Innovative Science, Sustainable Tourism – Participation and Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region 26Th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference 26

2YEARS6 Baltic Sea BSPCParliamentary Conference

Innovative Science, Sustainable Tourism – Participation and Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region 26th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference 26

Innovative Science, Sustainable Tourism – Participation and Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region 26th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference

Hamburg, 3 – 5 September 2017 2

Innovative Science, Sustainable Tourism – The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) Participation and Cooperation in the was established in 1991 as a forum for political Baltic Sea Regione dialogue between parliamentarians from the 26th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Baltic Sea Region. BSPC aims at raising awareness and opinion on issues of current political interest and relevance for the Baltic Sea Region. It promotes and drives various initiatives and Text: Malgorzata Ludwiczek efforts to support a sustainable environmental, Editing: Bodo Bahr social and economic development of the Baltic Sea Region. It strives at enhancing the visibility Layout: Produktionsbüro TINUS of the Baltic Sea Region and its issues in a wider European context. Photos: Susanne Ahrens, BSPC gathers parliamentarians from 11 Hamburgische Bürgerschaft national parliaments, 11 regional parliaments and 5 parliamentary organizations around the Baltic Sea. The BSPC thus constitutes a unique parliamentary bridge between all the EU- and non-EU countries of the Baltic Sea Region. BSPC external interfaces include parliamentary, governmental, sub-regional and other organizations in the Baltic Sea Region and the Northern Dimension area, among them CBSS, HELCOM, the Northern Dimension Partnership in Health and Social Well-Being (NDPHS), the Baltic Sea Labour Forum (BSLF), the Baltic Sea States Sub-regional Cooperation (BSSSC) and the Baltic Development Forum. BSPC shall initiate and guide political activities in the region; support and strengthen democratic institutions in the participating states; improve dialogue between governments, parliaments and civil society; strengthen the common identity of the Baltic Sea Region by means of close co-operation between national and regional parliaments on the basis of equality; and initiate and guide political activities in the Baltic Sea Region, Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference endowing them with additional democratic Bodo Bahr legitimacy and parliamentary authority. Secretary General The political recommendations of the +49 171 5512557 annual Parliamentary Conferences are [email protected] expressed in a Conference Resolution www.bspc.net adopted by consensus by the Conference. The adopted Resolution shall be submitted to the governments of the Baltic Sea Region, the BSPC Secretariat CBSS and the EU, and disseminated to other c/o Schlossgartenallee 15 relevant national, regional and local stake- 19061 Schwerin holders in the Baltic Sea Region and its Germany neighbourhood. 3

INTRODUCTION

Ladies and Gentlemen,

the Town Hall of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg set the scene for our 26th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference. Hamburg Port – the largest sea port in Germany – is well connected with the Baltic Sea Region. The good hinterland connections closely link trade, culture and policy. Therefore, it was indeed a fit- ting location for the BSPC. Over 180 parliamentarians, government representatives and esteemed experts from the Baltic Sea Region and beyond gathered for three days of political deliberations, pertinent presentations, educating excur- sions and, not least, stimulating social interaction. I am convinced that through dialogue and debate, we can gradually forge joint political positions and requests and convey them to our governments for action. By working together, our combined impact gains strength and influence. The reports and political recommendations of our Working Groups are a convincing case in point. Our role as parliamentarians is to assume responsibility for, and do our best to promote democracy, peace, freedom, environmental sustainability and social welfare for our citizens. Therefore, I believe that with the conference topics “Democracy”, “Sci- ence” and “Sustainability”, we chose forward-looking themes, which will determine the strength of our societies in the future. In times of globalisation, rapid social changes, migration challenges and the influence of social media, we need to reconsider the ways to present and communicate policies and engage with the voters. Only an engaged citizenry with a stake in the political process will ensure a stable democracy. Therefore, I am grateful that we managed to agree on a resolution full of concrete demands, relevant ideas and recommendations. With this year’s resolution, we have addressed a number of current issues, including 4

Democratic Participation and the Digital Age, Innovative Science, Sustainable Tourism as well as Participation and Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region, and by launching the new BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration the migration challenges.

Let me thank all the speakers and participants who attended the Conference and contributed to its success – the First Mayor of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, Mr Olaf Scholz, for the warm welcome given to the conference participants.

I also would like to express my gratitude to my superb staff – the administration of the Hamburgische Bürgerschaft – for the perfect preparation and execution of the conference, Johannes Düwel, Florian Lipowski and Friederike Lünzmann for their distinguished support during my presidency, and last but not least the BSPC Secretary General, Bodo Bahr, for his profound expertise and engagement as well as for his close and excellent cooperation.

I have had the privilege of presiding over the BSPC for one year. The support and cooperative spirit of my colleagues in the Standing Committee has been indispensable, and I warmly thank them all. Entrusting the BSPC Presidency to Mr Jörgen Pettersson, I wish him all the success in steering the BSPC all the way up to the 27th BSPC in Mariehamn in August 2018.

Carola Veit BSPC President 2016 – 2017 and President of the Hamburg Parliament 5

Contents

Opening of the Conference ...... 7

Session one Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region...... 11

Session two Democratic Participation and the Digital Age ...... 29

Session three Science and Research...... 41

Session four Sustainable Tourism...... 53

Session five Migration and Integration...... 67

Closing session...... 75

Annex Conference Resolution ...... 81

List of Participants...... 89

Programme ...... 100

Impressions...... 108 6 Opening of the Conference Opening of the Conference 7

Opening of the Conference

Carola Veit, President of the Hamburg Parliament and President of the BSPC 2016-2017

Ms Veit welcomed the participants of the conference, extending a particularly warm welcome to the BSPC Vice Presidents, Prof Jānis Vucāns, MP from Latvia and the BSPC President of 2015- 2016, and to Jörgen Petterson, the incoming BSPC President. She drew the attention of those present to the grand and elaborate architecture of the Town Hall of the City of Hamburg which, during the Wilhelmine German Empire, had served to demonstrate a functioning and viable state as well as the state’s power.

Ms Veit highlighted that the thematic range of the conference had been attached to the challenges facing citizen’s participation in the political processes. Dwindling numbers at the polls, decreasing trust in politics, and weakened involvement in public debate might affect the basis of a stable democracy. Ms Veit mentioned a number of possible causes of those worrisome trends, for instance uneven distribution of wealth, competition of labour on global market, pressure on pension systems and influence of social media. Therefore, all those issues needed debate on ways to strengthen democratic participation in the digital age. She concluded by wishing the participants a very successful conference and by yielding the floor to the First Mayor of the Free and Han- seatic City of Hamburg, Mr Olaf Scholz. 8 Opening of the Conference

Words of welcome

Mr Scholz extended his welcome to the conference and underlined that Hamburg, as a Hanseatic City, had been closely linked with the Baltic coastal states for many centuries. The Baltic Sea Policy had been highly significant for the Hamburg Senate, with the importance of regional and transnational coordination always one of the key priorities, and great value assigned to the dialogue between the Baltic regions on all levels. Mr Scholz pointed out that the Hamburg Port was Germany’s biggest sea port, one of the three leading container ports in Europe, ranked at number 17 on the global scale, with many feeder ships connecting the port with the Baltic Sea Region. The good hinterland connections, and especially the Kiel Canal, closely linked trade, culture and policy. Therefore, even though Hamburg was a tidal port of the Elbe, it seemed to be directly located on the Baltic Sea shore. The Mayor mentioned a number of transnational projects closely linking Hamburg to the Baltic Sea Region, e.g. project EMMA - “Enhancing freight Mobility and logistics in the Baltic Sea Re- gion by strengthening inland waterway and river sea transport and proMoting new internAtional shipping services”. Another project, TENTacle, which stands for “Capitalising on TEN-T core network corridors for growth and cohesion”, concerned the regions situated next to the core network corridors or beyond. Many of the EU projects in the Baltic Sea Region, he noted, were counting on Hamburg’s involvement. In this regard, improved connectedness within the Baltic Sea Region was also represented by the Fehmarnbelt Link. That major project would not only turn Hamburg and Copenhagen into neighbours but connect far larger parts of the Baltic Sea area as well. Stronger links through improved infrastructure were mirrored in increasing cooperation in the field of research infrastructures. At this point, Mr Scholtz mentioned the visit of conference participants to the German Electron Synchrotron the day before, emphasising the importance of the scientific collaboration between the recently officially opened European X-ray Free Electron Laser, European XFEL in Hamburg, and the European Spallation Source, ESS, in Lund, which is currently being constructed. The usage of these and other research infrastructures by companies, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, were pushed by the EUSBSR flagship project Baltic TRAM directed by DESY. With regard to boosting prosperity through education, the speaker mentioned that Ham- burg has been proud to coordinate the policy area “Education, Research, Employability” of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea, and highlighted in regard to the 25th BSPC resolution the estab- Opening of the Conference 9

Olaf Scholz, First Mayor of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg

lishment of the Jugendberufsagentur – the youth employment agency – and the project “School to Work” with respect to the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. He stated that including the young generation into Interreg projects strengthened the commonalities and supported the identification with the Baltic Sea area.

The Mayor concluded by underlining that the Baltic Sea Parlia- mentary Conference was highly important for the bond throughout the Baltic Sea Region. That was reflected in many fields – in economy and infrastructure, but also in education and research. The experiences were enriching, the perspectives often differed and even when the objectives were not the same, the cooperation had been of utmost importance. On behalf of the city of Hamburg, he wished all Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference participants fruitful discussions which were a very positive and important contribution for cohesion, peace and prosperity in the Baltic Sea Region. 10 Session one Session one 11

Session one

Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region

The Chair of the session, Jörgen Pettersson, Vice President of the BSPC, introduced his Co- Chair, Valentina Pivnenko, Member of the State Duma of the Russian Federation and long-time delegate in the BSPC Standing Committee. He emphasised that the Council of the Baltic Sea States was the natural counterpart of the BSPC on the executive level. Therefore, he extended his special welcome to Guðmundur Árni Stefánsson, Ambassador of Iceland and outgoing CBSS Chair of the Committee of Senior Officials, and to Hans Olsson, Chairman of the Committee of the CBSS of Senior Of- ficials, Ambassador of Sweden. Mr Pettersson also welcomed Prof Jānis Vucāns, BSPC Vice-President and the Vice-President of the Baltic Assembly, who, as the host of the previous BSPC Conference, gave an overview of the implementation of the 25th BSPC Resolu- tion. During the session, BSPC Rapporteurs presented their recent reports: Jörgen Pettersson – Report on Integrated Maritime Pol- icy –, Ms Sonja Mandt – Report on Cultural Affairs – and Franz Thönnes –Report on the Labour Market and Social Welfare.

Guðmundur Árni Stefánsson, Am- bassador of Iceland and outgoing CBSS Chair of the Committee of Senior Officials, reported that the cross-cutting priorities of the Icelan- dic Presidency, „Democracy, Equality and Children”, had embraced the different projects implemented through the year, underlining the importance of a free, fair and open Baltic Sea Re- gion. The Icelandic Presidency had organised various events with diverse participation. One mentioned by the Ambassador was the symposium entitled „A Future Out- look on Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region”, organised by the Icelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs, in Reykjavík on 6 March 2017, on the actual birthdate of the CBSS, marking 25 years since the foundation of the Council of the Baltic Sea States. The panel 12 Session one

discussions had focused on the potential future of regional development in the Baltic Sea Region and the strengths of the current cooperation. Active dialogue, openness and mutual understanding had been mentioned as some of the essentials for successful future cooperation. The participants in the panel had represented various stakeholders within the Baltic Sea Region, among them Jörgen Pet- tersson, Vice Chair of the BSPC, and other high-level speakers: the Foreign Minister of Iceland, Guðlaugur Þór Þórðarson, and Uffe Elleman Jensen, former Foreign Minister of Denmark and one of the founding fathers of the CBSS.

Ambassador Stefánsson highlighted that Iceland had managed to restart the high level political dialogue in the region by organising a meeting of the CBSS Foreign Ministers, high representatives and a high representative of the EU on 20 June 2017 in Reykjavík, at the invitation of Guðlaugur Þór Þórðarson, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iceland. The meeting had been considered a success and had given hope that the Reykjavík Ministerial Meeting 2017 was the first step towards open and honest dialogues on a political level, contributing to increased regional and international cooperation. Further- more, the Reykjavík Declaration, adopted at the meeting, symbol- ised that the member states were invested in the Baltic Sea Region and shared a sense of responsibility to work towards the goals of the Agenda 2030 within the adopted action plan and to fight common challenges that the region is facing. In the ministers’ declaration, a number of priorities were mentioned – among them sustainable development, youth cooperation, human trafficking, child protection and civil security. Ambassador Stefánsson mentioned that in all those fields, the CBSS and the BSPC were in close cooperation, a fact of the utmost importance to the CBSS. The speaker also referred to challenges the region had been facing. An increased threat of terrorism was a reality in the BSR, while Europe was also confronted with a steady stream of refugees seeking a new life, fleeing war and insecurity back in their home countries. The result was a growing number of displaced people, not least children. He added that the governments had not been prepared for that situation and that the instability and challenges had led to extremism gain- ing power and populistic parties getting stronger. Those challenges would have to be faced and reacted to. Mr Stefánsson concluded by stressing that regional cooperation had proven its worth, and the last 25 years, both for the CBSS and the BSPC, had shown the necessity for a strong and vibrant regional cooperation. He wished the CBSS and BSPC another 25 years of a dynamic and successful cooperation in the Baltic Region. Session one 13

Hans Olsson, Chairman of the Com- mittee of the CBSS of Senior Officials and Ambassador of Sweden, gave an outline of the CBSS Swedish Presi- dency until 1 July 2018, when Latvia would take over the CBSS presidency. The main catchwords of the upcoming Swedish CBSS Presidency 2017- 2018 were “sustainability”, “continuity” and “adaptability”. Mr Olsson recognised that most important among them would be sustainability because the adoption of the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development had provided tools for dealing with the challenges the world was facing. On the regional level, the CBSS had managed, during the Icelandic Presidency, to develop the CBSS Action Plan, realising the Vision Baltic 2030 Action Plan. This plan would serve as a good tool for a more systematic implementation of the sustainable development goals. He admitted that the goals were wide and far reaching and involved not only work related directly to the environment but applied, if not to all, then to most aspects of the work going on in the CBSS. A more systematic approach to these problem clusters would be applied, and wherever possible, gender equality in the course of this work would be adopted. Furthermore, the Ambassador referred to the second catchword – continuity. He reported that over the years, the CBSS had achieved considerable results in regional cooperation, and in some issues, such as the fight against human trafficking or actions to represent the rights and interests of children, the results had also found an echo outside the Baltic Sea Region. In those cases, the work in subsequent groups would be intensified. Mr Olsson added that it was also the intention of the presidency, together with the member states and the international secretariat, to give constant support to ongoing activities and work. However, he pointed out, continuity did not mean a static approach. Together with member states, the Presidency would look into possibilities of entering new fields of cooperation in light of new challenges and problems. One of the examples stated by Mr Olsson was the question of migration which was on the agenda of many member states. Another topic of interest could be integration, the changing demographic situation etc. Mr Olsson further informed his audience about the scope of the third catchword – adaptability. For the upcoming CBSS presidency, adaptability meant being able to adapt to change and new challenges. The speaker emphasized that in 1992, when the CBSS had been established, the political landscape in the Baltic Sea Region had been very different, and 25 years of CBSS existence had seen a number of significant changes take place. New 14 Session one

fora for regional cooperation, for instance Northern Dimension as well as the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, had been established. New topics had become more prominent for the agenda of regional cooperation. Against this background, the Presi- dency welcomed the decision taken in Reykjavik in June to establish a group of independent wise men and women and give them the task to look into the future role of the CBSS as a forum for political dialogue and regional cooperation beyond 2030. The idea was that at the end of the Swedish presidency, the group would come up Session one 15

with ideas and food for thought. Then, during the subsequent Lat- vian Presidency, more structural debate among member states could take place with the aim of reaching the decision in summer 2019. In addition, the speaker listed a number of ideas to be elaborated during the Presidency: implementation of the Baltic 2030 Action Plan with the emphasis on goals 12 – sustainable consumption and production –, 13 – climate – and 17 – good governance –, followed by the implementation of the joint position on enhancing cooperation in the civil protection area, increasing the cooperation with 16 Session one

the United Nations Sendain Framework for disaster risk reduction, exploring the possibility of creating a Baltic Sea Region search and rescue area as well as reactivating the expert group on Maritime Pol- icy. He assured the Conference that efforts to improve science- and research-related cooperation to strengthen the Baltic Science Net- work, develop the Baltic Sea NGO Network and maintain dialogue with the youth would be continued. In his closing remarks, the Ambassador advocated for parliamentarian support to pursue the ambitious plan of the CBSS Swedish Presidency 2017-2018.

Prof Jānis Vucāns, BSPC Vice-Pres- ident and Vice-President of the Bal- tic Assembly, emphasised that it had been a pleasure and an honour for him and the Latvian Parliament to host the 25th Baltic Sea Parliamen- tary Conference in Riga. The 25th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference had underlined the necessity for high quality education and equal access to the labour market as its main priorities and also the integration of research, higher education and industry. Recommendations with regard to those topics were included in the 25th BSPC Resolution. The BSPC resolutions were the main tool for announcing the BSPC’s calls for action to the governments of the region; therefore, the report on governments’ responses to the 25th BSPC Resolution implementation survey served as a valuable source of information on developments in the areas pointed out by the resolution.

Mr Vucāns reported that the results had been sub-divided into four major thematic chapters: “Competitiveness in the Baltic Sea Region by linking the Education and Labour Markets”, “Employ- ment Opportunities, Labour Mobility and Youth Unemployment”, “Sustainable Tourism” and “The environmental status of the Baltic Sea”. The speaker noted that the submitted statements in reaction to the 25th BSPC Resolution had varied considerably concerning thematic depth and structure, nonetheless the governments had treated the request seriously and had been doing so more and more comprehensively in the last two years. They had generally signalled a noteworthy effort to provide a satisfying account of how the governments had tried to implement the resolution’s calls for action.

However, the speaker remarked that there was still space for im- Session one 17

provement in the future. The main area for improvement was that national activities should be more strongly complemented by transnational initiatives. Secondly, the statements should feature intentions and plans for future activities. Thirdly, the statements almost exclusively emphasised successful projects and programmes. Instead, it would be very helpful if the governmental statements would include the failures as well. Often, these negative experiences were more informative about prevailing challenges, pointing to areas where improvement is needed the most. Fourthly, the analysis of the governmental answers recognised a lack of references to the current fraught political climate around the Baltic Sea Region. The statements could be more explicit regarding the implications of the changed environment and the resulting challenges, and they could elaborate on how to overcome the existing differences. Finally, the responses could be more explicit regarding the thick interconnect- edness of the various levels – local, regional and national. The governmental statements would become more informative, providing the necessary impetus for further action if they factored in these interlinkages and interdependencies more systematically.

At this point, Prof Vucāns thanked each government of the Baltic Sea region and everyone who had contributed to the statements of the governments. He much appreciated the work that had been done and underlined that this was the strengthening the parliamentary dimension in the whole Baltic Sea Region. The report was intended to improve the common approach, to intensify the efficient cooperation even more and thus improve the prosperity of the whole Baltic Sea Region.

Jörgen Pettersson, Vice President of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Confer- ence and Rapporteur on Integrated Maritime Policy, began his report by pointing out that there were roughly 85 million people living by the Baltic Sea who depended on ships to trade and communicate. Therefore, when it came to formulating a core theme for a common future, shipping had always been a vital part of that. He noted that generally, there was more optimism with regard to shipping today than for many years before. Ship-owners had invested heavily and worked very hard to find sustainable solutions to meet new regulations and requirements. One example given by Mr Pet- 18 Session one

tersson was that of SECA regulations which had banned the use of high sulphur fuel starting in 2015. The result was less pollution, less sulphur and less particles, i.e. a healthier world. Also, the EU maritime integrated policy launched by the EU ten years earlier had grown to encompass a number of policies for the benefit of the Baltic Sea and beyond. From maritime spatial planning to the fight against illegal fishing, from ocean mapping to marine science, from habitat conservation to regional strategies, a number of initiatives had transformed the way Europe was collectively going about its maritime business. The next step, a new strategy on plastics and the circular economy that would act against marine litter, was another good example mentioned by the speaker, showing how marine issues were at present mainstreamed into EU policy-making. All that had been discussed in depth at the European Maritime Day in Poole attended by the Rapporteur. Furthermore, Mr Petters- son referred to the reduction of carbon dioxide. The Internation- al Chamber of Shipping (ICS) had proposed to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) three concrete recommendations:

1) to maintain international shipping’s annual total CO2 emissions

below 2008 levels; 2) to reduce CO2 emissions per ton/km by at least 50 % by 2050, as an average across international shipping, compared to 2008, and 3) to reduce international shipping’s total

annual CO2 emissions by an agreed percentage by 2050, compared

to 2008, as a point on a continuing trajectory of CO2 emissions reduction. All the proposals had been bold and the message had

been clear – the amount of CO2 had to decrease. The reasons behind such proposals stemmed from the belief that in order to do good business, the companies needed to act environmentally. The next step would be to form laws and regulations which would ensure that demands be realised. The speaker remarked that on global, European and national levels, it was vital to have a competitive and stable framework, which would also support green shipping and innovations. No additional or tighter regulations on European/national levels should be established, as all regulations should be in the IMO. Strong and competitive shipping would result in benefits for the whole maritime cluster.

In addition, the speaker mentioned the modal shift as one of the future goals for freight transportation. He shared his view that it was environmentally wiser to transport goods on sea rather than roads but whether that modal shift had already happened or would happen was still too early to say. The speaker emphasised that in the Baltic Sea Region, there was a huge potential for the development of the maritime economy. Growth rates were above average growth in the EU; offshore wind energy had increased, as well as cruise tourism and marine agriculture. Those three sectors, along Session one 19

with short-sea shipping, shipbuilding and blue technologies, were among the most promising sectors of the Baltic Sea maritime economy. Finally, Mr Pettersson extended his thanks to Messrs Jochen Schulte, Georg Strätker, Bodo Bahr and Ms Carmen Hohlfeld for their support in completing the report.

Sonja Mandt, Member of the Norwe- gian Parliament and BSPC Rappor- teur on Cultural Affairs, presented her Report on Cultural Heritage 2017, expressing the view that cultural heritage was a valuable asset which had contributed to economic development, built social cohesion and mobilized communities around its care and management. To establish a clear picture of the protection system throughout the entire Baltic Sea area, an exchange of information was needed with regard to existing protection systems, legal and register-building princi- ples, planning documents and the methods of work among the Baltic countries. Ms Mandt stated that the analysis on heritage protection could be found in the Report, and the conclusion was that policies and procedures differed profoundly from one country to the other, implying different attitudes towards the problem and the use of different methods. Furthermore, the speaker underlined an important issue mentioned in the Report referring to the protection of cultural landscapes, as defined by the World Heritage Committee, “cultural properties that represent the combined works of nature and of man.” She pointed out that like historic buildings and districts, they revealed aspects of the Baltic Sea countries’ origins and development through their form, features, and the ways they were used. Cultural landscapes also revealed much about the evolving relationship with the natural world. There was always a risk that development could transform landscapes and public spaces into more or less uniform areas, with more or less identical shopping centres, office blocks, restaurants and largescale multiplex cinemas and theatres. Urban development in historic cities had too often been a threat to existing culture-historic values. The Rapporteur also shared her remarks on Viking heritage as a potential for the development of cultural tourism in the BSR and a topic of common interest for all the BSPC participating countries. She noted that while many of the Viking settlements in Northern Europe had already been established as heritage sites, less was known about the Viking Route heritage sites located in the eastern part of the Baltics and Russia. Ms Mandt reported that the Northern Dimension 20 Session one

Partnership on Culture (NDPC) had identified Viking heritage as a topic of common interest and had decided to pursue a study on the Viking heritage sites in Russia. The main objectives of the NDPC project had been to map and give an account of the Viking Route heritage sites located there. The NDPC assignment had been concluded in November 2011, and the associated report could serve as the base for a short guidebook on Viking history in the eastern part of the Baltic Sea area. The idea behind this guidebook was to open up to the public the deep interactions between the Scandinavian countries and the states on the eastern side of the Baltic Sea in the Viking Age, pointing out the common history of Baltic Sea Region.

In her closing remarks, Ms Mandt advocated for further research on cultural heritage protection in the BSR and for continuing the BSPC Rapporteur on Cultural Heritage’s work. Session one 21

Franz Thönnes,Member of the Bun- destag and Rapporteur on Labour, So- cial Welfare and the Baltic Sea Labour Forum, noted the history of the Baltic Sea Labour Forum which began in 2007 with the decision of the BSPC Standing Committee to set up – for a two-year period – a working group dealing with labour markets and social welfare. Then the BSPC had decided to launch the project Baltic Sea Labour Network aiming at organizing a dialogue between labour and employ- ers’ organisations. With strong support from the German employer association Nordmetall and the DGB Nord trade union confedera- tion along with the European Union, the forum achieved a grant of 22 Session one

1.8m euros and subsequently became an EU flagship project as part of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, working for two years on topics regarding the labour market, border commuters as well as youth employment and training. At present, administrative work had been transferred to the CBSS Secretariat, and the BSLF had grown to 30 member organisations – 17 trade unions, 11 employer associations, two international organisations and several organisations with observer status. Mr Thönnes emphasised that it was a unique coali- tion within Europe. Furthermore, the speaker listed the three biggest successes of the Working Group. Firstly, the BSLF had been invited to take part in the Meeting of Labour Ministers of the CBSS countries which had been held in Berlin on 15 June 2017. Secondly, the Ministers had approved all BSLF recommendations on labour and employment in their declaration and also highlighted the significance of the BSLF. The recommendations had been accepted in the following individual sectors: promotion of closer cooperation in labour and employment to improve the competitiveness of the Baltic Sea region, labour mobility, youth employment, labour market research and development prognosis, demographic challenges and the integration of those born abroad. And finally, the CBSS intended to establish an Expert Group on Labour and Employment in the framework of the CBSS Secretariat linked to the BSLF as well as to the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference. The final decision would be taken at the next CSO CBSS meeting, led by the new Swedish CBSS presidency and Ambassador Hans Olsson as the Chairman. The first working group meeting should take place at the end of October or the start of November at the latest. Mr Thönnes stressed that such a development had been a profound success of the BSPC and the BSLF, supported by a perfect preparation carried out by the CBSS Secretariat staff whom the speaker thanked warmheartedly. Mr Thönnes pointed out that long-term work by the BSPC had yielded great results and could be a best practice example of how parliamentarians could play an important role in shaping policy through international cooperation.

He announced that, after eight years of having been a BSPC Rap- porteur for Labour and Social Welfare and the BSL, he had just delivered his last report as he would not stand for the next Bundestag elections. He concluded with heartfelt thanks to the BSPC and to all those who had worked in the BSLF all those years for their trust and support over that period and wished the best of success to Mr Pyry Niemi from the Swedish Riksdag – his successor as the Rappor- teur on Labour and Social Welfare.

Valentina Pivnenko expressed her special appreciation for the work of Mr Thönnes in the BSPC and wished him all the best for the future. Session one 23

Debate

The first speaker in the debate, Prof Kurt Bodewig, former federal minister for traffic and President of the Baltic Sea Forum, a network of persons and economies as well as political institutions – the city of Hamburg is also one of the members – noted that the BSF had enjoyed the ECOSOC Consultative status to the United Nations reporting to the ECOSOC Committee as well as on North-East European issues. Prof Bodewig shared the opinion that the Baltic Sea region with its 25 years of very strong cooperation was the most successful macroeconomic region of the European Union. CBSS, HELCOM, BSSSC, UBC and BDF – all those and many more organisations had contributed to that success. The speaker referred at this point to Ambassador Olson’s speech and to sustainability as one of the goals of the CBSS Swedish presidency mentioned by Ambassador Olson and agreed that sustainability in the process of transitioning the Baltic Sea region into a Blue Region was utterly important. Furthermore, the speaker mentioned two examples of cooperation in the field of sustainability. One of them was EMMA, the Interreg project aiming at tackling the challenges and opportunities focusing on inland- and river-sea shipping. Of particular interest here was increasing the modal share of inland- and river-sea shipping to, from and between Baltic Sea Region countries. The project led by Port of Hamburg Marketing Regional Assoc. and executed together with twenty project partners from Poland, Lithu- ania, Finland, Sweden and Germany should result in a higher flow of transport from roads to the rivers. In turn, the TENTacle project mentioned by Prof Bodewig, by working across borders and sectors, would improve the stakeholder capacity to reap benefits of the core network corridors’ implementation for the prosperity, sustainable growth and territorial cohesion in the BSR. Both projects proved that due to intense cooperation, the region would indeed become a Blue Region in the future. However, concluded the speaker, to achieve that goal, more political action was required.

The next speaker,Jan Bobek, President of the Sejmik of Warm- ia-Masuria and current President of the Southern Baltic Sea Parlia- mentary Forum, praised the BSPC for enhancing a common Baltic identity and expressed his full support for activities holding a dialogue between parliamentarians, governments and civil society in the BSR. He found it very optimistic that so many networks had worked for developments in the BSR. One of them was the South- ern Baltic Sea Parliamentary Forum gathering seven parliaments of the southern Baltic. The speaker informed his audience that the Forum regularly dealt with subjects that specifically affected the region and frequently addressed demands about certain issues of eco- 24 Session one

nomic and structural politics as well as the topics of energy supply, scientific research, tourism and culture to the relevant actors in the southern Baltic region. He invited the BSPC representatives and the hosts of the 26th BSPC to the 16th Southern Baltic Sea Parliamenta- ry Forum which would discuss the topic of smart specialisations for the South Baltic Reigns in Olsztyn, the capital of Warmia- Masuria, in May 2018. Session one 25

Sonja Steffen, representing the Bundestag, expressed her support for establishing the new BSPC working group on migration and integration. She remarked that the topic should be tackled from a cross-border region perspective. This was because she came from a Mecklenburg-Vorpommern constituency situated directly on the border with Poland and believed that only joint efforts on both sides of the border would bring good results in creating a good life for people who had migrated and wanted to build new lives in that part of the Baltic Sea region. 26 Session one

Veera Ruoho, the chair of the Finish delegation to the BSPC, noted that Finland had launched its national strategy for the Baltic Sea region which set out a vison for Finland’s objectives to develop the Baltic Sea region. According to that vision, a clean Baltic Sea and viable marine biodiversity would be secured, constituting a sustainably utilised resource. The strategy also outlined Finland’s national key actions stemming from these priorities, in order to promote the Baltic Sea’s good environmental status, safety and security and sustainable development, improve the Baltic Sea Region’s competitiveness and ensure Finland’s prosperity. Moreover, the strategy also presented changes and challenges in the region as well as the opportunities they could provide.

In her second appearance at that session, Ms Ruoho announced the opening of the “Finland 100th Anniversary Exhibition” in the City Hall building. In her introductory address on that occasion, she emphasised that the history of Finland’s independence was 100 years old, but its history of democracy had begun much earlier. When the founders of Finland signed the declaration of independence on 6 December 1917, the first parliament also featuring female deputies had already been elected. Ms Ruoho underlined that the Finnish success in building the nation was possible because the nation had Session one 27

been built by everyone together, involving all parts of society and international cooperation. Women had played an important role in building a democratic, open and stable society. The speaker admitted that the road to building such a society had not been without difficulties or suffering. In the course of Finnish history, the nation had gone through a devastating civil war, occupation of its territory as well as several national and international crises, but the Finns had never given up their values, goals or democracy. She continued by saying that their society was focused on human potential, respecting one another and protecting the environment. Furthermore, success in technology, innovation and education would not have been possible without a common consensus on free and quality education for all, equal access to social and health care services and facilitating women’s access to the labour market. In her closing remarks, Ms Ruoho invited all those present to take part in the celebrations of the Centenary of Finland’s independence which would continue throughout the whole year 2017.

Session One was closed by the Chairman Jörgen Pettersson. 28 Session one Session two 29

SECOND SESSION

Democratic Participation and the Digital Age

The session was chaired byCarola Veit, President of the BSPC, in the form of a round table discussion. Ms Veit, in her introductory remarks, raised a number of questions regarding democratic participation. She pointed out that apparently people had been losing faith in the way the societies were arranged. Even though participation in the polls had been on the rise recently, and greater engagement by an active civil society could be perceived, the participation and engagement had shifted towards very local and very personal issues. Therefore, Ms Veit had come up with the following questions: “But what about political ideas for our nations, for our continent at large? Have we really lost faith? Do we no longer see the benefits of participating in the democratic process as much as we used to anymore? How to restore/rebuild trust through participation?” Answers to these questions were sought during the session, and the discussion began with key speeches by Prof Jobst Fiedler, the Professor of Public and Financial Management at the Hertie School of Governance, and by Mr Alexander Shishlov, the Human Rights Ombudsman of Saint Petersburg.

Prof Fiedler, in his address Democracy at a Cross-Road – Rebuilding Trust through Participation, outlined a wide range of problems contributing to the current crisis of trust and confidence in liberal democracy. Among them were rising inequalities and unequal opportunities. Growing segments of society had become estranged from the representatives and institutions governing them. These individuals increasingly feel that ordinary people have lost control of the politics shaping their lives. Another factor affecting confidence and trust, as mentioned by the speaker, was governance deficiencies, legal as well 30 Session two

as regulatory, i.e. a corroding rule of law, the exclusion of key constit- uencies, insufficient public sector performance, corruption and institutional voids in the party system. Last but not least, Prof Fiedler continued, the rise of new digital communication technologies had helped to mobilise voters against ‘those at the top’ and enabled new political populist entrepreneurs to fill the representational void.

In the next part of his speech, Prof Fiedler put forth a number of proposals that could make democracies more resilient. Firstly, the social inequalities and anxieties, the job losses and social alienation caused by immigration as well as a more pluralist and fragmented social fabric must be strongly addressed. More equitable policies and programmes to withstand the disruptions caused by the globalisation of competition should be implemented. Secondly, more participation through referenda, new forms of deliberative democracy, digital mobilisation and the increasing amount of political communication on the social media platforms could be a way to complement and revitalise representative democracy by extending people’s interest and involvement in political decisions.

Then Prof Fiedler referred to the advantages and downsides of referenda as additional opportunities for political participation. He acknowledged that on the one hand, specific issues put to popular vote certainly offered further occasions for political participation compared to periodic elections only. Combined with the increased use of digital communication and mobilisation, they improved the identification of citizens with politics and the acceptance of resulting political decisions. On the other hand, referenda on the whole did not contribute to solving the problem of inequality in political participation. Their participation numbers were usually lower and showed higher levels of social selectivity than general parliamentary elections. The speaker also mentioned recent approaches to deliberative democracy such as mini-publics of small, representatively selected groups which could function as an alternative, avoiding the populist pitfalls of referenda. According to Prof Fiedler, those approaches had the advantage of bringing forth a more reasoned common-good-oriented politics through deliberative procedures; however, such randomly selected deliberative mini-publics were hard to organise and mostly remained an elite enterprise that would work best with more egalitarian middleclass communities.

The last part of the speaker’s address was devoted to the influence of social media on democracy. He began this part by quoting the head- line of a recent article, ‘Are social media destroying democracy?’, and mentioned some alarming data: people who had long entertained populist ideas, but were never confident enough to voice them openly, Session two 31

now found themselves in a position to connect to like-minded others online and adopt new group identities; instead of creating a digitally mediated agora encouraging broad discussion, the internet had increased ideological segregation. Digital communication activities such as internet debate forums, online petitions, digital letter-writing campaigns and online-offline mobilisation had not contributed to increasing voter participation in general elections. Prof Fiedler concluded his speech by noting the following proposals for debate in the follow-up panel: social media, i.e. the giant internet companies own- ing them, should be regulated, and they should be treated as media organisations accountable for the information from which they profit.

Mr Alexander Shishlov, the Human Rights Ombudsman of Saint Peters- burg, expressed his appreciation for the fact that he could speak at the parliamentarian conference right when Hamburg and St Petersburg were cel- ebrating 60 years of partnership between both cities. This was also important to him because of his long experience as a member of both the regional and the national parliament. The Ombudsman of Human Rights, explained Mr Shishlov, had been an institution present in many countries of the Baltic Sea Region, with the first such office having been founded in Sweden 200 years ago. For Russia, the human rights institution was rather young – only 20 years old for the nation, functional in St Petersburg for the past 10 years. The speaker mentioned that he had held the position since 2012, and that he had been elected by the St Peters- burg Assembly for a second 5-year period. The Human Rights Ombudsman, he noted, was independent from the Federal Consti- tutional Law and not accountable to any state authorities and officials in exercising his mandate. The aim of the Ombudsman institution was to guarantee that the rights and freedoms of human beings were protected. Mr Shishlov underlined that in St Peters- burg, the legislation of the Ombudsman was a very good practical example for other regions in the Russian Federation, providing a good basis for the work of his Institute.

Referring to the topic of the debate, the Ombudsman confirmed that there was an increasing role played by information technologies in modern societies. Human beings must be aware of their interests, as far as the rights of information were concerned. In order to pro- 32 Session two

tect his or her own rights, an individual must be primarily well-informed about these. Mr Shishlov noted that this applied both to the information about rights guaranteed by the constitution but also to the information about other rights and normative acts; a citizen must be able to obtain all legal information and have easy and free access to this information. The speaker pointed out that in Russia, there was a high level of guaranteed access to all draft laws and already enacted laws. Exercising that right was the task of Ombuds- men. Another important aspect of that work was the access to information about the work of the election committee. For Mr Shishlov, information published on the internet was the prerequisite for carrying out democratic elections; therefore, he had to make sure that the human rights of taking part in democratic elections were protected. Internet technologies had created completely new opportunities for the monitoring of elections. He gave the example of St Petersburg where an informal organisation called “Observers of St Petersburg” had been active during elections to ensure that there were no manipulations in the voting procedure.

Mr Shishlov confirmed that trust in the state institutions had declined – parliamentary elections in 2016 had seen a low turnout (32%) in St Petersburg. The reasons for that, according to the speaker, were: distrust and disappointment in the efficacy of democracy, a lack of real political opposition, a lack of real debate in TV programmes, an unstable electoral system and the use of administrative resources to influence the results of the elections. Session two 33

Nonetheless, Mr Shishlov praised the mechanism of democratic participation in St Petersburg, As an example, he noted a social media initiative shaping public spaces in St Petersburg, known as the ‘Let’s protect Isaac’s Cathedral’ initiative. On the other hand, he acknowledged the abusive impact of information technologies – hacker attacks, alienation and distrust in the state. The reason for that might stem from the so-called Realpolitik applied not only on the national but also the international level.

In conclusion, the speaker strongly underlined positive aspects of information technologies. IT could be applied to hasten the communication between civil society initiatives, to enable the dialogue between the state and the society and to ensure democratic participation.

After two key note speeches, Ms Veit invited the other experts to the round table discussion. Thus, the speakers were: MrVeiko Spolītis, Member of the Latvian Parliament, Ms Valentina Pivnenko, Mem- ber of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, Mr Espen Krogh, Nordic Council Youth President, as well as the previously mentioned Mr Alexander Shishlov, Human Rights Ombudsman for Saint Petersburg, and Prof Jobst Fiedler, Hertie School of Govern- ance, Berlin.

Ms Carola Veit opened the discussion by asking the panellists for their opinion on the reasons for the decline in people’s trust in the democratic processes. 34 Session two

Mr Espen Krogh admitted that Europe had faced a lot of economic problems and instability culminating in the Brexit decision and described those as the real causes of declining trust, rather than the impact of the social media and digital technology. Fortunately, some progress had been observed - in many countries, there was low unemployment and significant growth. Mr Krogh noted that stable economic systems as well as stable democratic systems would help combat populism even though social media caused polarisation in societies. He added that when young people felt safe, populism would find no hold among them. His advice was to strengthen the existing system instead of combating populism and fake news; i.e. a return to the basic democratic values, showing more transparency in politics and applying suitable solutions to complex questions rather than implementing restrictions.

Ms Valentina Pivnenko emphasised that election turnout could not be treated as a decisive indicator of trust in politicians; furthermore, comparisons between regions could be misleading. In Karelia, the region she represents, the turnout had been lower than in other regions of the Russian Federation but this had not indicated any distrust of voters towards politicians. For Ms Pivnenko, this rather meant that the people were interested in what a particular politician or candidate for political office had actually done for the population. Ms Pivnenko gave the example of several initiatives carried out with the use of digital technologies: in cities and neighbouring areas, people used digital technologies to shape their surroundings by taking decisions, for example on what they would like to see built first. The discussions prior to the decision making had been organised both online and in public meeting places. The panellist added that it was the federal government which had opened a specified financial line to improve the places the citizens live in. Thanks to that and on the basis of local initiatives and with the use of internet resources, support could be obtained for municipal theatres and other public institutions. With regard to environmental issues, many school classes and large parts of the elderly population had been active in improving the environmental safety in their areas. Ms Pivnenko emphasized that their knowledge and will to improve their environment had been impressive. She admitted that these had been individual steps, but they showed that people were interested in their surroundings and a standard of living, and they were making demands to the politicians forcing them to carry out actions necessary to keeping the environment clean and healthy. Ms Piv- nenko agreed with Mr Shishlov that the access to legal resources is of utmost importance. This is the foundation for social initiatives. Not all of them were successful in the Russian Federation, though, because of strict legislative procedures. However, great progress had Session two 35

been accomplished, and all Duma meetings in Russia were available to the public so the people could see how the legislative assembly worked. Closing her input, Ms Pivnenko underlined that the turnout in elections was, to a certain extent, an indicator for how active or inactive the citizens were but it was disputable to her to what extent that indicated the people’s disappointment. For that view, the population’s activity should be taken into account. As to the referendum issue, the speaker recommended caution when organizing those, offering the example of a referendum concerning oil production facilities to be built in her region. The referendum had been lost, most likely due to insufficient dialog with the people, insufficient demonstration of how the environment would be protected, a poor assessment of all pros and cons of the investment.

Prof Fiedler agreed that a referendum or a so-called deliberative democracy did not necessarily increase the participation in elections. This might be due to most people only being interested in certain issues and not in general questions. People, he noted, engaged in family, work, without any spare time to follow political debates. Therefore, more and more people were engaged in those areas with direct influence on their everyday life. To them, some questions couldn’t have been solved by politicians. Prof Fiedler remarked that a deliberative democracy had been very healthy for local issues but as far as the national level was concerned, it was difficult to apply and easy to be misused.

Carola Veit turned to Mr Shishlov with the question of whether parliamentarians should accept low participation numbers in elections; being the representatives of the country’s population, their mandate would be weakened when only a comparatively small part of the population had voted for them.

Mr Shishlov agreed with previous speakers that only accounting for the election participation numbers did not provide much information about the people’s political activity. Nor did a high turnout necessarily indicate tremendous trust in the election system as some regions in Russia, such as the Caucasian republics, had turnouts as high as 98%, with everyone voting for a single candidate. A closer view of tendencies was a better indicator - the turnout continuing to shrink should be a cause for reflection by politicians. He continued by saying that people did not attend elections for a variety of reasons. For instance, they might be too involved in their everyday life and might not want to answer detailed political questions. To make responsible decisions during elections, the people should have information and use relevant channels. In the case of Russia, the main source of information still remained television. Therefore, it 36 Session two

was very important to provide the opportunity to watch political arguments, different points of view, and real debates on political issues. According to Mr Shishlov, the process of declining trust was not a new phenomenon and had gone on for many decades. To enhance people’s trust, a return to basic values, moral beliefs and high standards in politics was necessary.

Mr Veiko Spolītis began his statement by clarifying the topic of the debate. He pointed out that liberal democracy was the form of governance which ensured major liberties with open and transparent elections, free press and protecting minority rights. Only with those criteria in place could a debate be held on democratic rights, democratic participation and influence digital technology has on this participation. After his introductory remark, Mr Spolītis confirmed that legal measures undertaken by the Baltic States and recently by Germany aiming to bar hate speech were a step in the right direction. He reminded his listeners of efforts proving that, for at least 27 years, the international community had understood that the cyber area couldn’t be left completely free. He mentioned some of these efforts: the Budapest Declaration to fight against cyber-crime which had been signed by most of the Council of Europe countries plus Canada, Japan and the United States; establishing the Council of Europe’s Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism (MONEY- VAL); the work of the cyber defence unit in Estonia. The latter deals Session two 37

with creating a legal definition of cybercrime and cyber threats. Mr Spolītis considered establishing a common language for analysing the issue to be the most important task, and he appreciated the work that had been done by the EU, NATO and Baltic States in this process.

At this point, Carola Veit asked Espen Krogh if it was appropriate to view social media only as platforms and not regulate them like other information providers.

Espen Krogh agreed with the definition of democracy and remarked that such a definition extended to the freedom of expression which also had to envelop negative phenomena such as hate speech, intol- erant views etc. The panellist was in favour of combating those negative aspects through confrontation rather than removing or hiding them. As Twitter and Facebook were private business enterprises, people were using them to have their own views acknowledged, and this should not be limited. Other measures must be applied with regard to cyberattacks or disinformation campaigns. The best way for Mr Krogh to deal with social media influence was engaging people in dialog and confronting them with arguments and different points of views.

Mr Wladimir Bortko, Member of the Duma of the Russian Federa- tion, argued that sometimes giving labels to certain movements or 38 Session two

opinions was unjustified. He pointed out that the party he represented – the Communist Party of the Russian Federation – was often defined as populist, but it represented the views of 20 million people living in poverty. Therefore, his question to Mr Fiedler was how populism should be understood. Referring to previous parts of the debate, he supported the wide application of referenda because in his mind, the people should have the opportunity to express their views and decide on each issue. Finally, Mr Bortko expressed his wish to include more of the host country’s native language in the conference programme. The reason for that was his appreciation of the culture and language of Goethe, Schiller and Bach and his desire to preserve the unique national heritage of countries in the Baltic Sea Region.

Prof Jobst Fiedler answered that he would not call the basic mandate and the way the communist party works a populist approach. As there were a lot of social issues to be solved in Russia, it was good that there was a party representing the people’s needs and desires. Referring to the conference language, he emphasised that English served well as the lingua franca, enabling the participants to communicate mainly without translation.

Atis Lejnis, Member of the Parliament of Latvia, picked up on the referendum issue. He recalled the referendum on privatisation of the state energy company Latvenergo in 1990 and the referendum on Russian as the second language in 2012. In both cases, the turnout had been very high, and both proposals had been rejected. He further noted the case of Brexit which had been preceded by a great deal of discussion. Regarding Crimea, he pointed out that the referendum had been very much fast-tracked. Therefore, Mr Lejnis concluded, there were different kinds of referenda – some which were legitimate, some which were not.

Ms Valentina Pivnenko voiced her opposition to the previous speaker, stating that the referendum in Crimea had been announced to the people of Crimea, and the majority of the population had voted for realigning their home as a part of the Russian Federation. They had wanted to avoid the bloodshed that had happened in the Ukraine. Moreover, the Russian-speaking population had had to be protected and had to be given the opportunity to express their desire. Ms Pivnenko assured the panel that discussions had been carried out and that the referendum procedure had been properly applied; afterwards, the decision had been passed through parliament. This decision in fact, she noted, represented Crimea’s return to Russia as Crimea had historically always been Russian soil. The speaker stressed that Crimea being a part of the Russian Federation Session two 39

was the result of fulfilling all the requirements the Russian Federa- tion had set out for the people of Crimea in the referendum.

Mr Veiko Spolītis picked up on the emotional remark by Ms Piv- nenko and admitted that politicians should always look forward, trying to find solutions even in difficult situations. At the same time, they should follow the rule of law. He reminded the audience that during the referendum in Crimea in 2012, the Russian army had been present, in breach of the Helsinki Final Act, the Council of Europe Paris Declaration, the Budapest Referendum Act as well as both the Russian and Ukrainian constitution.

Mr Daniel Riazat, Member of the Swedish Parliament, acknowledged that racism and xenophobia had existed long before social media and long before populist parties were elected to parliaments. Even more dangerous was the fact that democratic parties had been embracing and normalizing the politics and ideology of the extreme part of the political spectrum. Simplifying the debates had contributed to that trend as well. Mr Riazat pointed out that, when talking about participation and representation, the parties should have crit- ically analysed how many representatives of minorities, women and LGBT persons were numbered among them. The speaker claimed that those issues should be taken into account when discussing racism, xenophobia and democratic participation.

Mr Veiko Spolītis in his final remark proposed that social media should be regulated similar to the EU regulation on Google, Micro- soft and Gazprom. He backed his demand by statistics: 84 % of Russian language posts in social media in Poland and the Baltic States regarding NATO were produced by robots; for the English language, the respective number was 45 %. Thus, it could be said that currently robots form public opinion; therefore, regulation would have to be imposed, Mr Spolītis concluded.

Prof Jobst Fiedler agreed that social media had amplified certain opinions which had always been present in the societies. He admitted that artificial, hostile programmes enhancing and streamlining those tendencies posed a real danger.

Ms Carola Veit thanked all the panellists and declared that the discussion would be continued in the framework of the new BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration and during other discussions in the BSPC. 40 Session three Session three 41

Third Session

Science and Research

The session, chaired by Prof Jānis Vucāns, MP of Latvia, Vice-Pres- ident of the BSPC and Vice-President of the Baltic Assembly, and co-chaired by Prof Aadu Must, MP of Estonia, President of the Baltic Assembly, was an attempt to discuss the links between science, research and political decision making processes and to show the importance of evidence-based research and the societal role of science. Prof Jānis Vucāns in his introductory remark emphasized that science had become a critical tool to defend democracy and it had an important role to reverse the worrying trend towards a fact- free, post-truth world. Therefore, politicians needed support from scientists to take decisions based on sound knowledge and research.

Ms Monika Stankiewicz, HELCOM Executive Secretary, presented the main findings of the ‘State of the Baltic Sea’ Report 2017 – to be updated in 2018 – monitoring the implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan. This holistic assessment, covering and linking together within one conceptual framework all important ecosystem components and pressures from human activities as well as social and economic analysis, was based on over 30 core indicators. Various ecosystem components – pelagic and benthic habitats, fish, seals, birds which have been subject- ed to various pressures, such as eutrophication, hazardous substances, alien species, extraction of fish through commercial fishing, marine litter, underwater sound and seabed disturbance – were analysed. Re- grettably, the graph shown by Ms Stankiewicz mainly indicated a poor state of the Baltic Sea. For instance, the Baltic Sea was still highly affected by eutrophication, even though phosphorous and nitrogen inputs – causing eutrophication – were reduced significantly, by 19% for P and by 13% for N, between the years 1997–2003 and 2012–2014. There were some positive signs regarding the status, though, such as a decrease in nutrient concentrations and improved water clarity in parts of the Baltic Sea. That would indicate that several measures to improve the status of the Baltic Sea were operating, but might not 42 Session three

be comprehensive enough or have not been in place long enough to have an effect. Furthermore, she noted that the Baltic Sea Action Plan had not yet been fully implemented. About 60% of the agreed joint regional actions in the Plan had been carried out. Regarding actions to be implemented on a national level, the corresponding number was between 30 and 65%, depending on the country. If all agreed actions of the Baltic Sea Action Plan were to be taken, this would bring about increased human welfare and economic benefits to citizens in the coastal countries, as evidenced in the State of the Baltic Sea report. Ms Stankiewicz emphasized that total losses due to eutrophication were estimated at 3.8–4.4 billion euros annually for the Baltic Sea region. In other words, citizens’ welfare would increase by this much each year if a good eutrophication status was achieved. Similarly, recreation values would increase by 1–2 billion euros each year if the state of the environment were good. The speaker noted that HELCOM had been considering the results of the assessment in order to plan further steps. The Ministerial Meeting under the EU Chairmanship in HELCOM in March next year would be an opportunity to strengthen existing com- mitments and determine new important areas of action. HELCOM work was contributing to the Agenda 2030, she went on, but there had been some gaps identified by the Contracting Parties such as related to climate change and enhanced partnerships with sectorial bodies.

Ms Stankiewicz announced that HELCOM was about to launch a regional consultation on the “State of the Baltic Sea” and ensured that the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference would be approached with the respective invitation and HELCOM would like to hear the BSPC views in order to improve the report. She expressed the hope that the State of the Baltic Sea report could be used as widely as possible, and that the BSPC politicians could also find it useful for their work.

Ambassador Maira Mora, Director General of the Permanent Interna- tional Secretariat of the Council of the Baltic Sea States, recalled that dialogue on science and research cooperation in the CBSS had been started during the Latvian CBSS Presidency in 2007-2008 and reconfirmed in the Vilnius Declaration “A Vision for the Baltic Sea Region by 2020” adopted in 2010. Thanks to the dedication of the CBSS Polish Chairmanship in 2015-2016, the first CBSS Sci- ence Ministerial Meeting took place last summer in Kraków. It put Session three 43

into action the two working groups via the Baltic Science Network and Baltic TRAM (Transnational Research Access in the Macrore- gion), both funded by the Interreg Baltic Sea Region Programme. During the Icelandic Presidency, the Baltic Science Network ex- plored the existing researcher mobility patterns of the macro-region in order to reflect in depth what transnationally coordinated steps should be taken in order to enhance the research potential. The current CBSS Swedish Chairmanship, in turn, would benefit from the first results delivered by the Baltic TRAM partnership. Namely, she specified, the Baltic TRAM had processed the first business enqui- ries during the open call offering free access to the state-of-the-art analytical research facilities across the Baltic Sea Region.

Ms Mora underlined the fact that the future success of the on-going transnationally coordinated joint work pursued by the executive branches across the macro-region was also dependent on a continuous support of the legislative bodies of the Baltic Sea Region countries. Therefore, she encouraged the BSPC to support the work of the Baltic Science Network in delivering transnational added-value through the jointly defined thematic focus areas. The results of the project would be translated practically in the Baltic Science Network’s national action plans drafted and implemented in each participating country. In order to ensure that appropriate resources were allocated for the implementation of these action plans in each country, the political support was vital.

In closing, the speaker hoped for further advancement of the transnational debate through the BSPC’s engagement in the upcoming CBSS Baltic Sea Science Days which would take place in Turku in January 2018 and subsequently in Riga in 2019. The parliamentarian perspective on the research and cooperation would serve as an important legislative component of transnational discussion in that field.

Prof Ulrich Bathmann from the Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Re- search in his speech mentioned a number of factors affecting the environment of the Baltic Sea and expressed his regret over the fact that a year ago most of those factors had seemed obvious to a majority of citizens while these days, the long-established facts must be repeated and explained to the public again. The first 44 Session three

one referred to carbon dioxide (CO2). Prof Bathmann confirmed that the CO2 in the atmosphere was increasing. Accordingly, oceans would become more acidic as the pH of the oceans decreased due to the uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere. The second fact was that the temperature of the Earth was rising and would continue to do so. Aside from many other aspects, this meant that sea water would expand and the sea level would rise. And the people around the Baltic Sea, i.e. 9 nations, 85 million inhabitants, 1/10 the area of Europe, would have to face that situation. Next, Prof Bathmann described a number of areas in which human activity was exerting a particularly negative impact on the ecosystem. Tourism, due to global change, had grown significantly. Arriving with the tourists were chemical substances such as 2-phenylbenzimidazole-5-sul- fonic acid as UV filter and other organo-chemicals from cosmetic, pharmaceutical and “health care” products of unknown chemical structure and environmental effects. He noted that these substances were released into the water when people were bathing in the Baltic Sea and could be found in the organisms inhabiting the Baltic. That factor should be considered when ecosystems are assessed within the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Baltic Sea Action Plan.

Then, Prof Bathmann referred to plastic the influence of which on the environment had become very well known to the general public for some years. Macroplastic waste was easy to detect, exactly opposite to microplastic which was much more harmful for the environment. He stated that these were granulates used in cosmetics, in toothpastes, which were released when washing fleece. The amount of microplastic was unknown because it was very difficult to isolate microplastic from natural products. According to Prof Bathmann, those questions should also be taken into account by the Baltic Sea Action Plan. Increasing ship traffic seemed to be a constantly growing threat to the Baltic Sea. Firstly, with more traffic, the chance of an accident and oil pollution was growing. Secondly, the ships were covered with antifouling paint used to protect the ship’s hull from subsistence on living organisms but which was effecting genetic changes in the organisms. Thirdly, underwater noise was increasing because of the growing number of commercial and tourist boats.

Another factor noted by and mentioned by the speaker was related to the changing pattern of water exchange between the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, i.e. anoxic areas of the Baltic were growing larger while oxic periods were getting shorter. This phenomenon was changing the environment from oxic conditioned to anoxic conditioned unfavourable for higher organisms. Session three 45

Another threat was the WWII ammunition on the bottom of the sea. Corroding containers were releasing, among others, red phosphorus – a highly harmful substance for people and animals. Scien- tists, the professor mentioned, had invented robots to retrieve those dangerous objects from the sea floor.

Due to EU regulation, commercial fishing had been reduced, resulting in a gradual growth of cod stock.

Prof Bathmann concluded his presentation by stressing that the situation of the Baltic Sea was far from satisfactory, therefore more political actions were needed. He praised HLELCOM for its great work but recommended implementing additional measures and programmes of monitoring the state of the Baltic Sea in order to provide answers to many questions, some of which were presented in his speech.

Mr Jari Haapala from the Finnish Meteorological Institute in his presentation “Utility of Regional Climate Models for the Baltic Sea Region” provided an overview of a number of questions that the climatologists in the Baltic Sea Region seek to answer. The speaker pointed out that climate change, as well as other anthropogen- ic and natural changes in the atmosphere, on land and in the sea, was exerting different pressures on the natural and human-shaped environment of the region. These pressures included regional warming, declining sea ice cover, sea level rise, deoxygenation, acidification, changing precipitation and runoff patterns as well as the changing frequency of high impact events like storm surges, floods, drought and heat periods. The characterisation of these pressures, along with a synthesis of the state of scientific knowledge about their causes and impacts, he noted, had been a core goal of scientists operating within the networking organisation – Baltic Earth. Baltic Earth was continuing the research work of BALTEX which had ended in June 2013, and it represented a new, more holistic perspective on the Baltic Sea region, encompassing processes in the atmosphere, on land and in the sea, as well as processes evoked by and feeding back on human activity. Mr Haapala stated that the observed environmental changes were often caused by a mixture of factors, among them climate change and its associated impacts, eutrophication, pollution, fisheries, land cover change and others. Each of these 46 Session three

factors had a scientific and a societal dimension, which were often interdependent, making it difficult to identify a single or even dom- inant factor responsible for the change. The speaker gave examples of possible linkages between the global scale change and local characteristics. For instance, the global to North-Atlantic/Eurasian scale was controlled by the global climate system with very strong feedback between the scales; Baltic Sea scale climate variability was very much controlled by the atmospheric circulation and some feedback to large scale could be detected; at the Basin scale, atmospheric forcing was modified by local characteristics – the shape of the basin, interaction between the sub basins, river runoff etc. And last but not least, the response of the ecosystem depended very much on the basin scale characteristics, and even smaller sub-basin scale changes could be important. The speaker acknowledged that downscaling from the global to the basin scale had been actively studied during the last 10+ years, but comparably little was known about the impact of climate change on a local scale. The results of those studies were available in the Baltic Earth publication Second Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin, Springer Regional Climate Studies, May 2015.

Prof Robert Feidenhans’l, Manag- ing Director of European XFEL, explained that European XFEL was the unique research facility for the largest and most powerful X-ray laser in the world to be used by researchers from Europe and across the world. The X-ray flashes were produced in underground tunnels, allowing scientists to map the atomic details of viruses, film chemical reactions and study the processes in the interior of planets. The facility was officially in- augurated 2 days before the BSPC conference at an international event with the presence of Prof Dr Johanna Wanka, German Min- ister for Education and Research, and other prominent guests from across Europe. The annual operational budget of the facility was 117,000,000 €, as the host country, Germany (federal, Hamburg, and Schleswig-Holstein) covered 58% of the construction costs, Russia took over 27% and the other international partners between 1% and 3% of the construction costs each. The project was the result of the cooperation of 11 countries, many of them countries of the Baltic Sea area. The workforce counted more than 300 people. About 240 DESY employees operated the accelerator for Europe- an XFEL, half of the personnel is German, and the second largest Session three 47

nationality is Russian, followed by the Baltic States and Poland. The European XFEL was constructed and now operated by the Eu- ropean XFEL GmbH, a non-profit Company of Limited Liability under German law, founded in 2009. The speaker noted that the 3.4-kilometre-long facility ran from the DESY campus in Hamburg to the town of Schenefeld in Schleswig-Holstein where teams of scientists from all over the world would carry out experiments using the unique X-ray flashes produced in underground tunnels. Prof Feidenhans’l explained that to generate the X-ray flashes, bunches of electrons were first accelerated to high energies and then directed through special arrangements of magnets (undulators). In the process, the particles emitted radiation that was increasingly amplified until an extremely short and intense X-ray flash was finally created. Next, the speaker mentioned possible uses of the technologically highly advanced facility instruments. He noted that the European XFEL produced extremely bright and ultrashort light pulses. With the help of specialized instruments, these X-rays enabled completely new insights into the atomic details and extremely fast processes of the nanoworld. Scientists would use these X-ray flashes to, for example, map the three-dimensional structures of biomolecules and other biological particles, and do so faster and with more detail than had ever been previously possible. Furthermore, single snapshots of particles produced with the X-ray laser could be seen together to create “molecular movies” to study the progress of biochemical and chemical reactions – the basis for the development of new materi- als and substances. There were six instruments in the underground 48 Session three

experiment hall of the European XFEL. The instruments were opti- mized for particular purposes. Each experiment required light with special properties, such that the instruments were permanently assigned to the different light sources (beamlines) of the European XFEL. Prof Feidenhans’l underlined that the facility’s foundation was the result of great cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region and the involvement of young people was needed to develop and deepen this cooperation in the future. The facility was intended to be the place where young people could meet and exchange knowledge. Therefore, he asked the audience to support the youth exchange that could take place in the European XFEL. The speaker concluded with the quotation of Niels Bohr who had said that science was the language everybody could speak and science was the field you could contribute to independent of your gender, nationality and race. He added that collaboration in the Baltic Sea was proof of the accuracy of the Nobel Prize winner’s words. Session three 49

Debate

Ms Suzanne Svennsson, Swedish Member of Parliament, praised HELCOM for their report on nutrification and all speakers for addressing, in their excellent presentations, important issues of environmental threats in the Baltic Sea. She agreed that the issues discussed at that session were very complex and there were many problems to be tackled. However, she had chosen to speak about microplastics because of her involvement in the Committee for a Sustainable Nordic Region in the Nordic Council and a number of activities undertaken by that body. Ms Svennsson drew attention to the fact that there was no reason to use microplastics in cosmetics as they could be easily replaced by other substances. Another worrying fact was that 60% of microplastics came from rubber produced by the car industry. According to the speaker, not enough attention was paid to those facts. Therefore, the Nordic Council would pre- pare a report with a call for action to reduce the amount of microplastics in the Baltic Sea. Similar discussions had been pursued in the Nordic Council of Ministers, Sweden hosted a conference in the framework of the Sustainable Development Summit in New York in September. A huge amount of research had been conducted but 50 Session three

still much more could have been done. The speaker called for more political action and more research especially on microplastics and asked Prof Bathmann whether he could give examples of studies in that field.

Prof Bathmann acknowledged that intense research in microplastics and close cooperation with the chemical industry started 5-6 years ago but more research and more cooperation was needed. He pointed out that microplastic was very difficult to separate from the ocean and differentiate from other substances, therefore the esti- mate of the amount of microplastics coming from car tires or other sources was rather hard. He admitted that while there were many examples of European and German agencies promoting science by political activities which had improved the public awareness of the issue, but there was still a long way to go.

Mr Veiko Spolītis, Member of the Latvian Parliament, addressed a number of questions to the speakers. He asked about the reason for the decrease of nitrogen in the Baltic Sea, requesting further explanation of the oxygen inflow to the Baltic Sea and wonder- ing who should take the lead in imposing the high environmental standards of the Baltic Sea worldwide. Mr Spolītis emphasised the meaningful achievement of HELCOM to maintain cooperation with all countries around the Baltic Sea regardless of political trans- formations that had taken place in the region. He mentioned that building sewage treatment plants in St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad had improved the environmental status of the Baltic Sea yet at the same time the Mediterranean region was not as intensely focused on reducing pollution, therefore a real impact on global warming could be exercised only by common action.

Prof Bathmann agreed that establishing sewage treatment plants was significantly reducing nitrogen and underlined that establishing plants in St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad was a great example of the positive impact of politics on environment. He added that it was the way to be followed. With regard to global warming, he noted that some parts of the Baltic Sea, such as the Scandinavian Peninsula were more affected than others. Therefore, the scientists had studied downscaling from the global to the regional scale and estimated the effect that global warming had on particular regions of the Baltic Sea. Prof Bathmann agreed with Ms Svennsson and Mr Spolītis that action must be taken on global level; Future Earth – research for a global sustainability platform – could be an example of such action. On the other hand, he underlined that Europe and the Baltic Sea Region should set a good example for other parts of the world. Session three 51

Ms Stankiewicz in her response confirmed that the reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus was related largely to the improvement of waste water treatment in the cities around the Baltic Sea, and this was according to the regional HELCOM standards and Euro- pean directives. She added that European requirements were not sufficient for the BSR and HELCOM standards were much higher. Another important initiative worth mentioning was establishing nontoxic areas for shipping in the Baltic Sea. The initiative, which would result in a reduction of 7 tons of nitrogen annually, had been taken by the region as the regional response to the MARPOL con- vention by IMO. Ms Stankiewicz stressed the fact that because the Baltic Sea had a huge catchment area, it required tailor-made solutions. Therefore, even though it might take a long time to achieve the same rules at the European level, only Baltic actors could make a change. She added that fortunately Sustainable Goals were providing political momentum and the Baltic Sea Region should make an effort for the sake of present and future generations.

Prof Jānis Vucāns thanked all speakers and the audience for their participation and closed the session. 52 Opening of the Conference Session four 53

Fourth session

Sustainable Tourism

The chair of the session, Pyry Niemi, Member of the Swedish Par- liament, opened the session and underlined the importance of sustainable tourism for both the region and the BSPC, pointing out that in 2015, the BSPC had established the Working Group on Sustainable Tourism, chaired by Ms Sylvia Bretschneider, President of the Landtag Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and co-chaired by Ms Sara Kemetter, Member of the Parliament of the Åland Islands, and Mr Veiko Spolïtis, Member of the Parliament of Latvia. The Work- ing Group had held its final meeting on the Åland Islands, and their final report was presented during the current session. Mr Niemi noted that the year 2017, which had been declared the Interna- tional Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development by the United Nations, had provided a great opportunity to present the BSPC’s political recommendations regarding sustainable tourism and its contribution to sustainable development to the United Nations and other political actors.

The session was co-chaired byKarin Gaardsted, Member of the Danish Parliament.

The first speaker, Sara Kemetter, Member of the Parliament of the Åland Islands and the Vice Chair of the BSPC Working Group on Sus- tainable Tourism, presented said working group’s final report to the conference. The group had developed eleven recommendations to the governments of the Baltic Sea Region, all of which had been included in the 26th BSPC Conference Resolution. The speaker reported that a number of best practices in sustainable tourism had been collected as part of a methodical approach to support the transfer of advantages and opportunities of sustainability between the Baltic Sea Regions. The best practices in Island Tourism, Cruise Tourism, Cycling Tourism as well as the existence and implementation of sustainable approaches of a national strategy had been analysed. The working group had furthermore considered 54 Session four

existing connections between environmental protection, climate change and sustainable tourism. Intensive discussions on the different taxation models for tourism as well as tax incentives in the tourism sector had been conducted within the group. Ms Kemetter acknowledged that, because the governments of the states and regions had distributed their answers concerning the implementation of the 25th resolution early on, it had been possible for the first time to analyse the implementation of mid-term working group recommendations regarding sustainable tourism. The speaker noted that the topic of cooperation had played a key role in many answers of the governments. Especially the cross-border cooperation between different states and regions around the Baltic Sea in the field of tourism had proven to be a relevant issue for the governments. Such an approach was worth strengthening since cooperation in the field of tourism was a real challenge because the stakeholders often were competitors as well. But, according to the report, more cooperation was needed to strengthen the BSR position in the worldwide market. Therefore, it would be a significant step forward if the Bal- tic Sea States could elaborate a common programme based on a strategy within the framework of the CBSS to develop sustainable tourism in the Baltic Sea Region. Another key point of the governments’ reports was focused on the growing connection between tourism and sustainability. The BSPC role in this respect would be to call on the governments in the BSPC resolution to make sure that the consequences of tourism were sustainable and accordingly adopt models and methods to save and protect nature. Concluding her report, Ms Kemetter mentioned the constructive participation of the young people appointed by the BSPC members to participate in the discussions of the working group and proposed continuing that format.

The contribution made by the Bal- tic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum to the final recommendations on sustainable tourism was presented by two young delegates, Friederike Schick from Hamburg and Elias Lindström from the Åland Islands. Improving education standards and raising the job status in tourism, switching to eco- and agricultural tourism, strengthening sustainable transport and launching a Baltic Sea Summer Ticket, those were just a few of the many ideas discussed by young people with politicians during the meeting of the BSPC Working Group in Kiel. The ideas discussed and elaborated by 13 youth representatives and politi- Session four 55

cians during the meeting and reported by Friederike and Elias referred to five key areas: digitalisation, borders, travel, tourism and the environment. With regard to the first two topics, the speakers noted that nowadays, the use of digital tools was a crucial success factor for a tourist destination. Therefore, a web portal for the Baltic Sea Region had been proposed as a tool for promoting tourist destinations in the BSR. Such a web portal should provide easy access to the individual countries’ informational sites and booking for train/ ferry tickets in a single package. The digitalisation of museums was another idea thoroughly discussed. Digital equipment in physical museums would have to be implemented for an interactive experience, by using augmented and virtual reality. Furthermore, start- ups of different kinds, fostering innovations, required more support to enable them to maintain their high level of innovation. The young speakers underlined that the political stability in the region was also a striking argument in favour of Baltic tourist destinations. However, the great possibilities of visiting so many countries and diverse cultures around the Baltic Sea with short travel distances were limited by still existing borders. Therefore, in order to make the Baltic Sea a region attractive for a generation that travels more than any other before, open borders were essential. With regard to the next two areas – work in the travel sector and tourism -, the youth representatives indicated that jobs in the tourism industry were generally seen by young people as reserved for low-qualifica- tion workers with low wages. To attract people to work full time in the tourism industry, the status of those jobs needed to be improved. Another problem raised by the speakers was connected to tourist destinations around the Baltic Sea being almost exclusively summer destinations. So, for people to make a living wage off their work, some type of full-time jobs had to be offered. Therefore, some form of connecting summer and winter destinations might improve the situation for those employed in tourism. The example given by the speakers was working during the summer near the coast and at a ski resort for the rest of the year. Another idea of theirs was a Baltic Sea Summer Ticket, similar to the Europe ticket or railway summer ticket. With a single ticket, an individual should be able to travel across the Baltic Sea and visit different countries. This would, according to the speakers, make travelling in the Baltic Sea region more attractive. Another important issue they mentioned was eco- and culture tourism. Nature and sport tourism included activities such as hiking, cycling, swimming or even husky racing. Culture 56 Session four

tourism included not only museums but also rock, art or food fes- tivals. Those events usually attracted a wide range of people. All these activities should be accessible through a “Tour de Baltic”. In conclusion of their presentation, Friederike and Elias pointed out the danger that mass tourism might exploit the natural resources and ruin the culture and “soul” of the destination. There were many places in various countries around the world which had experienced that problem. This should be kept in mind while more discussion and greater involvement of young politicians was recommended. Therefore, the speakers called for a continued support from the BSPC for a youth forum in the coming years.

Further examples of the tourism industry’s efforts to promote sustainability came from Dr Monika Griefahn, Chief Sustainability Officer at AIDA Cruises, Alexander Sirchenko, Vice Director General for the Development of Internal Tourism, TUI Russia, and Michael Otremba, Managing Director of Hamburg Tourismus GmbH. Arild Molstad, tourist expert from Norway, provided food for thought about the challenges facing tourism in the changing world. Session four 57

Dr Monika Griefahn, Chief Sus- tainability Officer AIDA Cruises and former Minister of the Environment of Lower Saxony, noted that sustainability was crucial for cruise shipping because a cruise was inextricably linked with experiencing unspoiled nature. On such ships, tourists were discover- ing beautiful places of the region, and sustainability was the reason for people to want to go on holidays. Therefore, establishing the Baltic Sea Region as the eco region for all countries and all areas of economy, rather than just tourism, would be especially beneficial for tourism in the BSR. Ms Griefahn assured her audience that the company she represented was taking a pioneering role in many areas of sustainability – for example with regard to the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) for low-emission ship operations. She described LNG as the cleanest fossil fuel currently available and said that AIDAprima would be the first cruise ship in the world to be fuelled in an environmentally friendly way with LNG when docked. Under the “Green Cruising” concept, the next AIDA generation would be fuelled entirely with liquefied natural gas. AIDAnova, the first ship of this new series and built to the same design, would be put into service in autumn 2018, while its sister ship would follow in the spring of 2021. By using LNG, the emission of soot particulates and sulphur oxides would be reduced by up to 100%, emissions of nitrogen oxides by 80 percent and CO2 emissions by 20 percent. Apart from the dual fuel engine for LNG operation, AIDAprima also featured two land power connections and a three-phase system for the treatment of waste gas, reducing soot particulates, nitrous oxide and sulphur oxide emissions by 90 to 99 percent. Furthermore, since May 2015, as part of a pilot project, while another ship (AIDAsol) was docked at the HafenCity Hamburg, it had been fuelled via the LNG hybrid barge with low-emission power from liquefied natural gas. The speaker stated that the company was participating in research projects on using renewable energy sources and admitted that the solutions currently in use were only a bridge technology until the next generation of shore power connections, which would be fully renewable, came on line. With regard to waste water treatment, Ms Griefahn reported that AIDA Cruises strictly fulfilled the high international environmental standards for the treatment and disposal of sewage water in the maritime industry, to some degree even exceeding those. For example, onboard the ships brought into service since 2007, waste water was processed in biological membrane purification plants up to almost drinking water quality. With these system, it was possible to reach a degree of water purity which was not achieved by many treatment 58 Session four

and cleaning plants on land. Apart from environmental protection, the sustainability strategy of the company also embraced a commitment to their employees and society. The potential of nine thousand employees from over 40 countries was being promoted with extensive training and continuing education options. All those efforts had been rewarded in 2015 when the company was named a “Top Employer”. The speaker also mentioned the challenges closely linked to environmental regulations, such as the EU Water Framework Directive, the EU Sulphur Directive and the Helcom Action Plan. The regulations were interpreted differently in various countries, thus causing many problems for a company operating worldwide. She gave an example of a regulation on LNG infrastructure for ship fuelling which required legislation for a chemical plant, as in the case of Hamburg harbour, while other ports merely needed a fuelling ship regulation. Therefore, Ms Griefahn underlined the necessity of close cooperation among the stakeholders around the Baltic Sea in order to ensure high and common standards in the area of sustainable tourism.

Alexander Sirchenko, Vice Director General for the Development of Inter- nal Tourism, TUI Russia, presented his company as one of the largest tourist operators in the Russian Federation, both for international and domestic tourism. The company had created a number of links between state institutions and business units in order to secure investments in tourism and ensure the economic prerequisite for tourism in Russia. One of the key areas of interest for the company had been the Baltic Sea Region with its rich natural and cultural legacy as well as its great potential for developments in tourism. The speaker reminded the audience that St. Petersburg has always been the Russian window to Europe, wherefore he called for simplifying visa regulations in the region. This would make it much easier to get involved in cross-border projects and contribute to the development of tourism in the region. He pointed out that since 2003, the Russian Federation has introduced a number of laws to ease the visa regime especially as far as cruise ship tourists were concerned. For instance, such tourists could stay in Russia without a visa for 72 hours, while in Vladivostok’s check point, the passengers of ferries could receive electronic visa to enter the Russian Federation. Moreover, in Kalinin- grad and St. Petersburg, ferry connections to Helsinki, Stockholm and Tallinn had been installed. Therefore, a relaxation of visa regulations Session four 59

was essential for the tourism industry. The speaker referred to another large challenge - the threat of terrorism. He drew attention to the fact that terrorist attacks posed a threat to tourism as a whole. Therefore, close cooperation to combat terrorism and extremism and to mitigate the impact of such attacks was of utmost importance. Because of that reason, regional partnerships in the area of tourism and other areas should be intensified. With regard to the marketing of the Baltic, Mr Sirchenko expressed his hope for a common logo of the Baltic Sea Re- gion, a common brand and a unified marketing strategy of the BSR as well as comprehensive touristic offers in the area of cultural, landscape and nature tourism. This would contribute to ensuring that tourism was sustainably developed in the whole region. The speaker stated that in Russia, the tourism industry was prioritised by the state as an important area of the Russian economy, and thus, many initiatives had been undertaken to enhance tourist flow while at the same time maintaining all safety procedures. For instance, a number of agreements between the Russian Federation and China would make the organised flow of tourists better distinguishable from that of migrants – border controls would be tailored to particular groups of visitors. A number of laws had been put in place, aimed at creating favourable conditions for tourism, and many programs had been launched to support tourism development. At that point, the speaker mentioned the Federal Programme 2013-2020 which had been tailored to develop tourism as the key component of the infrastructure development programme for the Russian Federation. The range of tourist services had expand- ed, enhanced and contributed to Russia becoming a more and more popular tourist destination on the world market. Therefore, for Mr Sirchenko, continuing close cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region was essential to maintain high quality and sustainable tourism in the region with the BSPC as a great platform for dialogue between parliaments, governments and the civil society of the BSR.

Arild Molstad, a Norwegian writer, tourism expert and conservationist, confronted his listeners with funda- mental questions regarding the future of sustainable tourism in a world in which approximately 1.6 billion people were traveling abroad for touristic reasons every year, in which social media was driving the travel industry and changing the demand structure. He began his speech by admitting that tourism was a double-edged sword – it could add value to or destroy destinations’ culture capital 60 Session four

and natural resources. He compared tourism to a virtual force of nature, much like water: there was either too much or too little of it. These days, as many as 1.3 billion travellers were touring the world, a number that had to be multiplied by 3 to include domestic trips. Accordingly, the word “over-tourism” had recently entered the English language, describing the “asymmetric” power distribution when unprepared destinations were confronted by mass tourism. He added that simply counting visitors as a measure of success was clearly not the way of the future. The UN had declared 2017 the Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development – right when tourism was getting out of control, driven by accelerated changes in the following: population growth, an expanding middle class’s dis- cretionary spending power, the emergence of low cost airlines and affordable cruises, the use of the internet and social media. Its current growth and magnitude was making tourism difficult to manage. Mr Molstad described the situation as “everybody is connected but nobody is in charge” and explained that the human craving for comfort, even luxury, was in increasing conflict with rapidly declining biodiversity, fragile culture heritage, unique ways of life and future livelihoods. Therefore, the growth of global tourism had recently reached a crossroads. While the Paris climate accord had made tough demands on people’s habits with regard to environ- Session four 61

mental and climate changes, more decisive actions were still needed. Mr Molstad noted Norway as an example: the country was tackling the challenge by launching the Green Competitive Initiative, a direct outcome of the Paris Climate Accord Setting, creating a new agenda for all economic sectors in Norway, tourism included. All major sectors had to draw up a roadmap from the present day to 2030/50. The main rules of the Green Competitive Initiative as listed by the speaker were the following: the polluter would pay, incentives would reward those who come up with green initiatives, taxes and fees would be imposed on those who do not, externalities should be given a price value (those environmental costs normally kept out of the equation when evaluating a tourism-related project), the approach had to be holistic as well as cross-sectoral and multi-departmental; if the outcome of an intervention or an initiative was in doubt, it had to be stopped or postponed until multiple dividends were in evidence; a private-public approach needed to be taken. For the tourism industry, all these rules meant that, for instance, tourism products, services and travel experiences had to be low-emission, globally competitive and had to add value and welfare to society. Norway’s Sustainable Tourism Roadmap was a modern, up to date model that could work elsewhere, the speaker noted, in all countries facing common challenges, namely adap- tation to climate change, more equality and prosperity for all. Mr Molstad concluded his speech by underlining that tourism needed to move to a low-carbon future by making the business case for meeting targets grounded in climate science. Tourism also had to take a more holistic approach and look at its impact on the whole society. It needed to be more relevant to the needs of the community and to understand and demonstrate the real value of the assets on which its growth depended.

Michael Otremba, Managing Direc- tor of Hamburg Tourismus GmbH, began his speech by quoting Guy de Maupassant, “It is the encounters with people that make life worth living.” He admitted that tourism was still striving for recognition even though it had become an important economic sector. In Hamburg, tourism stood for an added value of 6 billion euros per year and 100,000 jobs directly and indirectly linked to tourism. The social value attached to tourism had grown recently – after real estate and cars, the ex- 62 Session four

pense for traveling appeared to be the third highest for households in Germany. Cars were losing their status as an object of prestige, while instead, due to the sharing trend, expenses for traveling and tourism would soon rise to take over second place. The increasing economic growth which could be observed in all countries was le- veraging the desire to travel and to explore. For the majority of people, cities had become the immediate environment of experience and living life. According to studies by the United Nations, in the year 2050, 70% of the world’s population would live in urban areas. Additionally, the changes in the aviation market – the power and the momentum of local carriers – were important drivers for increased mobility. Mr Otremba acknowledged that the major challenges for tourism were how to reconcile the requirements of both guests and residents, how to create a high quality experience for guests of the city of Hamburg and last but not least how to influence the behaviour in the use of public spaces. Therefore, the speaker underlined the importance of the social dimension of sustainable tourism, pointing out that welcoming guests and being a good host was based on the willingness to interact with people. On the other hand, tourists wanted to experience the true pulse of the city, they wanted to “dive” into the city. Therefore, more and more residents were taking on the role of hosts through the development of popular platforms. A growing number of people were also seeking to make use of public spaces. With Hamburg’s increasing pop- ularity, there was a risk that more and more conflicts related to the use of public spaces would arise. Enhancing the balance between the needs of visitors and residents was crucial for the further development of sustainable tourism in the city. Mr Otremba admitted that only a positive attitude towards tourism would allow the city to provide a warm welcome and to serve as a good host. In the past, it had been seen as most important to encourage or attract greater numbers of people to come to Hamburg. At present, the focus was shifting from an inbound perspective – attracting people to stay overnight – to an inside perspective – assessing the satisfaction of both guests and residents, the recommendation rate, the unique- ness of the Hamburg experience. Surveys regarding the attitude towards tourism among Hamburg residents conducted since 2015 had shown that most of them recognised the benefits arising from tourism, were aware of rising tourist numbers, yet only a small share of them seemed disturbed by the guests of the city. In the inner city, the numbers were slightly higher for the last point, reaching 14 %. But according to Mr Otremba, it was not the quantity of incoming guests but rather people’s behaviour that created a real challenge for sustainable tourism. Influencing the behaviour of people sharing public spaces was essential and a starting point for reducing the level of disruption. Guests and locals were in fact coming closer Session four 63

together because guests were truly looking to experience the pulse of the city. The speaker concluded his speech by underlining that tourism was all about dialogue – about interaction and about encounters. Exploring different cultures, connecting with people and sharing a joined experience were essential components of a modern holiday trip. Especially today in times of an increasing tendency to build mental boundaries, to think in nationalistic terms, it was more and more important to facilitate encounters through travel and to strengthen mutual understanding.

Debate

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson, Member of the Swedish Par- liament, praised the speakers for presenting the issue of sustainable tourism from different perspectives. She underlined the importance of cross-border cooperation initiatives and noted the opportunities provided by new technologies and the digitalisation of service in tourism. She referred to the challenges caused by mass tourism, in particular the pollution of the sea, and noted that new ferry boats operating between Scandinavian harbours had been equipped with new technological solutions which contributed to a reduced pollution of sea waters. She expressed her belief that deepening knowledge, rising awareness and exchanging good practice examples were good ways to develop sustainable tourism.

Veiko Spolïtis, Member of the Parliament of Latvia and Vice-Chair of the BSPC Working Group on Sustainable Tourism, recalled his work in the maritime committees prior to entering the EU sulphur directive and discussions with shipping companies on the possible impact on shipping business through the new strict law. He shared his satisfaction that maritime transportation had not been affected and that the environment had benefited from those provi- sions. However, he remarked that the impact of EU environmental regulations were limited only to the member states; therefore, he encouraged delegates representing Russian parliaments to present their positions on those issues, for instance on the use of liquefied natural gas for low-emission ship operations on Baltic Sea waters and other activities aiming at sustainability in tourist business.

Valentina Pivnenko, Member of the Russian Duma and member of the BSPC Working Group on Sustainable Tourism, extended her thanks to the chairs and members of the Working Group on Sus- 64 Session four

tainable Tourism, emphasising the excellent cooperation and good results achieved by the group. She pointed out that sustainable development was a very important issue in Russia, wherefore the strategies of Socio-Economic Development of the Russian Feder- ation until 2020 (“Strategy 2020”) and the State Environmental Development Policy of the Russian Federation until 2030 had been approved by the parliament and the government of the Russian Federation. The State Programme Culture and Tourism Develop- ment 2013-2020 went in line with the state strategies. The main goal of the programme was to improve the tourist infrastructure which would have a positive impact on the growth of that sector of the economy which in turn would contribute to the social and economy prosperity of the region. Investments in infrastructure in tourism would allow experts to be attracted to that field, jobs to be created and the environment to be protected. Therefore, apart from creating an overall common sustainable tourism programme for the Baltic Sea Region, a significant role should be given to investments in the sustainable infrastructure of tourism. In response to the question raised by Mr. Spolïtis, the speaker proposed deliberating on that particular issue during one of the next Standing Committee meetings and pointed out that, actually, these discussions had been carried out in the framework of the BSPC Standing Committee meetings, Working Group meetings and BSPC conferences. Ms Pivnenko emphasised that tourism was the best way to learn other cultures, to meet other people and better understand each other. Therefore, she called for an extension of the WGST activities and for further discussion on creating a Baltic Sea Region Sustainable Tourism Strategy which could be a macro-regional component of the Strategy for Socio-Economic Development of the North-West Federal District.

Annette Holmberg-Jansson, Member of the Parliament of the Åland Islands, shared her strong conviction, strengthened by the session inputs, that protecting the environment was of utmost importance for attracting tourists, especially to places such as the Åland Islands. Therefore, she pointed out that it was important for politicians to take the lead in that task and monitor its implementation. She announced that Åland’s government, together with pro- ducer associations, had developed a sustainable food strategy as a response to the Development and Sustainability Agenda for Åland. Most of the 7 strategic goals of the sustainable agenda were part- ly complemented by those of the sustainable food strategy. They applied particularly to the objectives of ecosystem imbalance and biodiversity and to the goal on good quality water, sustainable and conscious patterns of consumption and production, and also attrac- tiveness to residents, visitors and business. The speaker pointed out Session four 65

that the sustainable food production system was also economically profitable for the tourist sector of the economy because what people wanted to experience when visiting a country or a region were good local food and a clean environment. She concluded her contribution to the debate with an invitation to visit the Åland Islands which were on a good way to reach total sustainability in 2021.

Stephan Holowaty, Member of the Schleswig-Holstein Parliament, drew attention to the variety of demands by people visiting holiday spots. He mentioned large groups of tourists from Asia, groups of young tourists who just wanted to have fun, and others who might not be interested in immersing themselves in local culture or living the life of locals. Nevertheless, those people had a right to spend their holidays the way it suited them. So, the question was how to create a sustainable tourist environment for people who might not be “ideal tourists” but still citizens and voters.

Arild Molstad referred to the comments by previous speakers and pointed out that the major challenge facing policy makers was to ensure certain conditions for growth in global tourism. What was most needed was to diminish the enormous gap between detailed knowledge on the financial and economical basis for tourism on the one hand and on the other, poor knowledge on sustainability and environmental issues in tourism. The speaker encouraged the conference to support all efforts in that respect, whether in the form of implementing the resolution, promoting working group reports, organizing training sessions and using social media.

The chair of the session, Pyry Niemi, thanked all the speakers for their inspiring inputs and closed the session. 66 Opening of the Conference Session five 67

Fifth session

Migration and Integration

The session completed a two-year debate in the BSPC with regard to the topic of migration and integration . The BSPC Standing Commit- tee agreed to establish a Working Group on this topic . The chair of the session, Franz Thönnes, Member of the German Bundestag, in his opening remarks pointed out that the reason for that decision seemed evident as Europe had been witnessing one of the largest migration flows of the present day. That challenge needed efficient solutions and coordinated efforts. Therefore, with the Standing Committee decision, the BSPC had joined the debate on migration and integration that had also found a profound place in the political agenda in the CBSS Swedish Presidency Priorities.

The session was co-chaired by Per Rune Henriksen, Member of the Norwegian Parliament.

The first speaker, Pedro Roque, Presi- dent of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean (PAM), the organisation encompassing the countries most severely affected by the recent migration crisis, reported that in the very recent years, the rate of population movements across the Mediter- ranean had increased exponentially, driven by conflicts and political instability in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as by poverty, unemployment, poor governance, corruption, aggressive foreign investments and the lack of capacity in mitigating the consequences of climate change in sub-Saharan Af- rica, particularly in the Sahel region. Countries like Jordan, Leba- non, Greece, Italy and Turkey were struggling to cope either with the influx of asylum seekers or economic migrants, while maintaining their primary obligations to their own populations to provide services, jobs and security. The speaker illustrated the problem through the 68 Session five

example of Jordan which, in its own territory, was burdened most by the humanitarian aid provided to Syrian refugees, who exceeded 1.5 million and had reached 20% of the national population. In fact, only one third of the international assistance pledged to Jordan had been received. Similar numbers could be used for Turkey. Mr Roque pointed out that the issue of economic “illegal” migration from Afri- ca was very different. While the majority of refugees one day would return to their countries, the African exodus was, as he claimed, a different game – it was a one-way ticket. Specialized agencies indicated that the population of Africa, set at 1.3 billion people today, would reach 2.3 billion by 2050. Nigeria alone would number 1 billion people. According to a recent study, every day in Africa, 33,000 young people arrived on an already saturated employment market. Only 40% of them would be lucky enough to find a job. By 2050, Africa’s youth population alone was expected to number more than 830 million. At the present demographic pace, no development goal would be sustainable. The speaker emphasized that at the same time, and faced with the tip of the iceberg related to this unprecedented exodus, the 28-nation European Union was still incapable of agree- ing on a much needed coherent approach to manage the influx of migrants from Africa. The positive signs mentioned by the speaker were: the meeting of four European leaders in Paris a week before the conference, clearly acknowledging that the asylum system had to be changed, and the meeting of Home Affairs Ministers of the EU in July who had reached an “agreement on using all the available means” to reduce migratory pressure in the Mediterranean Sea, first and foremost by making “greater efforts in Libya” and in other third world countries to prevent departures. The “Libyan solution” as described by Mr. Roque seemed to work, since, as of August 2017, the influx of illegal migrants from Libya to Italy had been drastically reduced by 68% compared to the earlier months of the year. The proposed creation of “hot spots” – a kind of transition and screening camp – in Niger and Chad would further externalize the European southern borders. With regard to integration, the speaker noted that many experts had highlighted the perceived failure of the French and Belgian models to confront the terrorist threat. Many young people from “la banlieue – the people of the periphery”, were born to non-European parents, and in extreme cases expressed their difficulties of integration and hate for their host societies, in which they had grown up, by joining ISIS or carrying out “low-cost” terrorist attacks. Furthermore, some imams, in the case of Islamic communities, had indicated publicly that the way to follow in Europe was not integration but cohabitation. This concept directly challenged the many statements by political leaders who, to reassure their citizens, had spoken of integration as the solution to what some analysts were presenting as a new Clash of Civilizations. Session five 69

In conclusion, Mr Roque reiterated PAM’s commitment to dealing with these crucial issues and working together with the BSPC, in a close and structured cooperation, through both parliamentary networks, to achieve respect for human rights, ease the suffering of civilians in regional conflicts, strengthen the rule of law and con- solidate more coordinated efforts to fight human trafficking, while assisting the most vulnerable members of society.

Isabel Santos, Vice-President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and Vice-Chair of the PA’s Ad Hoc Committee on Migration, gave an overview on the Committee activities and presented the recommendations adopted by the OSCE. She stated that the unprecedented levels of migration throughout the OSCE region in 2014 and 2015 had prompted the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to become increasingly active on this topic, including a number of field visits to some of the most affected OSCE countries. In February 2016, an Ad Hoc Committee on Migration had been established with the mandate to serve as a focal point for the OSCE PA’s work in this field, to develop policy recommendations aimed at enhancing the OSCE’s work in the field of migration and at improving the treatment of, and prospects for, migrants in OSCE countries; and to promote exchanges of best practices. The Committee currently consisted of 23 members from 19 countries spanning North America and Europe. Furthermore, the Committee had prepared a Resolution on Ensuring a Coherent, Shared and Responsible Gov- ernance of Migration and Refugee Flows which had been adopted on 9 July 2017.

Ms Santos remarked that the Committee’s recommendations were ambitious as they sought to address a number of the interlinking aspects of the current migration crisis, with the aim of developing a coherent, shared and responsible approach to migration governance. She listed a number of critical areas for action such as: resettlement of persons in need of international protection from frontline states and increased support for Syrians and other refugees in border countries; addressing irregular crossings as well as deaths in the Mediterranean; the need to stabilize Libya as the main departure point of irregular crossings in the Central Mediterranean as well as resolving the conflict in Syria; respecting human rights 70 Session five

and preventing xenophobic attacks and discrimination against refugees, migrants and persons perceived to be migrants; the protection of particularly vulnerable persons, especially unaccompanied and separated children as well as women; combatting human trafficking and dismantling smuggling networks; reform of the EU asylum system, speeding up the processing of asylum claims as well as developing more effective family reunification processes. With regard to the integration issue, the resolution had indicated that integration in host countries should be organised with ensuring expedited family reunions once a claim had been recognized and hosting refugees in smaller housing units rather than ghettos. It had also emphasised education – ensuring that refugees and migrant children were able to attend mainstream schools as soon as possible; ensuring that there were also sufficient opportunities for adults to learn the language and customs of the host country and providing access to the labour market of recognized refugees. Ms Santos also reported as examples of best practice that the Committee had discussed the positive examples of Italy’s SPRAR system (Protection System for Asylum Seekers and Refugees) and Canada’s Programme of Private Sponsorship of Refugees. The Committee had furthermore highlighted the role of the media in countering misperceptions about the security threats posed by refugees and asylum-seekers by providing accurate data and presenting well-articulated outreach. In her closing remarks, the speaker pointed out that migration and refugee flows had become the new normal. These were issues which the international community would have to face for decades to come and which would only be exacerbated by conflict, poverty, climate change and demographics. She underlined the importance of solidarity, noting that purely voluntary mechanisms and appealing to countries’ sense of solidarity did not usually work unless they were accompanied by financial or other sanctions. She gave the example of the Baltic States which, similar to her home country of Portugal, had historically low levels of refugees and asylum seekers; it had been shown that a more welcoming attitude towards migrants and refugees could be accompanied by concrete demographic, societal, cultural and political benefits. To build secure societies, the new- comers should be integrated and made to feel secure. Therefore, she advocated for inter-institutional coordination and cooperation and for further cooperation between the OSCE PA and the BSPC. Session five 71

Debate

Maira Mora, CBSS Secretariat Director General, with regard to establishing the new BSPC Working Group on Migration and In- tegration informed the audience about the establishment of an “Ad Hoc Expert Group on Labour and Employment” in the framework of the CBSS Secretariat, linked to the Baltic Sea Labour Forum, the BSPC and the Northern Dimension Partnership on Public Health and Social Well-Being as the result of the Declaration of the High-Level Meeting of the Representatives of the Labour Minis- tries of the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) which had been adopted by the High Representatives of the Ministries of Labour of the Council of the Baltic Sea States on 15th of June 2017 in Berlin. She announced that the CSO CBSS hopefully would adopt the establishment of that Ad Hoc Expert Group at the meeting scheduled for the following week. The activities of the group would focus on six chosen areas: labour mobility; demographic challenges; knowledge supply; youth employment; migration/integration and involving the groups of vulnerable people in the labour market, including persons with disabilities. Ms Mora announced that the first group meeting would be convened at the end of October or in early No- vember 2017 and invited the members of the BSPC Migration and Integration Working Group to take part in it.

She also admitted that the CBSS had granted seed money facility support to develop a full project with regard to labour issues to the European Social Fund with the aim of implementing some of the Labour Ministers’ recommendations as well as recommendations stemming from the Soft Security and Migration in the Baltic Sea Re- gion conference which had been organised by the Icelandic Presi- dency of the CBSS and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland in Helsinki, 30-31 May 2017. The recommendations were due to be published by the CBSS.

Daniel Riazat, Member of the Swedish Parliament, raised the question of certain terms used when talking about refugee crises. He admitted that it was those seeking asylum who were in crisis rather than the wealthiest countries in the world. He also called for more self-criticism because some countries, such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, used to be among the richest on the continent while these days, their people had to leave their homes and run away. The reasons for that were certain nations selling arms and invading other countries officially in the name of democracy but with quite another goal in mind. As for integration, Mr Riazat pointed out that he himself had escaped from Iranian dictatorship not to be another person but to be able to remain himself. He admitted that he had 72 Session five

achieved success because he had been able to mix features he had brought from his country of origin with what he had learned in Sweden. Furthermore, he opposed the word integration, as for him it meant accepting the norms of the society the refugee had not chosen but had been forced to come to, and he pleaded for coexistence, inclusion and sustainable migration.

Veiko Spolītis, Member of the Latvian Parliament, supported the previous speaker by saying that more tangible actions should be undertaken and more efforts be put into effect to solve the problem. He referred to the historical experiences of his fellow countrymen with regard to migration, for instance to the USA or Canada during the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States. Furthermore, he respond- ed to Ms Santos’ remark on the supposedly insufficient response to refugee crises by the Baltic States by pointing out that the Baltic States had followed the EU jurisdiction to its full extent and for example had successfully managed to integrate the people who had arrived in Latvia and Estonia after WWII. With regard to current migration crises, Mr Spolītis agreed that the quotas which had been established legally and equitably amongst all member states had not been met. The reason for that was that many of those who had come to Latvia had left to be reunited with their families in wealthier countries. Therefore, the proposal presented by Germany and Swe- den to harmonise the welfare aid for refugees was, according to the speaker, the most worthy of support.

Oleg Nilov, Member of Parliament of the State Duma of the Rus- sian Federation, emphasised that the debate should have also in- Session five 73

cluded the responsibility for the current situation of instability in so many countries and the causes that were forcing people to leave their homes in Libya, Syria and Iraq. Without that broad debate, the refugee problem would never be solved. Mr Nilov moreover mentioned that sanctions imposed on Russia would not result in anything good for the region; instead, they might just achieve the opposite by bringing instability and further problems.

In response to that, Veiko Spolītis, Member of the Latvian Parlia- ment, disagreed and said that discussing the guilt and blame of any particular country would not help to solve the problem. However, he confirmed that in the case of conflicts in Iraq, all western countries shared the blame for what had happened there. Libya and Syria were a different case, though, and Russia had accepted the intervention in the United Nations and in the Security Council. The speaker mentioned that the instability in that region was the legacy of the colonial era and the division of Syria’s and Iran’s territory by the superpowers at the beginning of the 20th century. He advocated dealing with the challenge according to the European tradition of humanity and to take care of each person affected by the war.

Summing up the debate, Per Rune Henriksen, co-chair of the session, voiced his belief that the question of migration and integration could be tackled from many different angles and that the new BSPC Working Group would elaborate a number of good proposals for the BSR governments on how to turn that challenge into an opportunity to expand the economy and overcome the demographic problems in the BSR societies. 74 Closing session Closing session 75

Closing session

Farewell to long-term members of the BSPC

Carola Veit, the BSPC President, extended her thanks to those who, for various reasons, were leaving the BSPC: to Per Rune Henriksen who had represented the Norwegian delegation for several years in the Standing Committee and had been engaged in BSPC work since 2009 as a member of the Norwegian delegation; to Wille Rydman, Member of the Finnish Parliament, and the member of the Standing Committee serving as the representative of the Nordic Council; to Sonja Mandt, Member of the Norwegian Parliament and the Rapporteur on Cultural Affairs, who had provided very informative reports on culture and cultural heritage; and to Björn Andreassen, the secretary of the Norwegian delegation who had worked for many years with great commitment in the BSPC. Ms Veit also expressed words of appreciation for the BSPC work of Franz Thönnes who had decided to cease his work as a parliamentarian. She reminded her audience that Mr Thönnes had first participated in the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in 1998 and had been the leader of the delegations from the German Bundestag to the BSPC since then. He had been the president of the BSPC and the chairman of the Working Group Labour Market and Social Welfare of the BSPC. 76 Closing session

Afterwards, he had been the rapporteur to the BSPC for this political area, and for more than a dozen years, he had been a continuous member of the Standing Committee which he had chaired in 2006- 2007. He had been the driving force for the Baltic Sea Labour Forum which had been created as a result of this work. Ms Veit emphasised that Mr Thönnes had been a pillar supporting Baltic Sea cooperation for many years and somebody who had significantly influenced and put his mark on the contents and the direction of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference for nearly 20 years.

Jörgen Pettersson stressed the ability of Mr Thönnes to consider the opinions of all BSPC members even though he represented one of the largest countries. On behalf of the delegation of the Åland Islands, the speaker thanked him for his excellent cooperation and wished Mr Thönnes all the best for the future.

Per Rune Henriksen commented that in some parts of the world, some leaders believed that building walls would secure the prosperity for their citizens. He stated that the attitude of the BSPC was completely opposite – the BSPC work had always been to dismantle walls built many years ago and to remove hindrances blocking cooperation because doing so was the only way to secure a prosperous future for the Baltic Sea region. He continued by saying that the parliamentarians’ job was to build trust, peace and democracy for the people who elected parliamentarians. He acknowledged that he was honoured to have been a part of this work for 10 years now, noting his belief that the BSPC work would be continue by the young people who had already engaged in debates and had presented their opinions at the BSPC conference. Closing session 77

Franz Thönnesoffered his gratitude for all the words of appreciation and mentioned that he was grateful for the opportunity to work, for 20 years, with parliamentarians from different parties and from different countries. He emphasised that for him, the common interest of the Baltic Sea countries was to hold the Baltic Sea together and to strengthen the cooperation in the region. The speaker noted that he had learned a lot from other BSPC delegates – for instance how to cooperate, how to discuss and how to respect his opponents’ position. At this point, he mentioned Mr Vatanyar Yagya from St. Petersburg, a long-term member of the BSPC. Ending his speech, Mr Thönnes called for handling the Baltic Sea cooperation with the care it deserves as in the framework of BSPC work, politicians had always found the compromise and consensus which was the foundation of cooperation and the way to keep peace in that part of Europe.

Closing of the 26th BSPC

BSPC President Carola Veit opened the closing session of the 26th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference and reminded those present that the decisions could be taken by unanimous consent.

The fist decision taken by the BSPC was the adoption of changes to the BSPC Rules of Procedure reflecting changes to the nominal and relative figures of the BSPC contributions . 78 Closing session

The second decision concerned the adoption of the BSPC Resolution. At that point, Ms Veit remarked that the resolution had found the unanimous agreement of the members of the Drafting Committee, although it had not been easy to reach that consensus. The President drew attention to the fact that the text was much shorter than it had been in previous years which she considered a success.

The conference agreed unanimously to adopt the 26th Resolution of the BSPC.

With the adoption of the resolution by the 26th Baltic Sea Parliamentary conference, the gathering also agreed to the administrative matters included in the resolution, including: the launch of a new Working Group on Migration and Integration, the Work Programme 2017-2018 as well as the adapted Rules of Procedure.

Furthermore, Ms Veit informed the group that the Presidency of the BSPC for 2017/2018 would now be taken over by the Parliament of the Åland Islands and the symbol of the Presidency has passed to Mr Jörgen Pettersson, the incoming BSPC President. Closing session 79

In his inaugural speech, Jörgen Pettersson thanked Carola Veit and the Parliament of Hamburg for having hosted the 26th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in a pleasant atmosphere, with generous hospitality as well as great discussions and debate. He also extended his thanks to Ms Veit for her friendship and the professional way she had led the work within the BSPC. He promised that he himself and all the other Ålanders would do their utmost to steer that unique and significant organisation towards the future.

He referred to the history of his homeland which proved that Åland was a great example of crisis management. In difficult times, when the fate of independence had been weighed after complicated and sometimes dangerous political negotiations, the League of Nations had decided that Åland should belong to Finland with guarantees for language, culture and much more. A unique type of autonomy was formed which ever since had proven to be beneficial for everyone. He emphasised that the lesson from that was, “No matter how complicated situations and conflicts seem to be, there is always a solution “. Therefore, he continued, the organisers of next year’s conference should consider possible themes to be discussed by the BSPC. One of the most important issues for debate could be finding good ways towards a prosperous Baltic Sea. Amongst the alternatives mentioned by the speaker was building sustainable societies in the Baltic Sea based on democratic values, human rights and equal chances for everyone as everyone needed cooperation and integration for a secure and prosperous Baltic Sea area. Mr Pettersson underlined that there was no better place than the demilitarised and neutralised Åland Islands to discuss difficult questions like these for the common best. Furthermore, the speaker referred to the variety of nationalities and cultures of his home – among 30,000 people living on the island, there were 90 different nationalities which indicated that their society was used to dealing with new and other cultures.

Mr Pettersson wholeheartedly invited the BSPC family to the Åland Islands for the 27th BSPC annual conference which would be held in Mariehamn on 26-28 August 2018 and concluded by stressing that there was a shared goal uniting the people working for the development of the Baltic Sea Region – the common journey towards a better tomorrow. 80 Annex

ANNEX Annex 81

Annex 1

Conference Resolution

The participants, elected representatives from the Baltic Sea Region States*, assembling in Hamburg, Germany, 3-5 September 2017,

• welcoming successful steps taken to re-establish full-scale and comprehensivepolitical dialogue in the Baltic Sea Region, in particular within the Council of the Baltic SeaStates, highlight- ing the importance of the Foreign Ministers’ meeting on the occasion ofthe 25th anniversary of the CBSS hosted by the CBSS Icelandic Presidency in Reykjavik on20 June 2017 and the call for maintaining the momentum and spirit of these pos- itivedevelopments;

• supporting the appointment of an independent group of wise persons, includingrepresentatives from civil society by the CBSS to elaborate a report with recommendationsfor a vision for the Baltic Sea Region beyond 2020 and on the future role of the CBSS andthe means to expand its impact as a forum for political dialogue and practical cooperationin the region;

• welcoming the High-Level Meeting of the Representatives of the CBSS LabourMinistries and the Declaration adopted on 15 June 2017 in Berlin;

• welcoming the adoption of the CBSS Action Plan - “Realizing the Vision: The Baltic2030 Action Plan” as an important step towards ensuring sustainable development of theBaltic Sea Region;

*Parliaments and Parliamentary Organizations: Baltic Assembly, Free Hanseatic City of Bremen, Denmark, Estonia, Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, Iceland, Kaliningrad Region, Karelian Republic, Latvia, Leningrad Region, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Nordic Council, Norway, Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE PA) Poland, City of St . Petersburg, Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, Schleswig-Holstein, Sweden, Åland Islands . 82 Annex

• welcoming the decision by the CBSS to continue operation of the Council’s ProjectSupport Facility for 2017-2019, noting in particular its role as a tool for supporting thestrategically important project activities in the Baltic Sea Region;

• further promoting and encouraging public-private practical interaction as a tool forcross-border cooperation, economically viable actions and projects for the benefit of theBaltic Sea Region, taking into account the continuous progress made by the SaintPetersburg initiative;

• continuing involving youth into the procedures of the BSPC working groups.Especially during the second half of a two-year mandate of a working group the vivid debate with young people nominated by the member parliaments can be an enriching also with regard to the annual conference;

• expressing deep concern about the growing number of terrorist attacks that haveoccurred since the last BSPC in Riga namely in Stockholm, St. Petersburg and Berlin and -by reaffirming the position in the 25th resolution - utterly condemning terrorism in all itsforms as an increasing common threat for our citizens and our shared values, a threatwhich can only be eliminated by joint efforts;

• being convinced that the issues of Migration and Integration pose a tremendouschallenge to all countries in the Baltic Sea Region as well as a great chance for their furtherdevelopment. Those issues call for intensive dialogue as well as close cooperation andcoordinated policies also between the Baltic Sea States;

discussing Cooperation and Participation as well as Innovative Sci- ence and Sustainable Tourism in the Baltic Sea Region,

call on the governments in the Baltic Sea Region, the CBSS and the EU,

Regarding Cooperation in the Region, to

1. intensify the cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region including the Northern Dimension,the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and the Strategy for the socio-economicdevelopment of the North-West Federal district of Russia in addition to other regional actorsby iden- tifying common priorities and developing respective regional strategies and actionplans in fields of common interest and mutual bene- Annex 83

fits. Since macro-regional strategiesgather stakeholders and actors from all sectors and levels of governance, macro-regionalstrategies offer efficient instruments to improve relations between neighbouring countriesand thereby support European Neighbourhood Policy;

2. further strengthen and develop HELCOM as the coordinator of the regionalimplementation of ocean-related goals of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda ofthe United Nations, through the strengthened implementation of the HELCOM Baltic SeaAc- tion Plan and further commitment to achieve a Baltic Sea in good environmental statusby 2021 and if applicable, by renewing the Baltic Sea Action Plan in line with the UNSustainable Develop- ment Agenda with a time perspective until 2030;

3. support HELCOM in elaborating a regional action plan on underwater noise as wellas in implementing the marine litter regional action plan and in its battle againsteutrophication; concrete measures to reduce the input of plastics into the marineenvi- ronment should be taken on;

4. support the significance of the Science, Research and Innova- tion Agenda as it isoutlined by CBSS Science Ministers’ Conference held in 2016 in the Chair’s Conclusions:Baltic Science: Renewing the Commitment to Science/Research Joint Actions in the Baltic- Sea Region;

5. elaborate a common programme based on a strategy within the framework of theCBSS to develop sustainable tourism in the Baltic Sea Region, considering the followingaspects

• the reduction as far as possible of obstacles to cross-border travelling to promotethe freedom of travel including promotion of the local border traffic regime on outer bordersof the EU

• facilitating border and visa regime for youth and organized tourist groups

• the improvement of sustainable transport and tourism infrastructure

• support for the idea of Baltic Sea Region States creating a common Baltic Sea Brand,based on cultural and natural heritage, to strengthen tourism competitiveness

• the improvement of travel options especially for young people (e.g. interferry); 84 Annex

Regarding Democratic Participation and the Digital Age, to

6. further improve and develop means of democratic participation, e.g. throughtransparency, comprehensive information, government accountability and otherinstruments of citizen participation;

7. commit to strengthening the involvement of youth in all areas of society, including,but not limited to, government, science, education and culture. To this end, the BSPC willcontinue to work towards establishing a Baltic Sea-wide youth forum;

8. stimulate a common dialogue and debate in the Baltic Sea region on ethicalconditions for the digitization of states and societies and the possibilities of a common legalframework in this policy field. The task of the Parliaments is to guarantee fundamentalrights, democracy and the rule of law in the digital world as well. Parlia- ments andgovernments are encouraged to ensure that there is no gap between the digital societyand the state;

9. work with the aim to make the Baltic sea region a global front- runner in making newdigital technologies work for democracy and political development;

10. stimulate policies to enhance digitization of democratic activity and processes withthe aim to increase public participation in decision-making through sharing of technologyand best practices by governments and parliaments;

11. draw attention to training and education for the youth with regard to digitalizationopportunities in order to foster a competent and responsible use of the evolvingtechnological innovations - thereby contributing to democratic societies in the digital age;

12. understand state coordination of innovation policies in terms of a social progressand not only as a technological process;

13. support the social partners in the Baltic Sea Region in their pur- suit to use thechances of digitalization for decent and sustainable working and living conditions;

14. draw special attention to the gender and generation aspects of digital innovationand the consequent societal changes;

15. bearing in mind the importance of freedom of expression, explore legal possibilitiesand a common approach to react against “Hate Speech” and “Fake News”; Annex 85

Regarding Innovative Science and Research, to

16. intensify scientific cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region qualita- tively andquantitatively and therefore

• promote the development of more credible projections of the future of the BalticSea, based on the best basic marine research as well as the most plausiblesocioeconomic development sce- narios and associated alterations in humanpressures, and the complex impacts of climate change on the ecosystem,

• promote the delivery of new comprehensive knowledge on true long-term effects ofvarious human pressures on all organ- izational levels - from genes to an ecosystem,as well as sugges- tions on ways to mitigate these effects,

• provide a scientific foundation for innovative cross-border policy making, includingpotential internalization of the costs of marine ecosystem services into the economicsystem;

17. promote the further development of the Baltic Sea Science Net- work to enhancemacro-regional dimensions of science and research policy from which higher education andresearch institutions should benefit and to thus create a supra-regional network thatprovides an “administrative network” in addition to the existing “scientific network” tomanage the scientific cooperation in a useful and targeted way, especially in the frameworkof the project “Baltic Science Net- work”;

18. take a more active role with regard to providing sustainable resources for researchand development in order to further innovations by developing e.g. common standards,data security and intel- lectual property rights within the Baltic Sea Region;

19. continue to support the efforts in building closer ties between analytical researchinstitutions and businesses in the framework of the Baltic TRAM (Transnational ResearchAccess in the Macro-region) project;

20. further improve the conditions of the Baltic Sea Region in global scientificcompetition through joint strengthened efforts by increased investments in innovativescience and research;

21. recognize the EUSBSRs Policy Area Innovation and Policy Area Educationcommitment to ensure a prosperous, sustainable and competitive region based on frontrunning innovation, research and 86 Annex

higher education activities as “a common good” andhighlight the importance of developing measures to overcome innovation and performancegaps in the region;

22. strengthen citizen awareness of education and science as important innovationresources through suitable measures;

23. referring to the success of the Baltic Sea Science Day held for the first time in St.Petersburg on 8 February 2017, to support and promote the continuation of this initiativeas a useful tool for the intensification of scientific cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region andfor improving the visibility of the Region’s achievements and potential in the field ofscience, research and innovation;

24. support BONUS II;

25. intensify measures to facilitate cross-border border integration of interdisciplinaryEarth system science in the Baltic Sea region;

26. call for seeking synergies and measures for developing the Arc- tic-Baltic joint vision,collaboration and scientific performance;

27. improve the short-term mobility possibilities of researchers by providingunbureaucratic support outside of large funded projects to allow for more flexibility invisibility and international research collaboration and a better integration of the Baltic SeaRegion research landscape, to intensify the mobility of teaching profession- als and studentsby stipend programmes for mobility within the Bal- tic Sea Region imparting the benefits ofscientific and cultural exchanges and while strengthening and to promoting summer- schools as well as exchange programmes in the Baltic Sea Region;

Regarding Sustainable Tourism, to

28. work towards the vision that the Baltic Sea Region will become the first eco-regionin the world, conceiving the Baltic Sea Region as the first region where ecology andeconomy work together in a bal- anced and integrated manner to sustain societies andculture.

29. ensure that the consequences of tourism are sustainable by adopting models andmethods to save and protect nature and orient work along the principle that sustainabilityis the guiding principle and standard practice in all types of tourism in the Baltic Sea region; Annex 87

30. further examine the use of carbon footprints to improve the comparability andattractiveness of tourism products and their eco- logical and economical impacts; furtherimprove the transparency of tourism products as to their quality in terms of sustainability,e.g by using common labels and standards;

31. promote wastewater facilities at harbours in the Baltic Sea Region;

32. improve interrailing, to promote the use of alternative sources of energy and fostera sustainable multimodal split (sea, road, rail), and to improve bike infrastructure includingbicycle stands and Ebike charging stations at transport hubs as examples for ecologi- calforms of tourism;

33. jointly task a Tourism Transport Impact Assessment Study to analyze continuouslythe output of different political action to increase the level of sustainability;

34. counteract the lack of skilled workers in the tourism sector in the Baltic Sea Region,e.g. by establishing an international winter school to increase labour skills, language andintercultural skills;

35. fully use the possibilities of the circular and fair sharing economies creating newjobs in the service sectors;

36. foster a joint promotion by private and public stakeholders of the Baltic Sea Regionas a tourism destination especially in new source markets and to foster cooperation in theregion as a main key for the successful development of the Baltic Sea Region;

37. better use the potential of digitalization in promoting sustainable tourism andfurther support the development of the Baltic Sea Tourism Center into a permanentplatform for information and exchange of know-how at the transnational level, especiallywith regard to the long-term priorities of the CBSS;

38. sustain a sound environment, safeguarding the recreational quality of natural andman-made landscapes and integrating natural, cultural and human environments withinthe BSR so that tourism activities do not endanger the natural and cultural heritage of theBSR and instead actively contribute to their preservation;

39. promote and sustain the competitive quality and efficiency of the tourism businesswhile also creating satisfactory social conditions for tourists, the workforce and the localpopulation; 88 Annex

40. involve citizens in the development of tourism strategies.

Furthermore the Conference Decides to

41.welcome with gratitude the kind offer of the Parliament of Åland to host the 27thBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Mariehamn on 26–28 August 2018. Annex 89

Annex 2

List of Participants

Member Parliaments and Parliamentary Organizations

First Mayor of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg 1. Olaf Scholz

Åland 2. Jörgen Pettersson, Member of the Åland Parliament, Vice- President of the BSPC 3. Sara Kemetter, Member of the Åland Parliament 4. Annette Holmberg-Jansson, Member of the Åland Parliament 5. Ingrid Johansson, Member of the Åland Parliament 6. Sten Eriksson, Secretary of the delegation of the Åland Parliament 7. Maj Falck, Member of Staff of the Åland Parliament

Baltic Assembly 8. Prof Aadu Must, President of the Baltic Assembly and Member of the Estonia Parliament 9. Prof Jānis Vucāns – Vice President of the Baltic Assembly and Member of the Latvian Parliament, Vice-President of the BSPC 10. Marika Laizane-Jurkane, Secretary General

Bremen 11. Sülmez Dogan, Vice-President of the State Parliament of Bremen 12. Antje Grotheer, Member of the State Parliament of Bremen

Denmark 13. Karin Gaardsted, Member of the Danish Parliament 14. Peder Pedersen, Advisor of the Danish Parliament 15. Louise Egholm Hattens, Advisor of the Danish Parliament 90 Annex

Estonia 16. Johannes Kert, Member of the Estonian Parliament 17. Ene Rongelep, Senior Advisor of the Parliament of Estonia

Finland 18. Veera Ruoho, Head of the Delegation of the Finnish Parliament 19. Hanna Kosonen, Member of the Parliament of Finland 20. Riitta Myller, Member of the Parliament of Finland 21. Maria Tolppanen, Member of the Parliament of Finland 22. Anne-Mari Virolainen, Member of the Parliament of Finland 23. Anna Kiiskinen, Secretary for International Affairs of the Parliament of Finland 24. Hans Häyrynen, Advisor of the Parliament of Finland

Germany 25. Franz Thönnes, Member of the German Bundestag, Chairman of the German delegation to the BSPC 26. Jürgen Klimke, Member of the German Bundestag 27. Peter Stein, Member of the German Bundestag 28. Sonja Steffen, Member of the German Bundestag 29. Herbert Behrens, Member of the German Bundestag 30. Nicole Tepasse, Secretary of the delegation of the German Bundestag 31. Petra Grätz, Secretary of the delegation of the German Bundestag 32. Doris Schächter, Political Advisor at the German Bundestag

Hamburg 33. Carola Veit, President of the BSPC, President of the State Parliament of Hamburg 34. Dr Kurt Duwe, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg 35. Norbert Hackbusch, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg 36. Prof Jörn Kruse, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg 37. Sören Schumacher, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg 38. Ulrike Sparr, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg 39. Michael Westenberger, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg 40. Barbara Duden, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg 41. Murat Gözay, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg Annex 91

42. Gulfam Malik, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg 43. Dorothee Martin, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg 44. Olaf Steinbiß, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg 45. Dr Sven Tode, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg 46. Johannes Düwel, Director of the Parliament of Hamburg 47. Florian Lipowski, Advisor of the Parliament of Hamburg 48. Friederike Lünzmann, Advisor of the Parliament of Hamburg

Iceland 49. Teitur Björn Einarsson, Member of the Icelandic Delegation to the Nordic Council 50. Hrannar Arnarsson, Member of the Icelandic Delegation to the Nordic Council 51. Brynjar Nielsson, Member of the Icelandic Delegation to the Nordic Council 52. Helgi Thorsteinsson, Member of the Icelandic Delegation to the Nordic Council

Kaliningrad 53. Aleksandr Musevich, Member of the Parliament of the Kaliningrad Regional Duma 54. Leonid Stepanyuk, Member of the Parliament of the Kaliningrad Regional Duma 55. Iuliia Velichko, Employee of the Kaliningrad Regional Duma

Karelia 56. Dr Leonid Liminchuk, Member of the Parliament of the Karelia Regional Duma

Latvia 57. Dr Romualds Ražuks, Member of the Parliament of Latvia 58. Atis Lejins, Member of the Parliament of Latvia 59. Veiko Spolitis, Member of the Parliament of Latvia 60. Juris Vilums, Member of the Parliament of Latvia 61. Ingrida Sticenko, Senior Advisor of the Interparliamentary Relations Bureau

Leningrad 62. Regina Illarionova, Member of the Leningrad Regional Duma 63. Ivan Khabarov, Member of the Leningrad Regional Duma 64. Andrey Lebedev, Member of the Leningrad Regional Duma 65. Alexander Perminov, Member of the Leningrad Regional Duma 92 Annex

66. Nikolay Pustotin, Member of the Leningrad Regional Duma 67. Zoya Rodina, Advisor of the Leningrad Regional Duma

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 68. Beate Schlupp, Vice-President of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 69. Dirk Friedriszik, Member of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 70. Nikolaus Kramer, Member of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 71. Karsten Kolbe, Member of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 72. Dirk Zapfe, Head of Division at the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 73. Georg Strätker, Senior Advisor of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 74. Julien Radloff, Advisor of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Nordic Council 75. Wille Rydman, Member of the Parliament of Finland and Nordic Council 76. Sigurður Ingi Jóhannsson, Member of the Parliament of Iceland and Nordic Council 77. Arne Fogt Bergby, International Advisor of the Nordic Council

Norway 78. Per Rune Henriksen, Member of the Norwegian Parliament 79. Sonja Mandt, Member of the Norwegian Parliament 80. Ingebjørg Godskesen, Member of the Norwegian Parliament 81. Marianne Seip, Political Advisor of the Norwegian Parliament 82. Trine Eskedal, Head of Section of the Norwegian Parliament 83. Bjørn Andreassen, Senior Adviser of the International Department of the Norwegian Parliament

Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europa (OSCE PA) 84. Isabel Santos, OSCE PA Vice-President Annex 93

Poland Sejm of the Republic of Poland 85. Dorota Arciszewska-Mielewczyk, Chair of the Delegation of the Sejm and the Senate of the Republic of Poland to the BSPC, Sejm of the Republic of Poland 86. Jerzy Borowczak, Member of the Delegation of the Sejm and the Senate of the Republic of Poland to the BSPC, Sejm of the Republic of Poland 87. Zbigniew Gryglas, Member of the Delegation of the Sejm and the Senate of the Republic of Poland to the BSPC, Sejm of the Republic of Poland 88. Grzegorz Matusiak, Member of the Delegation of the Sejm and the Senate of the Republic of Poland to the BSPC, Sejm of the Republic of Poland

Senate of the Republic of Poland 89. Piotr Koperski, Office for International and European Union Affairs, Chancellery of the Senate of the Republic of Poland

Russian Federation Council of the Federation 90. Anna Zhiltsova, Councilor of the Committee for Foreign Affairs of the Council of the Federation

State Duma 91. Valentina Pivnenko, Chair of the Russian Delegation to the BSPC, Member of the State Duma 92. Vladimir Bortko, Member of the State Duma 93. Oleg Nilov, Member of the State Duma 94. Alexey Veller, Member of the State Duma 95. Yulia Guskova, Advisor on International Relations at the State Duma 96. Ekaterina Jordan, Assistant to the Head of the Delegation 97. Anna Priemysheva, Interpreter

Ministry of Foreign Affairs 98. Sergey Petrovich, Deputy Director of the Second European Department, Russian Senior Official at the CBSS Committee of Senior Officials

Saint Petersburg 99. Dmitry Tugov, Member of the Saint Petersburg Legislative Assembly 100. Prof Vatanyar Yagya, Plenipotentiary of the Chairman of the Legislative Assembly for International Relations 94 Annex

Human Rights Ombudsman 101. Alexander Shishlov

Schleswig-Holstein 102. Rasmus Andresen, Member of the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein 103. Wolfgang Baasch, Member of the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein 104. Hartmut Hamerich, Member of the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein 105. Stephan Holowaty, Member of the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein 106. Volker Schnurrbusch, Member of the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein 107. Jette Waldinger-Thiering, Member of the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein 108. Jutta Schmidt-Holländer, Secretary for International Affairs of the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein

Sweden 109. Staffan Danielsson, Member of the Swedish Parliament 110. Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson, Member of the Swedish Parliament 111. Pyry Niemi, Member of the Swedish Parliament 112. Daniel Riazat, Member of the Swedish Parliament 113. Suzanne Svensson, Member of the Swedish Parliament 114. Petra Sjöström, Senior Advisor of the Swedish Parliament Annex 95

BSPC and Observers Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference 115. Bodo Bahr, Secretary General

Baltic Development Forum 116. Flemming Stender, Director

Baltic Sea Region University Network (BSRUN) 117. Kari Hyppönen, President

Baltic Sea States Sub-regional Cooperation (BSSSC) 118. Roger Ryberg, Chairman 119. Hilde Beate Aaro, Senior Advisor 120. Malgorzata Ludwiczek, Coordinator

Baltic Sea Forum 121. Prof Kurt Bodewig, President 122. Uwe Döring, Board Member 123. Jürgen Schmidt, Treasurer 124. Markus Köhl, Head of the Office of the Board

Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) 125. Hans Olsson, Chair of the Committee of Senior Officials of the Council of the Baltic Sea States, Ambassador of Sweden 126. Guðmundur Árni Stefánsson, Outgoing CBSS Chair, Committee of Senior Officials, Ambassador of Iceland 127. Maira Mora, Director General of the Secretariat

CPMR Baltic Sea Commission 128. Jari Sainio, President 129. Ossi Savolainen, Regional Mayor of Helsinki-Uusimaa Regional Council

Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) 130. Monika Stankiewicz, Executive Secretary

Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (PABSEC) 131. Prof Asaf Hajiyev, Secretary General

Parliamentary Association of North-West Russia (PANWR) 132. Dr Victor Novozhilov, Chairman of the Archangelsk regional Council

Union of the Baltic Cities (UBC) 133. Mikko Lohikoski, Strategy Coordinator 96 Annex

Consular Corps Finland 134. Hans-Christoph Stadel

Latvia 135. Sabine Sommerkamp-Homann

Norway 136. Detlef Palm

Poland 137. Piotr Golema 138. Mariusz Pindel

Russian Federation 139. Ivan Khotulev

Sweden 140. Dr Sven I. Oksaar

Speakers • Carola Veit, BSPC President and President of the Hamburg Parliament • Olaf Scholz, First Mayor of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg • Guðmundur Árni Stefánsson, Outgoing CBSS Chair • Hans Olsson, Chair of the CBSS Committee of Senior Officials • Prof Jānis Vucāns, BSPC Vice-President • Jörgen Pettersson, MP Åland, Rapporteur on Integrated Maritime Policy • Sonja Mandt, MP Norway, Rapporteur on Cultural Affairs • Franz Thönnes, MP Germany, Rapporteur on Labour Market and Social Welfare • Prof Jobst Fiedler, Hertie School of Governance, Professor Emeritus • Alexander Shishlov, Saint Petersburg Human Rights Ombudsman • Veiko Spolitis, Member of the Parliament of Latvia • Valentina Pivnenko, Member of the Parliament of the State Duma • Frank Rieger, Chaos Computer Club, Speaker • Espen Krogh, President Nordic Youth Council Annex 97

• Prof Bathmann, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research, Director • Jari Haapala, Finnish Meteorological Institute, Head of Unit Marine Research • Prof Robert Feidenhans’l, European XFEL, Director • Monika Stankiewicz, HELCOM Executive Secretary • Maira Mora, Director General of the Secretariat of the CBSS • Sara Kemetter, Vice-Chairperson of the BSPC WG on Sustainable Tourism and Member of the Parliament of the Åland Islands • Friederike Schick, Baltic Sea Youth Parliament • Elias Lindström, Baltic Sea Youth Parliament • Camilla Gunell, Deputy Prime Minister of the Åland Islands • Dr Monika Griefahn, AIDA Cruises, Chief Sustainability Officer • Aleksandr Sirchenko, Vice-Director General on the Development on Internal Tourism, TUI Russia • Arild Molstad, Author and Journalist • Michael Otremba, Hamburg Tourismus GmbH, Director • Isabel Santos, Vice-Chair of the OSCE PA ad hoc Committee on Migration and former OSCE PA Vice- President • Pedro Roque, Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean, President

Guests Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron 141. Christian Harringa, Director of Administration 142. Uwe Sassenberg, Coordinator Baltic TRAM

German Institute for Trust and Security on the Internet (DIVSI) 143. Michael Schneider, Head of Unit Communication

Hamburg Centre for Political Education 144. Dr Sabine Bamberger-Stemmann, Director

Hamburg Data Protection Officer 145. Prof Johannes Caspar

Hamburg Institute for Social Research 146. Sabrina Broocks, Administrative Director 147. Victoria Romano, Advisor

Hamburg Ministry for Science & Research 148. Klaus von Lepel, Head of Unit 98 Annex

149. Katariina Röbbelen-Voigt, Project Manager Baltic Science Network Hamburg Tourismus GmbH 150. Michael Otremba, Director 151. Dr Larissa Wolf, Advisor

Hamburg University – Center of Teaching and Learning 152. Prof Kerstin Mayrberger, Deputy Head

Hamburg Youth Parliament 153. Nicloas Kleenworth, Member of the Presidium

House of Representatives of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Belarus 154. Prof Valery Voronetsky, Chairman of the Permanent Commission for International Affairs

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Finland 155. Erja Tikka, Ambassador for Baltic Sea Affairs and EUSBSR Coordinator

Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean (PAM) 156. Dr Pedro Roque, President 157. Dr Renato Sampaio, President of the Portuguese PAM Delegation

Parliamentary Forum Southern Baltic Sea 158. Jan Bobek, Chairman 159. Maciej Zasada, Member of the Assembly of Warmia and Mazury Voivodship Annex 99

Administration of the Hamburg Parliament 161. Marco Wiesner, Head of the Projects and Events Department 162. Ulfert Kaphengst, Head of the Protocol Division 163. Katrin Dreyer, Head of the IT Department 164. Markus Pawelczyk, Personal Advisor to the President 165. Sascha Balasko, Press Secretary 166. Kerstin Kuhlmann, Event Manager 167. Brigitte Stein, Assistant at the Protocol Division 168. Sabine Grählert, Assistant at the Protocol Division 169. Thomas Felskowsky, Shuttle Coordinator 170. Susanne Ahrens, Internet and Social Media, Publications 171. Christin Schmidt, staff 172. Manuela Knieler, staff 173. Dr Monika Potztal, staff

Other Participants Wikipedia 174. Ralf Boesch, Photographer 175. Olaf Kosinsky, Photographer 176. Ralf Roletschek, Photographer rodenb.org 177. Achim Schnell, Director 178. Nina Bruun, Assistant

Interpreters 179. Elena Almas 180. Maria Hemph Moran 181. Aleksandr Jakimovicz 182. Catherine Johnson 183. Piotr Krasnowolski 184. Stein Larsen 185. Aleksei Repin 186. Aleksandre Tchekhov 187. Gyda Thurow 188. Martina Würzburg 100 Annex

Annex 3

Programme

Sunday, 3 September

09:30 – 10:00 Participant registration and information desk available at the Entrance Hall, Town Hall

09:30 Departure from Scandic Hamburg Emporio by bus (only Drafting / Standing Committee participants)

10:00 – 12:00 Meeting of the BSPC Drafting Committee Room 151, Town Hall

12:00 coffee break / snacks

12:30 – 14:00 Meeting of the BSPC Standing Committee Room 151, Town Hall

13:00 Departure from Scandic Hamburg Emporio by bus 13:15 Departure from the Town Hall by bus Excursion I – Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron Research Center (back at the hotels around 17:00) 13:45 Departure from Scandic Hamburg Emporio by bus 14:00 Departure from the Town Hall by bus Excursion II – Harbour boat trip

18:00 Departure from Scandic Hamburg Emporio by bus

18:30 Reception and Dinner hosted by Ms Carola Veit, President of the Hamburg Parliament Town Hall

Honorary Guest: H. E. Sigmar Gabriel, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany Annex 101

Monday, 4 September

08:00 Departure from Scandic Hamburg Emporio by bus (if necessary – only Drafting Committee participants)

08:30 – 09:30 Meeting of the BSPC Drafting Committee (if necessary) Room 151, Town Hall

09:00 Departure from Scandic Hamburg Emporio by bus

09:30 Opening Ms Carola Veit, MP, Hamburg, President of the BSPC

Welcome by Mr Olaf Scholz First Mayor of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg 102 Annex

10:00 FIRST SESSION Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region Chair: Jörgen Pettersson, MP, Åland, Vice-President of the BSPC Co-Chair: Valentina Pivnenko, MP, Russian Federation

Report from the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) - Mr Guðmundur Arni Stefansson, Outgoing CBSS Chair, Committee of Senior Officials, Ambassador of Iceland - Mr Hans Olsson, Chairman of the Commit- tee of Senior Officials, Ambassador of Sweden

Prof Jānis Vucāns – “Implementation of the 25th BSPC Resolution”

Briefings from BSPC Rapporteurs

- Jörgen Pettersson on Integrated Maritime Policy - Sonja Mandt on Cultural Affairs - Franz Thönneson the Baltic Sea Labour Forum

Debate

11:30 Family Photo subsequently Exhibition Opening “Finland 100 Anniversary Exhibition” Annex 103

12:30 SECOND SESSION Democratic Participation & the Digital Age Moderated by: Carola Veit, MP, Hamburg, President of the BSPC

Prof Jobst Fiedler, Professor of Public and Financial Management, Hertie School of Governance – “Democracy at a Crossroads – Rebuilding Trust through Participation”

Alexander Shishlov, Human Rights Ombudsman for Saint Petersburg - “Digital Age Challenges to Human Rights and Democracy”

Roundtable:

- Veiko Spolītis, MP, Latvia - Valentina Pivnenko, MP, Russian Federation - Alexander Shishlov, Human Rights Ombudsman for Saint Petersburg - Prof Jobst Fiedler, Professor of Public and Financial Management, Hertie School of Governance - Frank Rieger, Speaker of Chaos Computer Club - Espen Krogh, Nordic Council Youth President

Debate

14:00 Lunch 104 Annex

15:00 THIRD SESSION Science and Research Chair: Prof Jānis Vucāns, MP, Latvia, Vice-President of the BSPC Co-Chair: Prof Aadu Must, MP, President of the Baltic Assembly

Monika Stankiewicz, HELCOM Executive Secretary – “State of the Baltic Sea 2017 – in the present and in the future”

Maira Mora, Director General of the Permanent International Secretariat of the Council of the Baltic Sea States – “Science and Research policy in the Baltic Sea Region and the Baltic Science Network” Prof Ulrich Bathmann, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research – “Evidence-based Environmental Management”

Jari Haapala, Finnish Meteorological Institute – “Utility of Regional Climate Models for the Baltic Sea Region”

Prof Robert Feidenhans'l, Director European XFEL – „European X-ray – A new research facility at the forefront of Science”

Debate

17:00-18:00 Meeting of the BSPC Drafting Committee (if necessary) Room 151, Town Hall

17:00 Departure for Scandic Hamburg Emporio by bus

18:30 Departure from Scandic Hamburg Emporio by bus 18:45 Departure from the Town Hall by bus Annex 105

19:00 Buffet Dinner hosted by Ms Carola Veit, President of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Alsterlounge

Tuesday, 5 September

08:00 Departure from Scandic Hamburg Emporio by bus (if necessary – only Drafting Committee participants)

08:30 Meeting of the BSPC Drafting Committee (if necessary) Room 151, Town Hall

09:00 Departure from Scandic Hamburg Emporio by bus

09:30 FOURTH SESSION Sustainable Tourism Chair: Pyry Niemi, MP, Sweden Co-Chair: Dorota Arciszewska-Mielewczyk, MP, Poland (tbc)

Sara Kemetter, BSPC Working Group Vice- Chairperson – “Final report from the BSPC Working Group on Sustainable Tourism”

Friederike Schick and Elias Lindström, Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum – “Reporting back to Plenary: Developing Sustainable Tourism”

Dr Monika Griefahn, Chief Sustainability Officer AIDA Cruises – “Sustainability at AIDA Cruises” 106 Annex

Alexandr Sirchenko, Vice-Director General on the Development on Internal Tourism, TUI Russia

Arild Molstad, Author and Journalist, Advisor on conservation and sustainable tourism to international institutions, Norway – “The Paris Climate Agreement and tourism: A Roadmap for the future”

Michael Otremba, Managing Director Hamburg Tourismus GmbH – “Sustainable Tourism in Cities. The permission to grow?“

Debate

11:30 NEW BSPC WORKING GROUP Migration & Integration Chair: Franz Thönnes, MP, Germany Co-Chair: Per Rune Henriksen, MP, Norway

Pedro Roque, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean

Isabel Santos, Vice-Chair of the OSCE PA ad hoc Committee on Migration and OSCE PA Vice-President – "For a Coherent, Shared and Responsible Governance of Migration and Refugee Flows"

Debate Annex 107

12:15 CLOSING OF THE 26th BSPC Chair: Ms Carola Veit, MP, Hamburg, President of the BSPC Co-Chair: Mr Jörgen Pettersson, Åland, Vice- President of the BSPC

- Administrative matters - Adoption of the Conference Resolution - Address by the incoming President of the BSPC 2017-2018 - Presentation of Next Year’s Host Country

13:00 Lunch

Bus transfers Town Hall – Hamburg Airport 108

110 Opening of the Conference Opening of the Conference 111 112 Opening of the Conference Opening of the Conference 113 Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Secretariat www.bspc.net

BSPC Secretariat c/o Schlossgartenallee 15 19061 Schwerin Germany