reinforced the need to start early.The Co-chair thanked Prof Jette Bredahl Jacobsen for her valuable in-sights. She presented Prof Stiig Markager, a renowned professor from Aar-hus University, specialising in marine ecology and biomass chains. His re-search had significantly contributed to the understanding of how climatechange was affecting marine environments, particularly in the Baltic Sea He presented a new picture depicting a healthy sea floor, with white sand,region. no mud, and healthy underwater vegetation. This was the habitat foreverything the fish ate – the worms, mussels, and so on –, and it was alsoPresentation by Prof Stiig Markager, Aarhus University where small fish hid from seals, cormorants, and other predators. The bot-tom of the Baltic Sea today looked different, as Prof Markager proved withProf Stiig Markager explained that he had worked on the science of the another photo. That showed a muddy place, filamentous algae that cov-Baltic Sea for the past 30 years. He was also a member of different expert ered any remaining eelgrass. This was not a place where a small fish couldgroups in HELCOM and OSPAR. His talk would reflect on the status of grow. This was the main reason for the collapse of the fish population.the Baltic Sea ecosystem, particularly on the western side. This was a total- Switching to a photo taken further out in the Baltic Sea, he noted that thely collapsed ecosystem. By that, he meant that several of the major compo- white net-like substance in the picture was elementary sulphur. The sul-nents had been reduced to non-functional. He presented two photos, both phur formed when the poison gas H2S rose up and met oxygen. Below,showing the same fishing ship with the same nets and gear, shot at the there was no higher life. It was dead, except for the bacteria producingsame distance. One was from the 1980s, the other from the present day. H2S. This was due to a German scientist who had invented the process byThe first showed a great deal of cod, large fish. The suspended net behind which the nitrogen in the atmosphere could be fixed and turned into arti-the person was still full of cod. On the deck, there was only part of the ficial fertiliser. That had been a huge boon to mankind, releasing themoverall catch. By contrast, in the present-day photo, the net was empty, from hunger, and it also meant that the people in this room were about 30and the entire catch fit onto the deck. There were very few cod, and small centimetres taller than they would have been 100 years before. Prof Mark-ones at that. This reflected the complete collapse of the cod population in ager noted that pictures from the 1800s – 150 years earlier – in which peo-the western Baltic Sea. From a rich resource that could be harvested, they ple were much smaller because they had not gotten enough food, in116 117particular nitrogen or proteins. This had been solved by the process Justus greediness”. Here, nothing was left for nature. Not a single square meterLiebig had invented. However, one of the consequences was that unicellu- was left untouched. What should have been a meandering stream had beenlar algae were growing rapidly in the seas. One litre of seawater contained turned into a channel. With that, it had become a highway carrying themillions of them. They were difficult to work with, he noted. In their lab- nutrients washed out from the fields straight into the estuary at the top oforatory, a litre of water at 20 °C had been exposed to a great deal of light. the photo. That had to be changed, he insisted. For that reason, a GreenIn those conditions, the number of algae doubled every day. For the exper- Deal had been reached in Denmark in June of 2024. The major players –iment, half had been removed daily, with new nitrogen added. This went the government, cultural organisations, and NGOs – had agreed to turnon and on, showing how potent nitrogen was in the marine environment. 15 % of the arable land in the country into forests or nature reserves,If nitrogen was not replenished, algae growth was immediately stopped. mainly wetlands. Prof Markager’s advice – and that of the Danish ClimateThis was important because the nitrogen-fuelled algae growth was causing Change Advisory Board – was that this number had to be at least doubled.all of the problems in the Baltic Sea. The marine ecosystem had gone from Yet this represented a major step forward. For 6,000 years, humanity hada lot of eelgrass to no eelgrass, from large fish to dead fish, and from clear tried to cultivate more and more of the landscape. Now, finally, they hadwater to murky water. This was the result of putting a great amount of ni- realised they had gone too far and had to go back. He assumed this was thetrogen as well as phosphorus into the marine ecosystem. case for almost all the countries in the BSPC. There had to be less agricul-tural activity. Something could also be done regarding sewage. He showedProf Markager presented a graph showing the input of nitrogen from all a picture of a new sewage treatment plant, 30 kilometres south from El-the countries around the Baltic Sea. In 1995, that was about 1 million sinore. The output of nitrogen was two milligrams per litre. That was fivetonnes per year. In the following 15 years, this input had been slightly de- to eight times less than the standard in Europe. This proved that sewagecreased by 15 %. In the present day, only 860,000 tonnes were input an- treatment could be handled much better. The same applied to phosphorus.nually. The goal set by HELCOM was a decrease by 7 %. Prof Markager’s 0.16 milligrams per litre was eight times less than the current standard ofanalysis showed that this would not bring the Baltic Sea into a good state. one to two milligrams per litre. Moreover, it was even below what the EUMuch more would have to be done. If the input were to be decreased by had set as the goal for 2039. Prof Markager underlined that the technolo-20 % - three times more than HELCOM’s current ambition –, a good eco- gy existed to reach much better levels. Politicians were lagging behind inlogical status would be reached in 400 years. If that increase would reach their ambitions. The clue to how this was achieved was situating the plant50 %, the time span would be shrunk to only 100 years. That meant that below ground, he explained. That allowed far more stable temperaturesalmost no matter what action would be taken, their children and grand- around the year which made good treatment much easier.children would have to live with a collapsed ecosystem. That could not bechanged in the coming decades. Yet Prof Markager insisted that they would His concluding recommendation was that a healthy Baltic ecosystem couldhave to do whatever they could so that there could be a healthy ecosystem be achieved by reducing in particular the inputs of nitrogen and phospho-in the Baltic Sea in 100 years, where cod could be caught – not only for rus. This would have to be achieved by returning arable land to nature, es-food but also for the joy of fishing. pecially along the coastline and all the rivers and streams. There should beno intensive farming one or two kilometres from the coast and the streams,When one had a problem, one had to find out what the cause was. In this Prof Markager stressed. In addition, the sewage treatment plants had to becase, it was agriculture – the industrial agricultural practices of the modern improved all around the Baltic Sea. Stopping the use of fossil fuels wouldworld. They were responsible for the nitrogen and phosphorus in the sea. also stop the formation of nitrous oxides; these were spread throughout theFor phosphorus, wastewater was also a major source, but farming contrib- atmosphere and dissipated down onto the Baltic Sea, adding to the prob-uted heavily to both nutrients. The consequence was that the output from lem. That showed the interconnection between this problem and the car-agriculture needed to be reduced. He presented a photo of a Danish land- bon issue. One of the most efficient ways to stop CO2 being emitted fromscape, noting that Danes were aware they were responsible for a large share the landscape was to stop farming and turning it into forests or wetlands.of the problem. Prof Markager described the photo as the “landscape of The latter naturally accumulated carbon; they might be better at this task118 119than respective technologies like biochar or the like. Finally, all other pres- Åland Islands had built a wetland at the mouth of the river into the Balticsures on the ecosystem had to be lowered, Prof Markager said. That meant Sea, slowing down the flow so the nutrients had a chance of settling downoverfishing as well as blocking the exchange of water between the North and clearing out of the water. This was an excellent example of how to doand Baltic Seas. This was a particular responsibility for Denmark as they this. As a matter of fact, it was known that ecosystem-based fishery was awere situated right in-between those seas. He pointed to the expansion of major part of the solution, i.e., not harvesting the fish as much as was cur-Copenhagen into one of the major trenches in the south. That blocked rently done but instead giving the ecosystem room to breathe and the fishpart of the water exchange. Denmark – and to some degree Sweden – had the room to recover. It was known that wetlands and peatlands would haveto realise they would have to stop such blockage because it was increasing to be rewetted, not just to filter nutrients but also to serve as carbon sinksthe problem of nutrient input and enhancing the costs of all the countries and to improve the microclimate. It was known that the 1.5 °C goal hadaround the Baltic Sea. to be reached because the outcome otherwise would be disastrous for Eu-rope. It was known that they would have to plant seagrass to help the Bal-Debate tic Sea to reach a better state because it was their responsibility to leave thatto the next generation. The 30-year water exchange in the Baltic Sea – if itAnna Kassautzki noted that the previous BSPC working group had dealt worked – helped with the dead zones in the water. The sea could removewith climate change and biodiversity. these if given the chance to do so. As such, it was the responsibility of notjust the BSPC countries but of Europe and of humanity to leave the BalticSea in a state that the next generation could still live with.Tove Elise Madland explained that she was the chairperson of the NordicCouncil’s Committee for a Sustainable Nordic Region. She was relieved tohear the presentation about the Baltic Sea and promised that her workwould continue.As such, they had already been tackling these issues for quite a while. Re-iterating her words from her speech on sea-dumped munitions, Ms Kas-sautzki said that the state of the Baltic Sea was dire. The very first meetingof that working group had been held on the Åland Islands. It had beenvery beautiful. One of the good things about the BSPC was that parlia-mentarians got to see best practice examples from other countries. The120 121Dr Staffan Eklöf said they would have to talk more about efficiency regard- meant the people in the EU no longer had any responsibility for the cli-ing climate change, in terms of carbon dioxide per euro but also in carbon mate of their planet. Of course, they did have this responsibility. Yet Drdioxide reduction per consequences, for their economies and peoples. Eklöf underlined that policies ignoring and excluding the emissions inChina and other countries outside the EU stood a large risk of failure insaving the global climate. Policies reducing the Asian emissions had agreater likelihood of success. Within the limitations of this insight, it waspossible to develop policies of one’s likings, such as decreasing consump-tion, boosting technological development, supporting other countries, orsomething completely different that would not have occurred to him.However, this insight could not be ignored, Dr Eklöf insisted. He calledon his colleagues to be imaginative and think outside the box. He notedthe Swedish Climate Political Council, which was advising the Swedishgovernment, providing annual analyses of the politics of the Swedish gov-ernment on the effectiveness of reducing Swedish greenhouse gas emis-sions. His side was convinced this should be changed to analysing globalgreenhouse gas emissions. That way, the true success rate of climate politicswould be measured. Dr Eklöf cautioned his colleagues not to reduce thispolitical area to something that felt right or to courageous sacrifice orsomething to ease conscience. Instead, this was mathematics. That was im-They should not accept just any action that would reduce carbon emis- portant to keep in mind if they indeed wanted to succeed.sions but concentrate on the most efficient ones and dismiss those least ef-ficient. The choices they were making now would affect the next genera- Stanisław Kostulski from the Youth Forum said that he had been invitedtion regarding the climate, economic competitiveness, the social situation to the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Convention in Riga.as well as geopolitics. As such, they could not avoid choosing between thepotential actions. The International Energy Agency, a body under theOECD, had written about carbon emissions of 2023 under the heading“The Changing Landscape of Global Emissions”. Dr Eklöf cited, “Thelandscape of emissions continues to change. China’s total carbon dioxideemissions exceeded those of the advanced economies combined in 2020.In 2023, they were 15 % higher. India surpassed the European Union tobecome the third-largest source of global emissions in 2023. Countries indeveloping Asia now account for around half of global emissions, up fromaround one quarter in 2000. China alone accounts for 35 % of global car-bon dioxide emissions.” These figures varied a bit, depending on howgreenhouse gas emissions in total were calculated. However, the trend wascrystal clear. The figures of the IEA as well as the Joint Research Centre un-der the EU showed that China had surpassed the EU-27 – including GreatBritain – in greenhouse gas emissions per capita more than 10 years before.Statistics were changing very rapidly while perceptions of the role of theEuropean Union’s emissions did not change. As such, he asked if that122 123During panel discussions as well as official and unofficial conversations Nevertheless, there was still a part of society they could not reach, peoplewith scientists, engineers, and decision makers – people who had dedicat- questioning the need for and the importance of programmes such as Fited all of their careers to climate, biodiversity, and the Baltic Sea –, it had for 55 and other measures. Therefore, considering that no major policiesbecome clear that societies, people, and politicians had the full knowledge could be introduced without societal approval, she wondered what realis-how to combat climate change and the biodiversity crisis. They also had all tic actions could be taken by the public and private sector to promote thethe tools needed to provide a safe environment for them and future gener- urgency among the most sceptical parts of society, and maybe even in thisations. The imminent question was why the governments and decision room.makers refused to act. As had been said during the previous day’s sessionon energy security, hope was not a strategy. This was a call for action, for Eva Jensen noted she had heard a great deal of support for doing some-not sacrificing one crisis for the sake of tackling other – also dangerous – thing about the problem they were facing. Climate change was indeed aissues. He called for inclusion of every concerned citizen, especially the global issue, even though Prof Markager’s presentation had focused on theyoung people, in decision making processes, as per the recommendations concrete problems in the Baltic Sea. She mentioned that the EU regulationof the Youth Forum. No matter if their fight for climate justice took place was always based on very thorough economic impact assessments. There-gluing themselves onto streets or during parliamentary forums. Enough fore, this was a strong focus in developing EU policies to ensure an effi-trees had been turned into dry policy papers, recommendations, and state- cient economic approach. Moreover, the EU took part in global negotia-ments. This region had a historic opportunity to become a world leader in tions in the UNFCC – the respective UN body – wherefore they naturallygreen technologies and social innovation, everything that was needed to had a very strong focus on the emissions in the rest of the world. She not-become a green economy. If that would not happen, Mr Kostulski blamed ed that this definitely had been an important point.the people he was talking to.Prof Jette Bredahl Jacobsen commented on the question of a just transi-Pola Zabuska from the Youth Forum said that currently, there were a lot tion and how to ensure that people would not be left behind. She agreedof youth organisations and climate change initiatives that tried to promote that this was a crucial aspect, noting that the Advisory Board had also ad-sustainable living and the future challenges connected to climate change. dressed this concern. It had been one of their first recommendations. Thisneeded to be taken seriously. A first step would be to thoroughly analysewhat the impacts would be. There were a great number of myths aboutwhat the consequences would be, even though they also contained a goodamount of truth. Finding out the impacts and deciding on appropriatecompensation measures when needed, this was crucial, Prof Jacobsenstressed. Without support from the general public, there would be no tran-sition at all. She went on to speak about the global impact of climatechange. That was the key problem of climate change. It didn’t matter whatsingle actors did but rather what was done collectively. However, there wasalso the question of those in Europe could do to solve this global problem.It was easy to step back and say, We can’t solve it because we are only asmall fraction of the whole world. Europe was an important part, and itplayed its role in a lot of other political problems. One aspect was to lookat domestic emissions, to show that this was how the transition could hap-pen. The international part was as important, she agreed. The problemwould not be solved by reducing all the emissions in Europe. They had togo beyond. Prof Jacobsen explained that there were various approaches in124 125international collaboration that could be used. European and US politi-cians needed to engage in these. As a university teacher, she knew that thestudents commonly didn’t listen to her speak; their interest was only trig-gered when the professor did something they could see. In the same way,it mattered when others saw that measures could make a difference in thisfield as well.Prof Stiig Markager remarked that his presentation might have been rath-er dark. As such, he tried to add a more positive tone. Few of the people inthis room would go out to the middle of the Baltic Sea very often. Thatwas where it would take an enormously long time to improve the ecosys-tem. The coastal ecosystem – where people were swimming and bathing inthe summer, perhaps with some recreational fishery – was a different mat-ter: Improvements there could be seen much faster, some decades after re-ducing the local nutrient inputs. If sewage treatment plants were im-proved, small changes would already become apparent the year after. These Session Chair Jarosław Wałęsa thanked the contributors. He said that thiswould grow over time. There was actually a possibility of doing something year’s conference had focused on safety, security, and cooperation. Climatewith results that could be witnessed in one’s lifetime and also within a po- initiatives were all about the same topics. If these were in order, the initia-litical career. Secondly, Prof Markager pointed to the many synergies be- tives would also be implemented in a proper fashion.tween climate change, biodiversity, and the problems he had noted, suchas eutrophication and the state of the marine ecosystem. It all came downto the way the landscape was managed. There was very little one could doout in the Baltic Sea. Planting eelgrass did not help if there was no oxygenin the water. The fishing impact had to be deduced, but that was far toolate once the fish were gone. Landscape management meant having morespace for nature and thus increasing biodiversity on land. That helped im-prove the drinking water quality and opened up recreational values for in-dividual citizens but also economically: People were always willing tospend money on seeing something new. There were so many improve-ments and synergies from having more nature in the landscape. Particular-ly wetlands acted as a filter for the nutrients before they could reach riversand the sea. Forests and wetlands both accumulated carbon instead ofemitting it as agriculture did. It was necessary to change the landscapefrom farming to nature. Prof Markager acknowledged that this would raisethe question of food security. 80 % of the food produced in Denmark wasfodder for animals. By using soy and other resources for animals instead ofthe poor people in the world, they were creating hunger across the globe.Danish people had more buying power than the poor in Egypt. Denmarkwas importing soy and feeding it to the pig industry instead of having it onthe open market where it could feed people.126 127CLOSING SESSIONChair: Mr Henrik Møller, President of the BSPCCo-Chair: Mr Alfons Röblom, Vice-President of the BSPCBSPC President Henrik Møller announced it was time to hand over thechairmanship to the next BSPC President, Mr Alfons Röblom. He openedthe Closing Session of the 33rd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference. Be-fore the hand-over, some decisions would have to be taken. Everybody wasinvited to adopt an amendment proposal to paragraph 10 of the BSPCStatutes and Rules of Procedure and the resolution of the 33rd annual con-ference. He reminded everyone that the BSPC could only make decisionsby unanimous consent. That was a strength since all of them had to agreewith the decisions.The Standing Committee had agreed on a decision regarding the BSPCSecretariat. In order for this to be implemented, an amendment to theBSPC Statues and Rules of Procedure was required. This had been com-municated to the Standing Committee. The following sentence would beadded to paragraph 10.4, sentence 1, “If a member offers a solution for anew appointment that meets the BSPC Standing Committee’s consensualapproval, sentence 1 may be waived as an exception.” He explained thatthe respective sentence was about an open process to select candidates forthe decision to be made. This had been discussed extensively in the Stand-ing Committee. The day before, at 9 o’clock, they had come to an agree-ment on a proposal from Schleswig-Holstein. If this could be agreed to bythe conference, it would be clear how the Secretariat would function, atleast for the coming three years, perhaps five years.The conference agreed to the change to the BSPC Statutes The conference adopted the resolution of the 33rd Baltic Seaand Rules of Procedure Parliamentary ConferenceBSPC President Henrik Møller thanked all the delegations for their hard BSPC President Henrik Møller again thanked everybody for the goodwork, particularly the members of the Drafting Committee. As always, it work at the conference and during the past year. He hoped that their gov-had been challenging to reach an agreement but also easier than in some of ernments and other institutions around the Baltic Sea and beyond wouldthe earlier years. Everyone at the conference had received a copy of the res- implement the contents of this year’s resolution. He further hoped thatolution of the 33rd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference. this implementation would contribute to a better future.128 129At this time, he also said thank you to the youth parliamentarians for their Concluding speech by New BSPC President Alfons Röblominput to the resolution but also this year’s work. He was quite sure thatmuch of their recommendations would find its way into the coming year’sresolution and that they would work with what the young people had said.BSPC President Henrik Møller stressed that it had been a true honour tohave been the president of the BSPC. He was very much looking forwardto following a good BSPC tradition, namely, passing over the baton to theincoming president, Mr Alfons Röblom from the parliament of the ÅlandIslands.Incoming-BSPC President Alfons Röblom first of all thanked the now-for-mer president Henrik Møller and the Danish delegation as well as all thosewho had contributed to the success of this conference. It was an honour anda privilege to stand before the attendees on this day as they were embarkingon the next chapter of the BSPC, under the Åland presidency. During thisconference, he had noted that many had spoken about the importance of thefight for peace, the rule of law, and how important it was to cooperate witheach other. More examples of peace and cooperation were needed in theworld. Looking ahead to the coming year, their focus would be guided bythree central themes. The Åland side had chosen to call it The Baltic Sea –Our Lifeline. Cooperation, and security, and sustainability.The Baltic Sea was more than a body of water, particularly for those on Åland:For an island nation, surrounded by the Baltic Sea, it was their lifeline. It wasa source of food, energy, transportation, and recreation. It linked their na-tions in commerce, culture, and community. This was why the Åland parlia-ment had been particularly committed to the BSPC for many years andwould continue to do so in the future. However, this vital resource was underincreasing strain from environmental degradation, overfishing, and the im-pacts of climate change. During their presidency, Åland would prioritise ini-tiatives that sought to protect and restore the health of the Baltic Sea. Theywould support cross-border efforts to reduce pollution, enhance marine bio-diversity, and promote sustainable fisheries. They were aiming to preserve thelifeline and ensure it would thrive for generations. Oceans, nature, wind, the130 131sun, pollution did not know any manmade borders. The fish did not have hometown of Helsingør because it was the entrance into the Baltic Sea re-any passports. In a world where global challenges were becoming increasing- gion and also because he was very proud of this city. Some had probably re-ly complex, the importance of cooperation could not be overstated. The life- acted by wondering if there even was anything in Helsingør. President Hen-line had to be connected. Under Åland’s leadership, they sought to strength- rik Møller believed to have shown that this city was worth visiting. There wasen Baltic cooperation. They would work closely with their neighbours, the even more to discover if people were to come back, although he could notEuropean Union, and international bodies to align the efforts in tackling guarantee the king would be there to welcome them. On that occasion, hecommon challenges. Whether it was combating climate change, managing noted the pride about having been able to get the king to participate in themaritime traffic, or enhancing digital infrastructure, cooperation would be conference. The monarch had thus highlighted the organisation as well as itsthe key to their success. They would foster dialogue, share best practices, and ideas. His very warm feelings towards the Baltic Sea states had been very ob-promote partnerships driving innovation and resilience across the region. vious, the former president opined. BSPC President Henrik Møller singledout Secretary General Bodo Bahr to thank him for his highly committedSecurity and sustainability were two sides of the same coin in the Baltic Sea work as ‘Mr BSPC’ along with the team supporting him. He admitted thatregion. Their security was increasingly linked to their ability to sustainably he could not see a future of the BSPC without Mr Bahr, although it wouldmanage and protect their natural resources. The geopolitical landscape was happen. It had been a pleasure working with him.evolving and with it the nature of the threats they were facing. Cyber securi-ty, hybrid threats, and the militarisation of maritime zones were just a few of The conference applauded with long-standing ovations as he honouredthe challenges. Åland’s presidency would focus on strengthening their collec- Bodo Bahr’s highly committed work.tive security through enhanced cooperation in these areas while simultane-ously pushing for sustainable practices that reduced their environmentalfootprint. They would advocate for policies promoting actions to strengthenthe health of the Baltic Sea, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and build re-silience in their communities against the impacts of climate change. Moreo-ver, they would work together to strengthen the connectivity of their lifelineregarding actions on climate, renewable energy production, and the produc-tion of crucial infrastructure. For all they had planned, the conference herein Helsingør was an excellent basis for building on its results. Preparing forthe year ahead, Mr Röblom asked his listeners to remember that the BalticSea was more than a geographical feature, it was a shared resource, a com-mon heritage, and a symbol of their interconnectedness. Under Åland’s pres-idency, they would work tirelessly to ensure that their policies reflected theimportance of this lifeline, that their cooperation would remain strong, andthat their approach to security and sustainability was forward-looking andinclusive. As president, he was looking forward to hearing from all of the at-tendees. He hoped to all of them on Åland a year from now.Following that, a promotional video on the Åland Islands was presented.BSPC President Henrik Møller said that, as the outgoing president andhost of this conference, he wanted to thank a great many people. During theearly discussions about the conference, he had suggested holding it in his132 133LIST OF PARTICIPANTSBSPC President Henrik Møller also thanked Mr Johannes Schraps for hissupport as a former BSPC president and friend as well as Mr Alfons Röb-lom. They had been a good troika, in Mr Møller’s view. He went on to Denmarkagain thank the young people as an inspiration to all of them. He high-lighted the convention centre where the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth 1 Guest of Honour: His Majesty The King of DenmarkFrederik XForum had taken place. Next, he spoke of the support staff in Denmarkwithout whom the conference would not have been possible; nothing had 2 The Speaker of the Danish ParliamentSøren Gadebeen left to chance. He thanked them personally. He noted that many oth-3 Vice-Prime Minister and Minister of Defenceer people from the Danish parliament had also been involved in the ar-Troels Lund Poulsenrangement of the conference and its surroundings. Again, he thanked the4 Minister for Foreign Affairsattendees for coming to Helsingør.Lars Løkke RasmussenMember Parliaments and Parliamentary OrganisationsÅland5 Alfons Röblom, Vice-President of the BSPC and Member of theÅland Parliament6 Jörgen Pettersson, President of the Åland Parliament7 Benny Pettersson, Member of the Åland Parliament8 Johan Lindström, Member of the Åland Parliament9 Anders Holmberg, Member of the Åland Parliament10 Henrik Löthman, Member of the Åland Parliament11 Sten Eriksson, Secretary of the Delegation of the Åland Parliament12 Victoria Lindblom, Secretary of the Delegation of the ÅlandParliamentBaltic AssemblyThe conference also applauded intensely during these thanksgivings.13 Andrius Kupčinskas, President of the Baltic Assembly and Member ofBSPC President Henrik Møller brought the conference to a close by cit- the Parliament of Lithuaniaing the final words from Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, which took place in 14 Agnija Antanovica, Secretary General of the Baltic Assemblythis very city, “And the rest is silence.”Bremen15 Antje Grotheer, President of the State Parliament of Bremen16 Susanne Grobien, Member of the State Parliament of Bremen134 135Denmark Germany17 Henrik Møller, President of the BSPC and Member of the Danish 34 Johannes Schraps, Vice-President of the BSPC, Member of theParliament German Bundestag18 Lars-Christian Brask, Member of the Danish Parliament 35 Gyde Jensen, Member of the German Bundestag19 Per Husted, Member of the Danish Parliament 36 Anna Kassautzki, Member of the German Bundestag20 Kim Aas, Member of the Danish Parliament 37 Claudia Müller, Member of the German Bundestag21 Peder H. Pedersen, Chief consultant, Secretary General at SCPAR 38 Petra Nicolaisen, Member of the German Bundestag22 Joan Ólavsdóttir, Secretary of the Delegation of the Danish 39 Joachim Wundrak, Member of the German BundestagParliament 40 Katalin Zádor, Secretary of the Delegation of the German Bundestag23 Dennis Barndorph Sichlau, Secretariat of the Delegation of 41 Pia-Sophie Brandenburg, Secretary of the Delegation of the Germanthe Danish Parliament Bundestag24 Karina Sand Thomsen, Secretariat of the Delegation ofthe Danish Parliament Hamburg25 Søren Thomsen, Secretariat of the Delegation of the Danish42 Carola Veit, President of the State Parliament of HamburgParliament43 Astrid Hennies, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg26 Rakul Herálvsdóttir Kollslíð, Secretariat of the Delegation ofthe Danish Parliament 44 Rosa Domm, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg27 Simon Chrillesen, Secretariat of the Delegation of the Danish 45 David Erkalp, Member of the State Parliament of HamburgParliament 46 Stephan Jersch, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg28 Jonas Lykkeaa, Secretariat of the Delegation of the Danish Parliament 47 Dr Alexander Wolf, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg48 Johannes Düwel, Director of the State Parliament of HamburgEstonia49 Friederike Lünzmann, Secretary of the Delegation of the StateParliament of Hamburg29 Timo Suslov, Member of the Parliament of Estonia30 Merilin Reepalu, Secretary of the Delegation of the Parliament ofIcelandEstonia50 Oddný G. Harðardóttir, Member of the Parliament of IcelandFinland51 Helgi Thorsteinsson, Secretary of the Delegation of the Parliament ofIceland31 Pauli Aalto-Setälä, Member of the Parliament of Finland32 Saku Nikkanen, Member of the Parliament of FinlandLatvia33 Mika Laaksonen, Secretary of the Delegation of the Parliament ofFinland 52 Prof Jānis Vucāns, Member of the Parliament of Latvia53 Ilze Indriksone, Member of the Parliament of Latvia54 Antoņina Ņenaševa, Member of the Parliament of Latvia55 Andris Kulbergs, Member of the Parliament of Latvia56 Ingrida Sticenko, Secretary of the Delegation of the Parliament ofLatvia136 137Lithuania Norway57 Orinta Leiputė, Member of the Parliament of Lithuania 76 Himanshu Gulati, Member of the Norwegian Parliament58 Renata Godfrey, Secretary of the Delegation of the Parliament of 77 Marius Arion Nilsen, Member of the Norwegian ParliamentLithuania 78 Lene Westgaard-Halle, Member of the Norwegian Parliament79 Tove Elise Madland, Member of the Norwegian ParliamentMecklenburg-Vorpommern80 Jorodd Asphjell, Member of the Norwegian Parliament59 Beate Schlupp, Vice President of the State Parliament of 81 Thomas Fraser, Secretary of the Delegation of the NorwegianMecklenburg-Vorpommern Parliament60 Jens-Holger Schneider, Member of the State Parliament of 82 Malik Vansh, Secretary of the Delegation of the Norwegian ParliamentMecklenburg-VorpommernPoland61 Katy Hoffmeister, Member of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern83 Anita Kucharska-Dziedzic, Member of the Sejm of the Republic of62 Christian Albrecht, Member of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-PolandVorpommern84 Jarosław Wałęsa, Member of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland63 Constanze Oehlrich, Member of the State Parliament of85 Kacper Płażyński, Member of the Sejm of the Republic of PolandMecklenburg-Vorpommern86 Ryszard Majer, Member of the Senate of the Republic of Poland64 Sabine Enseleit, Member of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 87 Piotr Koperski, Chancellery of the Senate of the Republic of Poland65 Georg Strätker, Secretary to the delegation of the State Parliament ofSchleswig-HolsteinMecklenburg-Vorpommern66 Evgeniya Bakalova, Secretary to the delegation of the State Parliament88 Eka von Kalben, Member of the State Parliament of Schleswig-of Mecklenburg-VorpommernHolstein89 Marc Timmer, Member of the State Parliament of Schleswig-HolsteinNordic Council90 Rasmus Vöge, Member of the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein67 Bryndís Haraldsdóttir, President of the Nordic Council and Member 91 Jan Diedrichsen, Secretary of the Delegation for International Affairsof the Parliament of Iceland of the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein68 Heléne Björklund, Member of the Presidium of the Nordic CouncilSwedenand Member of the Parliament of Sweden69 Hanna Katrín Friðriksson, Member of the Presidium of the Nordic92 Dr Staffan Eklöf, Member of the Swedish ParliamentCouncil and Member of the Parliament of Iceland93 Hanna Westerén, Member of the Swedish Parliament70 Kathy Lie, Member of the Presidium of the Nordic Council and94 Emma Nohrén, Member of the Swedish ParliamentMember of the Parliament of Norway95 Helena Lundstedt, Secretary of the Delegation of the Swedish71 Kristina Háfoss, Secretary General of the Nordic CouncilParliament72 Flemming Gade Kjerschow, Deputy Secretary General of the NordicCouncil73 Birthe Lien, Secretary General of the Social Democratic Group of theNordic Council74 Mette Gervin Damsgaard, Senior Adviser, Committee for aSustainable Nordic Region75 Arne Fogt Bergby, International Senior Adviser of the Nordic Council138 139BSPC, Observers, Guests and Youth Representatives Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS)126 Tõnis Nirk, Ambassador-at-Large for Baltic Sea Cooperation,Baltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceChairman of the CBSS Committee of Senior Officials127 Grzegorz Poznański, Director General of the CBSS Secretariat96 Bodo Bahr, Secretary General of the BSPC128 Dr Gustav Lindström, Deputy Director General of the CBSSSecretariatBaltic Sea NGO Network129 Aline Mayr, Policy Officer for Youth97 Jens William Grav, Coordinator at Baltic NGO Network, Denmark 130 Simona Jakaité, Internship Programme, Regional Identity andCommunicationsBaltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum131 Kazimierz Musial, Senior Adviser for Regional Identity98 Aksel Holmsen, NorwaySkåne Regional County Council99 Daniel Adrian Polak, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern100 Nagham Wajdi Jaghoub, Norway 132 Annika Annerby Jansson, President, Region Skåne101 Andreas Schoop, Germany 133 Johanna Haward, Development Strategist102 Jan Starosta, PolandBenelux Parliaments103 Marta Magdalena Kielpinski, Germany104 Silva Laure, Latvia 134 Hendrik-Jan Talsma, Head of the delegation of the NI105 Shahin Khosravi, Sweden106 Aada Aho, Finland107 Dino Juhas, Norway108 Johanna Scharf, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Embassies in Denmark109 Kate Melnalksne, Latvia110 Markus Koski, FinlandEmbassy of Latvia111 Pola Zabuska, The Netherlands112 Stanisław Kostulski, Poland 135 Inga Skujina, Ambassador of the Republic of Latvia to the Kingdom of113 Janeliūnas Ignas, Lithuania Denmark114 Sidney Gregor-Wiela, Hamburg115 Sara Nyman, Finland116 Līga Rudzāne, Latvia117 Abel Aioanei, Denmark118 Elias Arndt, Schleswig-Holstein119 Justina Jemeljanovaitė, Denmark120 Kaarel Taimla, Estonia121 Lena Debanck, Belgium122 Nadine Anna Jerzyniak, Schleswig-Holstein123 Sarah Vestergaard, Denmark124 Tobias Olling Mørup, Denmark125 Lukas Alexander Hals, Norway140 141Ministries SpeakersMinistry for Civil Defence, Sweden • Søren Gade, Speaker of the Danish Parliament• Henrik Møller, Member of Parliament of Denmark, President of the136 Carl-Oskar Bohlin, Minister for Civil Defence BSPC 2023–2024• Pekka Haavisto, former Finnish minister for Foreign AffairsMinistry for Foreign Affairs, Finland• Jarosław Wałęsa, Member of the Polish Parliament137 Pekka Haavisto, former Minister for Foreign Affairs • Flemming Splidsboel, senior researcher DIIS• Carl-Oskar Bohlin, Swedish Minister for Civil DefenceMinistry for Foreign Affairs, Norway• Rasmus Dahlberg, Researcher, Royal Danish Defence College• Mark Fiedel, Director Centre for Cyber Security138 Kjell Kristian Egge, International Law Adviser• Troels Lund Poulsen, Vice-Prime Minister and Minister of Defence,Experts Denmark• Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Denmark139 Flemming Splidsboel, Senior Researcher, Danish Institute for• Andris Kulbergs, Chair of the BSPC WG ESSRCinternational Studies (DIIS)• Carola Veit, BSPC Rapporteur on Migration and Integration140 Rasmus Dahlberg, Researcher, Royal Danish Defence College• Anna Kassautzki, BSPC Rapporteur on Sea-Dumped Munitions141 Mark Fiedel, Vice-Director Centre for Cyber Security• Jörgen Pettersson, BSPC Rapporteur on Integrated Maritime Policy142 Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, Professor and Vice-Chair for the European• Beate Schlupp, in representation BSPC Rapporteur on SustainableScientific Board on Climate ChangeTourism143 Eva Jensen, European Environment Agency• Eva Jensen, European Environment Agency144 Stiig Markager, Professor, Aarhus University• Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, Professor and vice-chair for the European145 Karen Marie Sandgren, Owner and Strategic Advisor of NordicScientific Board on Climate ChangeEnergy Connection• Stiig Markager, Professor, Aarhus UniversityBSPC Secretariat Support • Alfons Röblom, Member of Parliament of Åland, incoming Presidentof the BSPC 2024–2025146 Jördis Palme147 Daniel Becker148 Marc Hertel149 Catherine Johnson150 Malgorzata Ludwicek151 Ralf Roletschek152 Daria Rulevska153 Daniela Kloth154 Agnes Rogowski142 143PHOTOS144 145PHOTOS