29Vision 2030: Acting for the Future of the Baltic Sea Region 29Th Baltic

2YEARS9 Baltic Sea BSPCParliamentary Conference

Vision 2030: Acting for the Future of the Baltic Sea Region 29th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference 2929

29th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference

Digital - 24 August 2020

2YEARS9 Baltic Sea BSPCParliamentary Conference 2

Vision 2030: The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) Acting for the Future of the Baltic Sea Region was established in 1991 as a forum for political dialogue between parliamentarians from the Bal- th 29 Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference tic Sea Region. BSPC aims at raising awareness and opinion on issues of current political interest and relevance for the Baltic Sea Region. It pro- motes and drives various initiatives and efforts to Text: Marc Hertel and Bodo Bahr support a sustainable environmental, social and Layout: Produktionsbüro TINUS economic development of the Baltic Sea Region. It strives at enhancing the visibility of the Baltic Sea Region and its issues in a wider European context. BSPC gathers parliamentarians from 11 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 Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference political activities in the Baltic Sea Region, Bodo Bahr endowing them with additional democratic Secretary General legitimacy and parliamentary authority. +49 171 5512557 The political recommendations of the [email protected] annual Parliamentary Conferences are www.bspc.net expressed in a Conference Resolution adopted by consensus by the Conference. The adopted Resolution shall be submitted to the govern- BSPC Secretariat ments of the Baltic Sea Region, the CBSS and Schlossgartenallee 15 the EU, and disseminated to other relevant 19061 Schwerin national, regional and local stakeholders in the Germany Baltic Sea Region and its neighbourhood. 3

Contents

The Opening of the Conference...... 5

Session one Vision 2030: Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region, Safe and Prosperous Development – Common Effective and Sustainable Solutions for the Future ...... 19

Session two Vision 2030: Safeguarding our Environment, Seas and Oceans for Future Generations...... 33

Session three Vision 2030: Migration and Integration: Finding Common Solutions Based on Mutual Information and Best Practices...... 51

Reports by the BSPC Rapporteurs...... 67

Addresses by observers and guests of the BSPC . . . . . 77

The Closing of the Conference...... 82

List of Participants ��89

Photos...... 100 4 Opening of the Conference Opening of the Conference 5

The Opening of the Conference

BSPC President Valerijus Simulik

BSPC President Valerijus Simulik began by noting that it was a great pleasure for him to open the 29th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference. The parliamentarians had come together to discuss the cooperation in the Baltic Sea region. It was also important to review the cooperation in order to revise what had been achieved. It was even more important to discuss what issues were yet to be solved and what were the main reasons for the absence of a giant debt level.

On behalf of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference, the president expressed his deep gratitude for their devotion to Baltic Sea cooperation to H.E. Mr Gitanas Nausėda, President of the Republic of Lithuania, H. E. Mr Viktoras Pranckietis, Speaker of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, and Mr Virginijus Sinkevičius, Euro- pean Commissioner for the Environment, Oceans and Fisheries.

He yielded the floor to Mr Sigitas Mitkus who would speak on behalf of the President of the Republic of Lithuania. 6 Opening of the Conference

Mr Sigitas Mitkus

Speech by Mr Sigitas Mitkus, On Behalf of H. E. Mr Gitanas Nausėda, President of the Republic of Lithuania

Mr Mitkus said it was a great honour and privilege for him to read the opening speech of His Excellency, Mr Gitanas Nausėda, Presi- dent of the Republic of Lithuania.

In the president’s name, he stated that it was a great privilege to open the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference at this challenging but highly important time for the Baltic Sea region as a whole. On 1 July, Lithuania had taken over the annual rotating presidency of the Council of the Baltic Sea States from Denmark. In order to meet regional challenges, they had decided to pursue the Green Economy, greater visibility of the region, growth and jobs, people-to-people contacts, environmental issues of the Baltic Sea and the vision of the Baltic Sea until 2030.

But it was very difficult to talk about the agenda of the nation’s presidency on this day while all of them had been watching with great concern the developments in Belarus following the presidential election on 9 August. They had seen brutal repression by the Bela- rusian authorities against peaceful demonstrators and journalists. They had seen testimonies of their released detainees and mass vio- lations of human rights. Thousands had been detained and imprisoned, hundreds tortured, several killed. It mobilised the Belarusian people to aspire to freedom and change in their country. Then thou- Opening of the Conference 7

sands and hundreds of thousands of people had spilled into the streets across the country. Their freedom, their free and democratic will should not meet silence. Sanctions against those responsible for violence, repression and falsification of election results must be introduced. All those responsible for torture and brutality must be prosecuted. All countries should establish independence and sover- eignty from others, fair and free elections with the presence of international observers, the right of people to protest peacefully, the right of people not to be beaten, tortured and imprisoned.

These are the values that should be defended. The people of the Bal- tic States – Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians – remembered per- fectly well that thirty years ago, they had been looking forward to every word or action of support from the free world. The day before the conference, more than fifty thousand people had joined a human chain stretching from the Lithuanian capital Vilnius to the border with Belarus, stressing their support for the Belarusian people. The people of Belarus had made it clear that the popular vote went to its national leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya. Belarus was now on its way to freedom, just as the Baltic countries had been thirty years earlier, - freedom from fear, lies and manipulation.

Finally, on the vision of the Baltic Sea region, the Lithuanian presidency of the Council of the Baltic Sea States had already offered an assessment of the implementation of the vision for 2020 which had been adopted ten years before. Said assessment was planned to be followed by a new Vilnius declaration of a vision for the Baltic Sea region until 2030.

Speaking for the president, Mr Mitkus said that he would like to believe that this would include a free and democratic Belarus.

BSPC President Simulik thanked Mr Mitkus and asked him to convey their best wishes to the Lithuanian president. He went on to invite the Speaker of the Seimas of Lithuania to take the floor. 8 Opening of the Conference

Speech by H.E. Mr Viktoras Pranckietis, Speaker of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania

Mr Pranckietis opened by noting his happiness at addressing the 29th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference, which he extolled as exceptional. That was because it marked the first time that it was held in a remote format instead of meeting directly. Even though the speaker could not shake the hands of the attendees in Vilnius, he stated his belief that this remote meeting would be no less constructive in terms of fruitful debates.

He noted that the COVID-19 pandemic was posing enormous challenges to parliaments. The same huge challenge was also faced by the extremely important inter-parliamentary cooperation. Nevertheless, it was particularly essential now to maintain the cooperation between parliaments and governments at as intensive a level as possible. In this time, especially, it was necessary to ensure that the representatives elected by the people continued to work closely together in a spirit of confidence, providing the necessary energy for future action.

In this year, the Speaker of the Seimas went on, the Baltic Sea Par- liamentary Conference would discuss safe and successful cooperation and development in the Baltic Sea region, with a view to overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic. Preservation of the environment, seas and oceans for future generations, migration and integration, mutual exchange of information, search for common solutions based on best practices were the issues common to all of them. Debate on this issue would lead the participants to a better mutual understanding, enabling them to build a safer, more stable and prosperous Baltic Sea region.

He further underlined the importance of basins and rivers feeding into the Baltic Sea. Here, he referred to the rivers Niemen and Daugava. The full cooperation of Belarus was fundamentally important. In light of the situation in the latter country, it was necessary to highlight the urgent need and expectation that all the Baltic Sea states would continue to make every effort to ensure that the Baltic Sea region remained a peaceful region, with close neighbourliness and intensive cooperation. These days, a particularly high premium was placed on the foundation of their cooperation, namely democratic values, the rule of law, human righs and equal opportunities for all. They had to make every effort to ensure that the Baltic Sea region continued to be a peaceful region with close neighbourly ties and active cooperation. To this end, full use had to be made of the opportunities offered by parliamentary, governmental and social cooperation and democratic dialogue. Opening of the Conference 9

Mr Viktoras Pranckietis

Mr Pranckietis stated that the decisions taken at the Baltic Sea Par- liamentary Conference related to the expectations of bringing their region closer to a better future. In his mind, this conference would give new parliamentarians, ministers and experts from other countries the opportunity to get to know each other. In October, he mentioned, Lithuania would be holding parliamentary elections, but he was sure that his country would continue its presidency in the best way. He offered his belief that all of them – parliaments, parliamentary organisations, the Council of the Baltic Sea States, and all governments and partners – would further develop a unique Baltic Sea region by generating ideas, showing commitment, and offering cooperation and friendship.

BSPC President Simulik thanked the Speaker of the Seimas for his contribution and then opened the floor for the European Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries, Mr Virginijus Sinkevičius. 10 Opening of the Conference

Mr Virginijus Sinkevičius

Speech by Mr Virginijus Sinkevičius, European Com- missioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries

Mr Sinkevičius appreciated the setting of the conference and the very high level of participaton which should enable great discussions of quality and fruitful debate. The setting represented a unique parliamentary bridge between all the EU and non-EU countries of the Baltic Sea region and an important guide for political actions. It could play an important role in achieving a clean, healthy and pro- ductive Baltic Sea, which was a core objective of the EU’s work for this regional sea.

The state of the Baltic Sea was one the Commission was paying particular attention to. Much was being said about its condition, he noted, but little was being said about what was being done. As outlined in the Commission’s recent report adopted in June of the preceding year, the picture portraying the state of our seas was rather mixed. There were some positive stories, such as the white-tailed eagles here in the Baltic Sea. Other stories though were gloomier.

The State of the Environment Report 2020 of the European Envi- ronmental Agency (EEA) and the 2018 HELCOM report on the state of the Baltic Sea (HOLAS report) showed that there were still too many nutrient run-offs choking the Baltic Sea. In unsustainable fishing practices, for example harbour purpoise were caught as bycatch; contaminants and other pollutants such as marine litter were being dumped, all of this making the situation worse. Opening of the Conference 11

Commissioner Sinkevičius stressed that biodiversity remained at risk, and pollution was ever present. However, there were marine strategies in place – thanks to EU legislation protecting and con- serving the marine environment. These had led to important progress towards reducing marine pollution, in particular since the entry into force of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in 2008.

This directive had in fact been the first EU’s holistic tool to analyse the health of our seas and oceans and to take action where it was most needed. A unique tool across the world, it was often mentioned as a best practice. A report published a few weeks ago on its implementation provided an honest assessment of both its achievements and its challenges. The directive had improved regional coordination within and across the regional seas. It had helped deliver key international commitments such as the Sustainable Develop- ment Goals. The speaker pointed out that thanks to the directive, an effective monitoring of ecosystems’ condition and pressures on them was now in place.

As a policy tool, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive had made significant inroads. But the Commission recognised that actual implementation across the EU was lacking. The 2020 dead- line to achieve good environmental status in all our seas would not be achieved everywhere. Accordingly, the Commission’s work we do with the EU member states through the HELCOM was also an important contribution to the implementation of the Marine Strat- egy Framework Directive. It was equally vital towards a good environmental status of the Baltic Sea as a whole. Both Commission and the HELCOM shared the same objective, Mr Sinkevičius underlined.

This served as an excellent example of ocean governance at the regional level. The coordinated regional work was particularly relevant now in light of the EU’s overarching European Green Deal guiding all the policy-making in the EU. As an example, he pointed out that work was being done at the regional level to reduce nutrient inputs in the Baltic Sea, for instance through launching a joint nutrient reduction scheme. Together with the countries bordering the North Sea, the HELCOM had also contributed to better overall air and water quality by creating some of the first Sulfur Oxides and Nitrogen Oxides Emission Control Areas in European waters. 12 Opening of the Conference

Over the last decade, the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) had supported these efforts as well by mobilising and coordinating public funding under EU Cohesion Policy as well as European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). The work launched under the EUSBSR offered a good basis for further development of initiatives aimed at the preservation of the marine environment and climate change.

In addition, The Sustainable Blue Growth Agenda for the Baltic Sea Region, adopted by the European Commission in 2014, had highlighted the extraordinary potential for developing a sustainable blue economy in the Baltic Sea Region. Thematic areas such as green shipping, blue bio-economy, coastal and maritime tourism as well as environmental and monitoring technology offered tremendous opportunities for new value creation which could benefit from coordinated action and joint investment to get new promising development off the ground.

Commissioner Sinkevičius noted that the latest HELCOM Minis- terial Declaration of March 2018, adopted under EU Chairman- ship, was currently being implemented along with the on-going update of the Baltic Sea Action Plan. He highlighted the particular importance of considering new issues that had not yet or only par- tially been tackled, such as marine litter, underwater noise, nutrient recycling, and regional ocean governance. He added his hope to see these issues reflected in the updated Baltic Sea Action Plan.

For all of these reasons, he pointed out, it was necessary to act together. In that regard, the commissioner called on all coastal EU member states to cooperate and coordinate their strategies more closely. In his mind, still more needed to be done. The Marine Strat- egy Framework Directive report, that he had mentioned earlier, showed that there was indeed need for will, ambition and dedication to reach a good environmental status. This had to be done across the board – by reducing pollution and litter, by addressing unsustainable fishing and other extractive industries. Mr Sinkevičius underlined that the seas had to be treated with respect.

Accordingly, he said he would organise a conference on 28 Septem- ber to tackle these issues together and gather support and commitments to reduce the pressures affecting the state of the Baltic Sea, in particular eutrophication, fisheries and pollution. It would gather EU Ministers from Fisheries, Agriculture and Environment, with a parallel stakeholder conference aimed at triggering substantial discussions on the issues at stake and on the solutions to implement, based on existing policies and best practices. The commissioner Opening of the Conference 13

hoped they would adopt an ambitious declaration aimed at presenting the ways forward and commitments to accelerate efforts to achieve a clean and healthy Baltic Sea.

This meant first of all that European policies such as the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) should be used to reduce key pressures on the Baltic Sea. He considered this his number one priority, as it fit very well with the EU objectives set out in the European Green Deal, biodiversity strategy, zero pollution ambition, farm to fork, chemicals strategy, all of which were relevant for the wellbeing of our seas and oceans.

In particular, the new Biodiversity Strategy set out an ambitious agenda for the protection of our seas and oceans. And it was a necessary ambition. Mr Sinkevičius underlined that they needed to tackle the current biodiversity crisis in the marine environment. It was necessary to strengthen the efforts to protect and restore marine ecosystems, pursuing an ecosystem-based approach.

The Commission was about to adopt its proposal for fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea for 2021. As always, Mr Sinkevičius pointed out, this proposal was based on the latest best available scientific advice and the legislation already in force. The proposal would reflect the overall approach he had described earlier, along with a prudent approach for struggling stocks and additional accompanying measures to support the rapid recovery of the stocks.

He stressed that all of them had a shared responsibility to protect the Baltic Sea, through their agricultural practices, through their fishing methods and through the way they took care of its environment. Since these issues did not recognize any borders, it was important for EU and non-EU countries of the Baltic Sea region to work hand in hand. As an example, he cited the regional organisations protecting the marine environment or those managing fisheries issues.

A coordinated and comprehensive response was what the Baltic needs. Commissioner Sinkevičius promised that he would person- ally see to it that this would be done. 14 Opening of the Conference

Mr Valerijus Simulik

Speech by BSPC President Valerijus Simulik on the Lithuanian BSPC Presidency 2019 - 2020

The BSPC President began his address by noting that it was a great honour for him to welcome everyone online in this virtual ‘plenary hall’. Of course, he and the Lithuanian side would very much have preferred to welcome them in person at the parliament in Lithuania and to show their guests the beauty of their capital city, Vilnius – in its real rather than virtual form.

The preparations for this physical conference had been well advanced by March of this year. The Lithuanian presidency and the activities of the BSPC had been overshadowed since March by the COVID- 19 pandemic along with the restrictions and measures associated with it in all their countries. Nevertheless, they had succeeded in mainly realising the strategy and work programme that had been set out in August last year.

COVID-19 had very much changed the way they worked, Presi- dent Simulik pointed out, in the framework of their conferences and having direct exchanges and events with their partners and friends. At first, that was because all physical events had been cancelled. Only gradually, via digital formats, did the opportunity for exchange become available once again in various different formats.

The Standing Committee had held its planned meetings both in Berlin in November and Brussels at the beginning of March where it dealt intensively with the topics it had set itself. Opening of the Conference 15

This included the issue of ammunition dumps in the Baltic Sea in November in Berlin but also in March in Brussels. In the course of these discussions, the increased risk potential and the dimension of the problem had become evident to all of them. For that reason, they would also be dealing with this issue more intensively at this conference, as the topic also played an increased role under the current HELCOM Presidency.

In March, the Standing Committee had also dealt in-depth with the protection and sustainable use of the oceans in Brussels. He was therefore very grateful on a political level that this issue had been addressed today at the political level by EU Commissioner Virgin- ijus Sinkevičius. He thanked the Commissioner for his contribution again.

And even if there might be changes concerning the financial pack- ages currently underway and the budgetary discussions influenced by the pandemic, Mr Simulik stressed that it was and remained important to look again at current developments and perspectives in the field of European territorial cooperation and macro-regional strategies in Europe in greater depth and to hear from the CBSS about its key issues. That is why the president was also very pleased that the conference would be hearing contributions from the previous Danish CBSS Presidency and that the Lithuanian Vice-Minis- ter of Foreign Affairs, Mr Neris Germanas, would speak on behalf of Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius, currently representing the Lithuanian CBSS Presidency.

President Simulik said that they had deepend their collaboration with their parliamentary partners in the Black Sea region in the preceding autumn. The BSPC had also taken part in the conference of mediterranean parliaments as well as others of their events.

The Working Group on Migration and Integration had continued its work intensely. Despite the pandemic situation, the group had drawn up its final report and several recommendations for action, even though the final meeting on the Åland islands could not have been held. The report would be presented afterwards by the chairman of the Working Group, Mr Hans Wallmark from Sweden. The president offered many thanks to all who had made this possible. He was also grateful for the initiative to set up this working group.

The Standing Committee meeting planned for the end of May in Vilnius had been cancelled, President Simulik noted. However, in mid-June, the Committee had met online to discuss all the various issues at hand. There had been an intense exchange of views on the 16 Opening of the Conference

development of the pandemic in their countries. Moreover, they had considered the work of their respective parliaments during this period and the measures they had taken. Furthermore, the BSPC had received additional statements from the member parliaments about the developments of the COVID-19 pandemic. These reports, he noted, also provided information on the impact of the work of parliaments and inter-parliamentary organisations as well as on legislative measures to deal with the consequences of the pandemic. They had been published on the BSPC website, proving a unique compilation of the developments in the Baltic Sea countries.

With great regret, the Lithuanian parliament had had to cancel the 29th BSPC in Vilnius as an in-person event. At that time, the measures taken in the various countries made it impossible for the conference to be held with the participation all and with great consequences looming over humanity from holding the conference in person.

He offered his deep gratitude to the organisations and speakers for their understanding. Against this background, the organisers had decided, though, after discussing the issue at length in mid-June, to hold this conference in reduced form, compared to their usual annual conference in person. He was very grateful that, despite the various difficulties that this entailed, everyone was present at this meeting today and that members of parliaments who had represented their nations in previous years were still there. Moreover, he appreciated that a number of observers and fraternal organisations were present, allowing them to discuss some of the core issues that the BSPC members would have liked to address in person in Vil- nius. He extended particular gratitude to representatives of his own country of Lithuania, first and foremost the president of the republic, the president of their parliament and the vice-minister of foreign affairs for their willingness to attend this conference at the level initially planned. Through their contributions on this day, they were underlining and strengthening the parliamentary dimension of international cooperation in the Baltic Sea region.

Agreeing on a resolution and taking a clear position on important issues, he went on, meant that they were emphasising said parliamentary dimension, even in times of crisis such as these. By doing so, they was showing that not only were their governments were acting but that the parliaments were continuing their work, despite the pandemic. This was a crucial factor in the overall structure of international cooperation. At the beginning of the crisis, all countries had been focused first of all on combating the spread of the pandemic and keeping the consequences as small as possible. That had Opening of the Conference 17

been damage management, President Simulik noted. Governments had targeted cushioning the economic impact by using financial volume they never would have imagined before that they would be necessary. That had been the time of focusing their work on their own countries: The work of the governments had been at the fore- front everywhere while parliaments had been called upon, above all, as budget legislators, so to speak, to provide the financial resources considered necessary to mitigate the crisis. In the meantime, international cooperation had once again taken on a stronger role. It was precisely in this phase that it was fundamentally crucial that parliaments once again used their steering capacity more and made themselves more visible again in international cooperation.

For that reason, it was important that the World Conference of Speakers of Parliament had taken place digitally a few days earlier. It was equally important for the BSPC to hold its conference on this day, focusing on the main questions of a Vision for 2030. That would, of course, be very different from what one might have envi- sioned six months before. It was vital for them to ensure that the urgent issues and the aspects they thought appropriate were passed on to governments as guidelines for their actions. The fact that the governments in all of the member countries were responding to the BSPC’s resolutions and recommendations for action had been underlined once more by the governments’ statements on these resolutions in Oslo.

President Simulik called on the participants to work on this day on a vision for 2030, to talk about the development of the pandemic and ways out of this crisis, to highlight the importance of international parliamentary cooperation and to work on the priorities and future issues that had prevailed before the pandemic and which were still vital to move forward, regardless of the pandemic.

In this difficult situation, as a result of the pandemic, it was important that they made even more substantial and faster progress than previously planned in areas such as environmental protection and maritime policy, migration and digital cooperation. The president wished all of the attendees that they would manage to do this as much as was possible in the few hours that they had. He hoped that they could return to direct meetings in person as soon as possible to continue their work, in the way they were more familiar with. Nonetheless, it was also important to use and expand the opportunities that had arisen from these current developments. In the end, overcoming all difficulties, they could achieve what they had been striving toward for years by 2030, namely a safe and prosperous region, characterised by an intact environment. One of their goals 18 Opening of the Conference

was that the Baltic Sea would be restored as it was a key feature of many of their regions as well as home to many people. Another was an intact environmental status that would be maintained as that.

He called upon his audience to continue – as they hoped for in the BSPC resolution – to make every effort to ensure that the Baltic Sea region would remain a region of peaceful and close neighbourliness as well as intense cooperation, based on mutual understanding, trust, democratic values, the rule of law, human rights as well as equal opportunities for all.

At this point, BSPC President Valerijus Simulik came to the end of his report on the Lithuanian BSPC Presidency 2019 – 2020 and yielded the floor to the BSPC Vice President, Mr Pyry Niemi. First Session 19

FIRST SESSION

Vision 2030: Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region, Safe and Prosperous Development – Common Effective and Sustainable Solutions for the Future Incumbent, former and incoming CBSS Presidencies, i.e. Lithuania, Denmark and Norway

Chaired by Mr Pyry Niemi, Vice President of the BSPC

Mr Niemi thanked the president for giving the session and conference an excellent start. He added that he was happy that all of them could be present in these difficult times for Europe and the rest of the world. With 150 people attending the virtual conference, that showed the good companionship in the Baltic Sea area.

Mr Pyry Niemi 20 First Session

He welcomed his audience to the first session of the 29th BSPC with the topic Vision 2030: Cooperation in the Baltic Sea region, Safe and Prosperous Development, Common Effective and Sustainable Solu- tions for the Future. Mr Niemi introduced himself, noting that he was the Vice President of the BSPC and a member of the Swedish parliament. He had the great pleasure of chairing this session which was shorter than their usual BSPC sessions. Nevertheless, he believed that they would have a good meeting and a good discussion.

A special welcome was extended to the honourable speakers of this session, H. E. Mr Neris Germanas, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania, on behalf of H. E. Mr Linas Linkevičius, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithua- nia; H. E. Mr Ove Ullerup, Former Chair of the Committee of Sen- ior Officials of the Council of the Baltic Sea States Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Denmark; as well as Mr. Dag Wernø Holter, Senior Adviser, Nordic-Baltic Section, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Norway, representing the upcoming Norwegian CBSS presidency in July of the following year.

The BSPC’s guests were representing the Council of the Baltic Sea States – the hosting organisations natural counterpart on the executive level. In May, the meeting that had originally been meant to be held on the presiding Danish Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod’s native island of Bornholm had taken place online. Mr Niemi was happy to hear more about the results of the meeting and the priorities of the Lithuanian CBSS presidency with a special view to the headline of this conference: A Vision for 2030 in the Baltic Sea Region.

In this context, Mr Niemi also welcomed the Deputy Director-Gen- eral of the CBSS Secretariat, Mr Bernd Hemingway, with whom the BSPC had had a very close cooperation for years. In particular, Mr Hemingway had, among others, provided valuable input on several occasions at the meetings of the Standing Committee and the Working Group on Migration and Integration.

The vice president pointed out that the term of office of the former Director-General, Ambassador Maira Mora, had ended a few days earlier. He thanked Ambassador Mora on behalf of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference for her exceptional commitment - also in cooperation with the BSPC. He added the organisation’s best wishes for her future. On behalf of the BSPC, he wished for the new Direc- tor-General, Ambassador Grzegorz Marek Poznanski from Poland, to have a successful term of office and hoped for an intensive con- tinuation of our cooperation. First Session 21

On behalf of the Swedish delegation, Mr Niemi extended his gratitude once again for the intensive briefing of the Swedish delegation at the CBSS secretariat a few months ago.

The CBSS Secretariat had moved into a new office building a few weeks before. But it could still be reached in the very heart of Stock- holm (on the island of Södermalm in the historical Momma Reen- stierna Palace).

Mr Niemi noted that there would be time for discussion in the debate. He went on to yield the floor to Mr Neris Germanas.

Speech by Mr Neris Germanas, Vice-Minister of For- eign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania

Mr Germanas began by mentioning that it was his pleasure to speak at a memorable event comprising the two Lithuanian presidencies in the region, in the BSPC and in the CBSS. The CBSS was an important player in the region. So, it was their task to ensure that the organisation had an opportunity to shape a united response and strategy in the present challenging situation. It was their task to direct it toward concrete action in the areas where the CBSS was uniquely suited to add value.

The Bornholm Declaration adopted at the highest-level meeting during the Danish presidency had given them a clear indication in what direction the Baltic Sea region should move. The revised terms of references of the CBSS and of the Secretariat adopted together with the Bornholm Declaration had given them the necessary tools to act.

On 1 July, Lithuania had taken over the annual rotating presidency of the CBSS from Denmark. In this challenging time, the presidency would seek ways of turning challenges into opportunities. The presidency would focus on developing green industry, including green and maritime tourism aimed at the reviving regional economy; increase the region’s visibility; provide employment opportunities to young people. In light of the current pandemic, the presidency would also attempt to boost civil protection in the region and strengthen its resilience against major emergencies and disasters. It would strive, through the effort of the CBSS expert 22 First Session

Mr Neris Germanas

group, to find ways to protect those most vulnerable in their societies, such as those at risk of human trafficking for labour exploitation and children at risk of violence. The presidency would also put special attention on the movement of young people in building the future of the Baltic region.

It had been 10 years since the Vilnius Declaration, providing a vision for the state of the Baltic Sea region by 2020, had been adopted by the heads of government of the CBSS member states. The presidency had therefore already offered an assessment of the achievements in this region prepared by a group of regional experts as well as an evaluation of the CBSS’ role in fulfilling the Declara- tion’s goals. This assessment was planned to be followed by a new Vilnius Declaration on a vision of the Baltic Sea region until 2030.

The Baltic Sea Region had long been recognized as a model of an advanced socio-economic development and successful regional cooperation in the European Union and beyond. Nonetheless, mul- tiple challenges remained that could be turned into opportunities. By 2030, the Lithuanian side would like to see the following in the region.

On the economic side, it should focus on sustainable economic (blue and green) growth and development, innovation, clean energy as well as the protection of the environment. On the governance side, the region should be reaping the benefits of resilient econo- mies and societies, responsive public services and strong institu- tional frameworks for cooperation; striving for better inclusion, First Session 23

prosperity, public health and social cohesion; improving the possibilities of digitalization for communication, accessible for all people; protecting the vulnerable. At the same time, the side of safety and security should allow them to be able to tackle current and future challenges and crises through joint action where applicable. On the side of regional identity building, elements of a common regional identity and common values should be promoted through culture, research and education. Finally, the region should involve and enable the youth as well as build trust between its nations.

Mr Germanas said that for this to be implemented, an even more coherent framework for continued strong cooperative efforts and actions in the region in all policy areas was needed along with strong willingness and continuous commitment by all regional actors. The Lithuanian side believed that such a declaration and its implementation could be monitored more closely in the future. Such an annual report might be produced by the CBSS Secretariat and shared regularly with the BSPC and the public.

Finally, Mr Germanas expressed his appreciation for the growing cooperation between the BSPC and the CBSS for the benefit of the region. He wished the BSPC the best of success for the conference.

Chairman Niemi thanked Mr Germanas for presenting the agenda of the current Lithuanian presidency in the CBSS.

He moved on to introduce, Ambassador Ove Ullerup, Former Chair of the Committee of Senior Officials of the Council of the Baltic Sea States. Last year, the BSPC had received an outlook on the Danish CBSS Pres- idency during their annual conference in Oslo. The BSPC’s Standing Committee had further been provided with an informative interim report during its meeting in Brussels in March. They were now looking forward to the results of the Danish Presidency. 24 First Session

Speech by Ambassador Ove Ullerup, Former Chair of the Committee of Senior Officials of the Council of the Baltic Sea States

Mr Ullerup thanked the vice president and president before saying that it was a great pleasure for him to share with his audience the main results of the Danish presidency and some reflections for the future. When his predecessor had updated the BSPC Standing Committee on 2 March, she had been quite upbeat in her assessment of what could be achieved. Mr Ullerup was quite happy to confirm that this assessment was well founded.

On 19 May, the reform process had been successfully concluded when the Foreign Ministers of all 11 member states and a high-level representative of the EU had met in a video conference. This extraordinary level of participation was a strong sign of the political support for the reform. The ministers had adopted revised terms of reference for the CBSS and also for the CBSS Secretariat with these key objectives: The first was to create a stronger focus and to enhance flexibility in the way the CBSS was working, with the other goals of improved cooperation with other regional cooperation for a and making better use of the unique strengths of the CBSS in the design and implementation of activities.

In addition, ministers had discussed broad issues of relevance to the entire region, such as the COVID-19 outbreak, youth engagement, environment- and climate-related challenges as well as cross-border organised crime. The ministers had used the CBSS meeting as a platform for a truly regional dialogue, a dialogue also relevant for cooperation in other regional cooperation formats. At the end of the discussion, they had adopted the Bornholm Declaration.

Ambassador Ullerup considered this dialogue at the ministerial level successful not only because the participation was so strong but also because the meeting showed that the CBSS platform can indeed be used for a broader dialogue on issues facing our region rather than be limited to the activities of the organisation itself. The recent reflection paper on the Vilnius Declaration also notes this fruitful and open exchange.

As the CBSS was now moving forward, it would be important to maintain this distinction between a broader regional dialogue on common challenges of the region and the specific tasks assigned to the CBSS. First Session 25

Mr Ove Ullerup

The speaker pointed out that there were many regional challenges, of which COVID-19 has only proved to be one more. At the same time, the CBSS had limited financial and personnel resources. Min- isters had agreed to focus its activities on the areas where the organisation was uniquely suited to add value for the region and its members. The new guiding documents for the CBSS work on trafficking in human beings and protecting children at risk adopted during the Lithuanian presidency reflected this approach.

They had also focused very much on regional coherence. During their presidency, the Lithuanian side had adopted orientations for the CBSS role and engagement within the EU Strategy for the Bal- tic Sea Region and the Northern Dimension. Ambassador Ullerup underlined that regional coherence required political leadership. Member states had a great responsibility for avoiding overlaps and duplication. If they wanted better regional coherence, it was necessary to create adequate incentives in the governance systems of the regional organisations.

When a need arose, and COVID-19 was a point in case, he said, regional organisations typically saw an opportunity to gain increased visibility and funding and therefore proposed new initiatives. Often, this happened without much consideration of regional coherence. This led to parallel and often competing initiatives. It spread the activities of each organisation, to the detriment of focus and quality. Moreover, he added, it reduced the impact and value for money, blurring the roles and mandates. 26 First Session

While the regional organisations had to become more able to react rapidly to new challenges, there was a need to ensure more systemic coherence. Otherwise, increased flexibility could mean even more overlaps and duplication.

The ambassador asked the question what could be done. In that, he offered two concrete suggestions.

They could work to insert similar wording in the governing documents of the secretariats of the other regional organisations similar to the new Terms of Reference of the CBSS Secretariat which inter alia pointed to the fact that they wished to promote enhanced dialogue, cooperation and alignment with other regional actors through a regular structured dialogue in the context of existing cooperation formats in the region. In addition, they could ask the heads of all the secretariats to regularly report to their governing bodies on such coordination efforts.

Another suggestion by the ambassador was that they might also require regional coherence checks. A secretariat proposal to address a new challenge would have to outline how it fit with the role and mandate of other regional organisations. This would enable member states to ensure that overlaps were avoided, and decisions were made that furthered regional coherence.

Mr Ullerup mentioned that his side was very pleased that a new Director General for the CBSS secretariat had been elected – a director general with a reformed and updated job description. He further underlined as very important that the Lithuanian presidency had been able to recruit the new Director General through an open and transparent process. He offered their hope that this open approach would promote trust and help Ambassador Poznanski to build the strong relations with all member states that would be crucial, in order for him and the secretariat to use its potential in ensuring that they could all harvest the fruits of the reform.

The ambassador concluded his presentation by informing his audience that they had taken the initiative to reinforce cooperation within the CBSS troika. This was done in order to seek continuity in their work and effective follow-up of the CBSS reforms. They were happy to see the solid engagement of both Lithuania and Nor- way in this effort.

Chairman Niemi thanked him in turn for his contribution. He went on to introduce the next speaker, Mr Dag Wernø Holter, from the First Session 27

Nordic-Baltic Section in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Norway. Mr Holter would address some more general aspects of the Baltic Sea cooperation from a Norwegian perspective.

Speech by Mr Dag Wernø Holter, from the Nor- dic-Baltic Section in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Norway

Mr Holter was grateful for being able to say a few words about cooperation in the region, seen from a Norwegian perspective. Nor- way was looking forward to taking on their responsibilities in the presidency of the Council of Baltic Sea States as of next summer. He hoped his audience would appreciate that he deemed it premature for him to enter into any concrete aspects of the nation’s priorities for that presidency since the government had so far only reached the very early stages of preparations. Accordingly, he said he’d limit himself to a few more general observations regarding regional cooperation in their area.

Regional cooperation in the Baltic Sea area had been – and remained – very important, with the vital characteristic that the cooperation had a very broad and varied network of different cooperation structures. Norway was participating in most of these structures, from

Mr Dag Wernø Holter 28 First Session

the CBSS and the Northern Dimension to the Barents Regional Council, the Arctic Council and the Nordic-Baltic Cooperation. Of course, also of great importance was Norway’s participation in the European Economic Area which in their region included eight EU member states and two other states, representing a very important framework for economic relations.

In 2010, Mr Holter said, regional heads of state and government had adopted in their Vilnius Declaration a vision for the development of the region by 2020. As had been shown in an interesting report commissioned this summer by the Lithuanian presidency of the CBSS, looking at the present situation compared to the vision: Much had in fact been achieved. But the report also underlined that there was clearly room for strengthening the cooperation in many areas. They should therefore use the different cooperation formats and structures to their full potential.

The reform process in the CBSS, following the vision group report and the Stockholm Declaration from 2018, had been successfully concluded at the Ministerial Meeting in May 2020, as had already been mentioned earlier. In this process, it had been emphasised that it was necessary to strengthen efficiency and not least to improve synergies between the different cooperation structures. In respect to synergies, the CBSS secretariat had now received a very clear mandate. Mr Holter pointed out that this was a very interesting and useful element. The governments obviously also carried a strong responsibility to follow up. Furthermore, the Norwegian side believed that the parliamentary dimension of the regional cooperation, represented in particular by the Baltic Sea Parlia- mentary Conference, was playing a very important role. The BSPC’s discussions, assessments and inputs to the work of the governments contributed to defining objectives and challenges as well as possible ways forward.

Finally, he wished to conclude by underlining that Norway considered the interplay between political dialogue and practical cooperation to be an essential dimension of the regional cooperation. This was an important experience from many years of their active participation in different cooperation formats in the region. This would also prove important for Norway when they would serve as presidents of the CBSS starting the following year. With the CBSS, they had a very useful platform for political dialogue about the challenges they were facing as well as the objectives the member states wanted to achieve together. The CBSS itself, as well as the other regional formats, offered structures for practical cooperation. It was for all of the involved parties, together, to make the First Session 29

best use of the tools that were at their disposal. The Norwegian side, Mr Holter underlined, would do what they could to achieve these objectives.

With that, he concluded his contribution.

Mr Niemi thanked Mr Holter for his presentation and all the speakers for their informative input. He noted that two requests to speak had been registered, the first from Mr Wille Valve from the Åland Islands.

Speech by Mr Wille Valve, MP of Åland

Mr Valve noted that in difficult times, in times of crises, it was more important than ever that they did not stop talking, that their dialogue continued despite tensions and border restrictions. He admit- ted that he was a bit sceptical towards a digital format for the Con- ference – and still was -, but the Drafting Committee Meeting the previous Thursday, which he had the privilege to attend, had not only been worthwhile but could also serve as a model for other international organisations on how they could keep on talking.

Mr Wille Valve 30 First Session

In this year’s draft resolution, Mr Valve said he would in particular like to stress the points of continuing comprehensive and systemic efforts to strengthen the Baltic Sea cooperation and increasing resilience in a changing world.

He went on to underline that in times of tension, mutual understanding of each other’s motives was truly more important than ever. In fostering mutual understanding, he believed that this organisation could play a vital role. Therefore, he called on everybody not to stop talking with each other. What was needed was more action but also more conversation.

Vice President Niemi thanked him for his contribution and introduced the next speaker, the President of the Nordic Council, Ms Silja Dögg Gunnarsdóttir. First Session 31

Ms Silja Dögg Gunnarsdóttir

Speech by Ms Silja Dögg Gunnarsdóttir, President of the Nordic Council

Ms Gunnarsdóttir opened by saying that she wished to make a brief statement in light of the grave situation in Belarus, a country with strong ties to the Baltic Sea region. The Nordic Council was deeply concerned about the situation in Belarus. She strongly encouraged all of her listeners who were present at this Conference to do what they could to support the people in Belarus and the peaceful transition to democracy in that country. She added that they were all deeply concerned about the situation for the rule of law, human rights and democracy, even with some of the member states of the European Union. The situation might have become even worse in the light of COVID-19. The Nordic Council was therefore very pleased that these elements had been included in the resolution that they would adopt later on that day.

Mr Niemi offered his thanks to the speaker, segueing into the next contribution by the Vice President of the Nordic Council, Ms Oddný Harðardóttir. 32 First Session

Ms Oddný Harðardóttir

Speech by Ms Oddný Harðardóttir, Vice President of the Nordic Council

The speaker strongly supported the statement made by her colleague on Belarus. She also agreed that the Nordic Council was very pleased that these elements had been included in the resolution that they would adopt later that day. She underlined that the members of the Nordic Council considered this issue very important and that they thought strongly about this.

Mr Niemi thanked her for her contribution. At this point, he brought the first session of the conference to a close and offered his gratitude to all the participants. He also mentioned that the speeches had been interesting and fruitful, offering a good outlook for their prosperous cooperation in the future. Second Session 33

SECOND SESSION

Vision 2030: Acting for the Future of the Baltic Sea Region Vision 2030: Safeguarding our Environment, Seas and Oceans for Future Generations

Chaired by Ms Valentina Pivnenko, Former President of the BSPC

Ms Pivnenko wished everyone a good morning. She was very glad to see all of them, even if only on her screen. Moreover, she was very pleased because this was indeed a difficult time during which they were communicating, yet they were continuing on with the tradition that they had created at the very beginning of their parliamentary conference here at the 29th Conference of the BSPC.

The second session, she explained, was devoted to safeguarding the environment. This was almost a thread going through all of the conferences of the BSPC and all of their meeting. She mentioned that she had been lucky enough to come along to nearly everyone of the conferences since their parliamentary cooperation had first begun. It is her firm conviction that the statements made in their first ses-

Ms Valentina Pivnenko 34 Second Session

sion underlined just how important dialogue and cooperation were as well as what their priorities were to strengthen this cooperation in the period up until 2030. Nonetheless, based on the statements that had been made regarding the situation in Belarus so far, Ms Pivnenko wished to add that not long ago, the president of the Rus- sian Federation, Mr Vladimir Putin, had spoken with Chancellor Merkel and the foreign ministers of the European Council. The Russian side had emphasised the inadmissibility of any foreign interference in any other country’s activities. Such foreign intervention would be seen as an attempt to destabilise the country. Ms Piv- nenko noted for her parliamentarian colleagues that their cooperation was not political in its nature, and no such political intent had been set out in their constituent documents. Furthermore, she said that Belarus was neither a member nor an observer of the BSPC. The Conference of the BSPC for over ten years at this point had refused the Belarus parliament the status of observer in their midst. Accordingly, the statement of the inadmissibility of foreign intervention in other states and attempts to destabilise the political situation in Belarus had been made by the Russian leadership. The statements by the Belarusian presidency as well as representatives of the Belarusian assembly showed without doubt, in the view of the Russian side, that without foreign influence, the country of Belarus would find its own way and indeed had to do so. In addition, she said that observers from the OECD had been invited to review the elections in Belarus but had not come in to do so, despite the invitation. No actual irregularities in the election had not in fact been proven.

After her comments on Belarus, Ms Pivnenko returned to the topic of the second session. She said that the first speaker would be Ms Svenja Schulze, environmental minister of Germany, who would address the Conference in a video message. In addition, Ms Schulze represented the chair of the HELCOM as well since Germany was currently holding the chairmanship of the HELCOM and the presidency of the European Council.

After that, Mr Oleg Nilov, a member of the state duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, would be speaking as well as Mr Peter Stein, BSPC Rapporteur on sea-dumped ammunitions and member of the German Bundestag. Second Session 35

Ms Svenja Schulze

Video Message by Ms Svenja Schulze, Federal Minister for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany, HELCOM Chairmanship, European Council Presidency

Ms Schulze noted that the coronavirus pandemic and the immediate protection of human health continued to dominate thoughts and actions. At the same time, it was becoming increasingly clear to many people just how dependent their lives and survival were on the general state of the environment. This also applied to marine protection, which is why this day’s discussions were so important.

During Germany’s HELCOM Chairmanship, her side would actively shape the future of the Baltic Sea together with its partners. She then briefly outlined her goals: First was the overarching goal of improved protection of the Baltic Sea. The minister considered this the only way to secure the future of the Baltic Sea region as a whole. Her second point concerned the economic recovery ahead which provided an opportunity for social and ecological progress: specifically, climate action and environmental protection – including, of course, marine protection. She promised that she would work hard to achieve this goal. Next, she pointed out that the HELCOM Bal- tic Sea Action Plan was the scientific basis for their measures. It was her belief that they should develop this plan for the next ten years to enable it to respond to new challenges and lay down ambitious targets and measures. Concerning her goal for the HELCOM Min- isterial Meeting next year, she expected that an updated plan would 36 Second Session

be adopted. This would establish a more effective protection of the Baltic Sea at the political level, too. Moreover, significant improve- ments were needed regarding eutrophication and the conservation of marine biodiversity. This is why the German side would address this issue in detail. Finally, on the topic of munitions in the sea, all Baltic Sea countries had a shared responsibility. The minister’s goal for this process was to lead to joint action. She appreciated that the Baltic Sea parliamentarians had clearly signalled their support.

Another key issue for Germany’s HELCOM chairmanship was global ocean governance. To achieve this, cooperation among all relevant players was needed, in and between regions. For that reason, the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference was such an important institution, Ms Schulze underlined. She was delighted to have the BSPC as a partner by their side and by HELCOM’s side.

Ms Pivnenko offered her gratitude to Ms Schulze, noting that the environment was very important to the BSPC. Next, she yielded the floor to Mr Oleg Nilov from St Petersburg.

Speech by Mr Oleg Nilov, member of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation

Mr Nilov offered his greetings from St Petersburg. He noted that he was near one of the most important waterways, in a building that served as its museum. The canals and the draining of St Petersburg had been a very important project and provided a very good example of cooperation in terms of financing. Most of the water of the Baltic Sea had been drained out of the city, as well as the wastewater. In fact, there were only two districts in St Petersburg that were not connected to the wastewater drainage system which had been established with the help of international cooperation. In that regard, he offered his gratitude to the Finnish colleagues whose side had provided financing. He further thanked his Swedish and Nor- wegian colleagues for their countries’ assistance. Mr Nilov underlined that this wastewater system was working well, and its implementation had gone ahead without any unnecessary comments or arguments about democracy. Second Session 37

Mr Oleg Nilov

Beyond the immediate water concerns, the speaker pointed out that water was the basis of their conference as it encompassed the Baltic Sea states. He reminded his audience that air was equally important to their lives, that the climate mattered. People should be able to live without flooding, without overheating and without forest fires. He praised the efforts of so many colleagues in the BSPC in the framework of the Green Agenda, particularly in the area of green energy. Moreover, Mr Nilov wished to draw their attention to a glaring misbalance. Much discussion was devoted to climate change, global warming, carbon emissions. On the one hand, there was eutrophication which had to be looked at, but there was another area that was not talked about enough. This aspect was forest fires.

Forest fires were a major problem in Russia. As a matter of fact, it was one of the greatest issues, if not right at the top of the list of environmental problems. The same was true of the United States, Brazil and many other countries, such as Australia. Forest fires were not only a disaster for these countries in themselves, but they also proved disastrous for the environment of the entire planet. That was because the fire’s emissions were entering the atmosphere.

As an example, he referred to climatologists’ reports from June: In Siberia, only 30 per cent of Russian forests remained. 59 million tonnes of carbon had been emitted into the atmosphere through forest fires. This was the equivalent of what Portugal was emitting in an entire year. 285 million tonnes of carbon had been emitted into the atmosphere as a result of forest fires in recent years in Russia alone. Considering all the other countries where such fires were 38 Second Session

major issues, the overall figure was immensely larger. Mr Nilov underlined that this was a major problem. In the northernmost forest fires in recorded history in the tundra, 50 kilometres before the northern ice sheet, the turf of the tundra had recently caught fire. If this were to spread, it would prove impossible to ever put this fire out. The level of carbon emitted into the atmosphere, if that were to happen, would simply be incredible. Ten to fifteen million hectares of tundra were lost every year to forest fires. That equalled the size of Greece, each year, Mr Nilov underlined. He asked his listeners to imagine what might be left after 2030 in terms of forests, and what huge amounts of carbon would be emitted through the conflagra- tion. That consideration did not even take into account that the forests in and of themselves ordinarily served as carbon sinks. If trees were burning, they could no longer absorb carbon.

The speaker pointed out that this was a massive problem and that the BSPC needed to discuss it. He believed they had to speak about what had to be done, that decisions had to be taken on how to address the problem of forest fires. At the very least, they should consider if there were any budgets that could be put forward to this end.

He suggested that discussions should be raised, not only in the BSPC but also in other venues, on how to take the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Accord further. Following in their footsteps, Mr Nilov called for a Baltic Sea Accord to mitigate carbon emissions through forest fires, as one of the main sources of carbon emissions into the atmosphere on this planet. He said they should draw attention to this issue and channel funding into mitigating losses in this area. If you wanted to build a home, he proposed, you should have to plant a tree. If you wanted to buy a car, you should have to plant a whole forest. That would be necessary to compensate for the carbon emissions caused by your car or home.

Mr Nilov asked the other countries to consider what options they saw in this respect, particularly the nations suffering from this problem. He emphasised again that millions of hectares were being dec- imated each year. This was an issue that they had to start talking about. The speaker also called for an international foundation to be set up to alleviate the consequences of this problem, to tackle forest fires both in poor and richer countries as well as in more remote areas. Here, he mentioned Australia and the US as examples. Nei- ther of them seemed to be in a position to deal with this challenge on their own. Therefore, Mr Nilov believed there had to be a “green army” of firefighters in order to tackle this problem in the near future. Second Session 39

If this problem was not resolved, he stated, then there was no point to talking about burning carbon at all. Indeed, planes or cars, with all their contributions to global warming, were just one part of the climate challenge, with forest fires responsible for much in their own right.

In conclusion, Mr Nilov pointed to California as a current example. In the US, hundreds of thousands of people were having to flee their homes because of the forest fires raging there. Billions of dollars were being lost at this very moment. Recent years had shown that even in democracies, not everything was perfect. The life of the forest was far more important than elections, he suggested, or political fights or discussions about human rights. Therefore, he believed it was necessary to go back to the BSPC’s original agenda and talk about what were the most important issues concerning the foundation of life – peace, the forests, the water and the quality of the air. These surely were more important than political discussions, he affirmed. The latter were something they could talk about sepa- rately, in their parliaments and at the next in-person meetings.

He concluded his speech by stating his hope that they could indeed meet in person again very soon.

Ms Pivnenko thanked him for his contribution, adding that Mr Nilov had given them serious food for thought and promised that they would consider his proposal in reworking the Baltic Sea agenda.

Moving on to the issue of sea-dumped ammunition, she invited Mr Peter Stein, member of the German Bundestag, to speak on this topic. As BSPC Rapporteur on this problem, he had elaborated an interim report on ammunitions and unexploded ordinance in the Baltic Sea. 40 Second Session

Speech by Mr Peter Stein, member of the German Bundestag and BSPC Rapporteur on sea-dumped ammunitions

Mr Stein began by thanking the BSPC for having held the role of Rapporteur for sea-dumped ammunitions since November of the preceding year, as had also been decided in Oslo. He went on to note that during his work on this topic, he had realized quite clearly that there was rather little information available on the subject. Accordingly, he had decided to report on this topic at the 29th BSPC.

He offered his gratitude for the support he had received and the help from the nation states in putting this report together, in response to the resolution of the 28th BSPC. A statement had been made as a result. Mr Stein further thanked the Geomar Institute in Kiel, the Fraunhofer Institute and the State Assembly of Schleswig-Holstein, Mr Bahr and the HELCOM. They had made it possible for the report to grow to such an estimable size. He noted that it was an interim report, adding that they could be proud of the fact that the resolution of the 28th BSPC had triggered a dynamism in the issue. They could make use of this dynamic movement which had triggered a number of developments.

Mr Stein wished to address three of those. The first was the EU Interreg project DAIMON which had been concluded very successfully. The project had been extended into a sequel, DAIMON 2, as well as the Soft Merge programme of HELCOM. Unfortunately, in the attempts to remove ammunitions from the sea floor, 18 pilot whales had been killed in the Baltic Sea. That had led to a severe media response. As such, the public was being confronted with this issue to a certain extent, although not as much as one might wish. At the moment, ammunitions on the sea floor were very much an issue for experts and specialists, but it needed to find a broader basis in the public’s awareness. Happily, there was the situation that they still had time to look at the issues. In interviews, Mr Stein would say, “The work ahead of us will take 20 years to complete, but we better assume it will take 100 years.” In terms of technology and trained staff, they had to become more efficient and faster.

Mr Stein thanked Commissioner Sinkevičius with regard to the updated Baltic Sea Action Plan. He would appreciate it if the issue of sea-dumped ammunitions could be included in that plan along with aiming for an improvement of the entire environmental status of the Baltic Sea. Second Session 41

Mr Peter Stein

The speaker suggested that they all work together through the good connections they had established and to move even closer together. One instance in which they should progress together was data standardization. A standardized input of data into an expert group would be very helpful. He could imagine an expert panel as an out- lier of the DAIMON expert group. He mentioned very interesting approaches using bio-indicators. Unfortunately, they were increasingly seeing toxins leaking from the ammunitions, particularly TNT. It had become detectable in fish and mussel stocks. On the other hand, mussels could serve as a bio-indicator and provide a monitoring function through their intake of the toxins. Compre- hensive monitoring, well beyond such bio-indicators, was required. Technological approaches were equally required, all feeding into a standardized contribution to expert panels as he had suggested earlier. In addition, if so much understanding and research had been brought together in international cooperation, the question was whether to launch a concerted approach to tackling this problem. One problem here was the historical responsibility, which was per- ceived differently in various nations; moreover, each country approached the issue individually, dealing with the responsibilities in divergent manners as well as the legal status. In other words, the nations sharing the Baltic Sea did not have a joint approach of how to deal with the topic. In that regard, Mr Stein suggested a voluntary donation fund for the group of experts. For this fund, Mr Stein proposed 500 million euros as the target sum. While it could be under the auspices of the EU, in the speaker’s estimate, the HEL- COM would be better suited. 42 Second Session

Moreover, Mr Stein proposed focusing far more on the capacities of the private and maritime industries. If they were to only use state organisations, he did not believe they could succeed in resolving the problem. He believed that potentials in terms of new technologies and their development could be harnessed through cooperation with the private maritime industry. The proposed fund along with the expert group could call for tenders regularly, allowing maritime companies established in the Baltic Sea to access this value chain. Mr Stein noted that the way the BSPC had been dealing with the issue had been truly exemplary. He imagined that, starting from the current resolution of the 29th BSPC, the Baltic Sea could become a pioneer and model for how to resolve the problem of sea-dumped ammunitions all over the world.

He cautioned that this approach also meant having to deal with sunken ships and ghost nets in particular. Mr Stein noted that he had been quite shocked to hear that there were up to ten thousand ghost nets and sections of fishing nets simply floating around the sea, causing negative impacts on the fauna. That was an adjacent problem that had to be resolved along the dumped ammunitions.

In summary, Mr Stein mentioned how pleased he was that they had made progress and joined forces. Commissioner Sinkevičius had said that they were living a common dream – the dream of a clean Baltic Sea. Mr Stein noted that this was also a shared duty.

Finally, the speaker pointed out that he was a German who could live this dream and duty, 30 years after the peaceful revolution in the former eastern part of his country. In that regard, he wished their Belarusian friends that they should also have such a peaceful development, without outside intervention, and that democracy should emerge from this process. When it came to preserving the environment, Mr Stein went on, the Belarusian people were indeed part of the peoples around the Baltic Sea.

With that, Mr Stein concluded his contribution.

Ms Pivnenko thanked Mr Stein and offered her hope that they would continue cooperation within the framework of future presidencies to tackle this issue. She then offered the floor to Ms Liz Mattsson, member of the parliament of Åland. Second Session 43

Speech by Ms Liz Mattsson, MP Åland

Ms Mattsson pointed out that the Åland Island was located in the middle of the Baltic Sea, surrounded by the ocean. It was very important for all of the island’s industries to think about how to protect the environment, the seas and oceans for the future. During the summer, when the weather is hot, blue-green algae could be found along the beaches – a sign of eutrophication. A very important subject was how they could all work together on these environmental challenges.

The speaker said that she had been working with agriculture and rural development in Åland. For that reason, she I chose to focus on sustainable agriculture. For Åland, the food industry was significant. Of the island’s total 30,000 inhabitants, about 600 were farmers. They had a rich agricultural landscape along with a well-developed food industry and small-scale production. Therefore, Ms Mattsson considered Åland a good place for pilot projects in sustainable food production. Already today, several projects were in progress with a focus on circular systems, construction of wetlands, sedimentation basins and IPM (integrated pest management).

Ms Mattsson went on to note some concrete examples: A large amount of the substances causing eutrophication were transported along ditches to the Baltic Sea. In recent years, farmers on Åland had therefore built several wetlands and sedimentation basins with the main purpose of capturing nutrients from fields before they could flow into the sea. The wetlands were reducing the amount of

Ms Liz Mattsson 44 Second Session

nutrients streaming out from the fields while at the same time stor- ing water for dry years. She added that the wetlands also beautified the landscape and served as excellent habitats for many different species. The sedimentation basins captured soil material containing nutrients released from the fields.

Some of the island’s farmers had also tried to recycle nutrients from the Baltic Sea by collecting bladderwrack washed up on the beaches. Bladderwrack had proven effective in soil improvement, providing an environmentally friendly nutrient supplement to the fields.

Åland produced around 80 % of the total production of apples in Finland, and the value of the production was high. She pointed out that insects were their most important workers in the cultivations of apples. A key factor for a good harvest was a successful pollination of the apple flowers through bumblebees and bees. Varoa was a common disease in bees, the speaker explained, and was caused by Varoa mites. The mites had caused widespread loss of vital bees in Europe and the USA. For Europe, calculations arrived at a lack of 1 million colonies, for the most part due to the Varroa mite. The disease spread through the movement of bee fry and direct contact between infested bees. Åland was unique in that its bees were Varoa- free. Accordingly, the island’s bees did not suffer from the disease. To keep Åland free from Varoa, they had enacted a total stop on importing bees from 2013 onwards. This had allowed them to establish the present-day prosperous society of bees, allowing local beekeepers to seek out possible commercial trade of bees to other countries. As an example, Ms Mattsson mentioned that bees from Åland had been delivered to Iceland.

The Åland family farms were generally small-scale and took great care of the environment. Behind each product, there were people who wanted to produce the best food possible and contribute to sustainable food production. Biodiversity and climate-smart farm- ing methods were the key elements in sustainable food production, she underlined. Ms Mattson said that she was very much looking forward to further discussions with the working group on biodiversity, expecting that there would be a lot of good ideas and experi- ences to exchange. Biodiversity was an extremely important subject globally as well as locally, she concluded, and together, they still had a lot of work to do.

Session chairwoman Pivnenko thanked Ms Mattsson for her contribution, moving on to Mr Kacper Płażyński, Sejm of Poland. Second Session 45

Comment by Mr Kacper Płażyński, Member of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland

Mr Płażyński offered special thanks to Mr Stein on his report about munitions at the bottom of the Baltic Sea as well as the idea of a fund for the protection of the Baltic Sea. That would seriously deal with the cleaning of the seabed in the Baltic Sea, removing all the remnants of the First but even more so the Second World War. However, he pointed out that he had to intervene here. When Mr Stein provided the historic relativism that there was a different atti- tude to the ammunitions and the poison gases in the various countries, he reminded his audience that it had been Germany which had caused the Second World War together with the Soviet Union. In the present, it was Russia and Germany who were responsible for those chemicals at the bottom of the sea. Mr Płażyński reasoned that this was because those states after 1945 had dropped those materials there rather than neutralising or destroying them in an environmentally friendly manner. When they were talking about developing the fund suggested by Mr Stein, the speaker believed that the core responsibility lay with those two countries mentioned before. They should contribute the major financial outlay to rectify the mistakes that they had caused before.

Mr Kacper Płażyński 46 Second Session

Ms Pivnenko thanked him for his comment. She chose to remark on the responsibility of Russia and Germany for dumped ammunitions. She cautioned her listeners not to forget the fact that dumped ammunitions had been dumped by the allies, including Britain and the US. When Russia had opened the respective archives in the 2000s, they didn’t have access to the archives of other countries. Ms Pivnenko very much hoped that they would continue to pursue this very serious and important work to find out more about all of this, and by joining forces, she believed they could arrive at a real picture of the participants linked to the dumping of ammunitions, wrecks and other weapons. It had been open, it had been clear, and they should be able to get evidence for all of their Baltic Sea states as well. They were looking at their work which would continue. When taking part in the Drafting Committee meeting on the draft resolution in the run-up to this conference, they had focused very clearly on this issue and had discussed it. The chairwoman asked the attendees of the Conference to consider that there had been a number of different points regarding the protection of the environment, the oceans and the seas. The Russian side had put in several amendments into the resolution. They believed that this provided the basis for the way forward, to ensure the purity and cleanness of the Baltic Sea was achieved. This came in addition to economic and social development in countries, serving the prosperity of their citizens as well as, first and foremost, their health. Health, namely, was also an important issue because the pandemic COVID-19 had meant that they could not see each other in person. They could not look into each other’s eyes; they could not smile at each other in person. All the attendees could do was see each other on their screens. In addition, Ms Pivnenko reminded them that, starting on 1 September, Russia would begin vaccinating its population through the vaccine developed by their country. First, the most vulnerable members of the population would receive it.

As this was an important issue, she gave the floor to Mr Christian Juhl, MP Denmark. Subsequently, Mr Peter Stein would comment on some remarks made earlier. Mr Johannes Schraps, MP Germany, would also add his views. Second Session 47

Mr Christian Juhl

Comment by Mr Christian Juhl, MP Denmark

Mr Juhl noted that he was especially glad about the report on sea- dumped ammunitions. He considered it very important. Moreover, he agreed with Ms Pivnenko that they had to determine who was responsible for this problem. It was necessary how many and where these munitions were located as well as how to clean them up.

He wished to mention that the Nordic countries and the Baltic states had been very active in their endeavour to stop nuclear weapons all over the world. Mr Juhl thought this could be a case for the BSPC to support the UN in its new initiative to ban all nuclear weapons. He conceded that this was an issue for the future, but he addressed it because it seemed to him fitting regarding the ammunitions in the Baltic Sea. Mr Juhl said that they had an important role to play in the question of nuclear weapons as well. The speaker added his hope that the BSPC could form a committee in the future to discuss the Baltic Sea as a sea without nuclear weapons.

Ms Pivnenko thanked him for his presentation and proposal. She agreed that this was a valuable suggestion for their work in the Baltic Sea Par- liamentary Conference. Next, she yielded the floor to Mr Stein. 48 Second Session

Comment by Mr Peter Stein, MP Germany

Mr Stein began by noting that the questions raised earlier were the ones he himself had been most intensely interested in. It was not that they did not know what was happening in the Baltic Sea. The problem was that historical responsibility often did not match who was responsible for the issue now. Coordinating an agreement in this regard was not something for which they had all the time in the world to discuss. For that reason, he believed they should establish a voluntary fund, much like the UN funds, for example on development of cooperation. This element of voluntariness was important, Mr Stein stressed. Those who felt called upon or experienced a sense of responsibility could donate finances to this fund. He added that European funding might also be brought into this. Mr Stein believed that it would be highly meaningful to take this first step and to find a common ground, whether or not they had conclu- sively agreed on everything and discovered all that they wished to find out. In his view, they had already spent too much time doing this and needed to throw money at the problem, to clean up the Baltic Sea. This was an opportunity, he stressed, to become a pilot region and set an example for others who had to deal with such problems as well.

Ms Pivnenko moved on to Mr Johannes Schraps of the German Bunde- stag.

Comment by Mr Johannes Schraps, MP Germany

Mr Schraps also thanked Mr Stein for his report about dumped ammunitions in the Baltic Sea and was looking forward to hearing from the other Rapporteurs on important topics. He believed that the lively discussion at today’s meeting showed that it was a hot topic that they had to deal with as parliamentarians in the Baltic Sea region. Something that had always been important for them as parliamentarians had been and was that they tried to focus on the things they had in common and how they could solve them together. Therefore, he considered it important not to look back at the past, at who was responsible and who had to pay for what. Talking about responsibilities mattered, he underlined, as did discussing where to Second Session 49

Mr Johannes Schraps

get the money to solve problems. Nonetheless, the focus should be on the issue at hand and how to resolve it. Accordingly, he was very happy that the German side had brought this topic onto the agenda in the previous year’s resolution. The first, important success that they had already achieved was that the current HELCOM presidency – as the German Minister of the Environment, Ms Svenja Schulze, had said – was taking sea-dumped ammunitions into account in their agenda. What they could do, as parliamentarians, Mr Schraps pointed out was to ask their governments about this problem and to put pressure on them to deal with it. That was, after all, part of their work and their way of taking responsibility for issues. As such, he called on his listeners that they should pursue this path to bring this topic forward. He stressed that the BSPC should strengthen its position on this topic, adding that he hoped for all of them to agree on the resolution that they were finalising on this day.

Chairwoman Pivnenko thanked him for his contribution. She noted that it was important to have this valuable discussion. Ms Pivnenko added that the problem of dumped ammunition and sunken wrecks at the bottom of the Baltic Sea was very important and suggested to her colleagues that they should not use this issue to point fingers or to get into the whole history of the Second World War again. It happened, these issues were important, these difficult times they were living through – but she underlined that the idea of getting into practical work was important. She further mentioned that this work had indeed started, as 50 Second Session

evidenced by the region of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea where the Rus- sian Federation had begun work to remove some of the sunken barges and wrecks as well as the ammunitions on the seabed. This was done in practice, and it was this practical approach that she called on the parliamentarians to focus on, how this task could be accomplished together. Regarding a fund to be set up, she considered it a sensitive issue. Still, that topic had been touched upon in the draft resolution, although she cautioned that there had not been a huge amount of support at the time. Ms Pivnenko suggested that they needed to look at this concern more carefully and at what resources might be available in the current day as well as at how these resources could be employed. All of that would help in implementing this expensive, difficult work, within the framework of their Baltic Sea cooperation and could be intensified. The purity of the Baltic Sea remained part of their action plan that they were working towards, Ms Pivnenko stated.

She thanked all the contributors, adding her high hope that they would be able to continue their work in person and overcome the COVID-19 coronavirus. With that, she concluded the Second Session and yielded the chairmanship to Ms Carola Veit, president of the State Parliament of Hamburg, for the Third Session. Third Session 51

THIRD SESSION

Vision 2030: Migration and Integration – Finding Common Solutions Based on Mutual Information and Best Practices as well as Reports by the BSPC Rapporteurs and Addresses by observers and guests of the BSPC

Chaired by Ms Carola Veit, President of the State Parliament of Hamburg, Vice Chair of the BSPC WG, Former BSPC President

Session chairwoman Carola Veit said that the third session consisted of two parts: In the first part, they would discuss the topic of Migra- tion and Integration along with finding common solutions based

Ms Carola Veit 52 Third Session

on mutual information and best practices. The BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration had completed its activities and published its final report on the BSPC website. Accordingly, she considered it excellent timing to discuss the issue based on the final report and its recommendations. In the second part, the BSPC Rapporteurs would present their work. After that, the guests and observers were traditionally invited to address the digital audience of this conference.

She introduced the speakers of the first part of the current session, beginning with Mr Hans Wallmark, MP Sweden and chairman of the BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration, followed by Mr Dmitry Demidenko, Deputy Head of the Main Migration Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Fed- eration, and Ms Vladlena Avdeeva, representative of the NGO «Stellit» from St Petersburg.

Ms Veit gave the floor to Mr Wallmark.

Speech by Mr Hans Wallmark, MP Sweden and chairman of the BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration

The BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration had been launched by the 26th BSPC in Hamburg on 5 September 2017. For the past three years the Working Group had had engaging discussions, listened to a number of presentations from experts and exchanged best practice examples with each other.

Mr Wallmark explained that, during this time, a scientific analysis had been conducted by the Migration Institute of Finland, and the dialogue with the Governments on the subject had continued and been extended. The group had finalized two interim reports, a final report and several recommendations to their governments. The group’s work had now come to an end, he announced.

The aim of the working group had been to coordinate and cooperate, to the extent possible, while respecting the fact that migration and integration were areas of national legal competence. He further pointed out that each and every member of the BSPC also had different national priorities, traditions, migration realities and condi- Third Session 53

Mr Hans Wallmark

tions to further take into account when formulating individual approaches.

This had been one of the strengths of the Working Group; by sharing best practices and our different perspectives on the topic, they had been able to learn from each other.

Mr Wallmark noted that this was also one of the main conclusions stated in the final report - to continue to share best practices regarding, for example, the support of employment and integration of certain groups of migrants. It was necessary to acknowledge the multi- faceted character of integration, including the labour market, language, social relationships and cultural accommodation. In all of these areas, he underlined, they could continue to learn from each other.

During the past years, the working group had met with several actors working with migration and integration in the Baltic Sea region, many of them parts of civil society. Another recommendation of the working group was therefore to acknowledge the importance of civil society and NGO’s in facilitating integration. He mentioned sports associations as one example of organisations that were playing an important, unifying role in integration by helping people to get introduced to the society, activated, and bringing new groups of people together. 54 Third Session

Other recommendations of the working group included striving for multinational cooperation and coordination in order to balance undesirable developments such as labour shortages and labour sur- pluses and to acknowledge the concept of three-way integration in legislation and policies.

He returned to the aim of the working group, noting that they also recommended that the BSCP governments should – as best possible given that it was required to take the individual conditions into account – aspire to harmonise the practices concerning returns, processing of asylum applications, and standard reception facilities provided for minor asylum applicants, while taking into account both national and human rights considerations.

Mr Wallmark highlighted the working group’s insistence on the importance of promoting good relations within society and to promote diversity.

Since the refugee crisis in 2015 and the shared – but various – challenges it had created in the Baltic Sea region, he noted, the issue of migration and integration had been one of the key political topics in almost all countries in the region.

Now they were dealing with another crisis – COVID-19. Due to the pandemic, the last meeting of the working group, scheduled on the Åland Islands in April this year, had had to be cancelled. The working group had therefore not had the chance to discuss the effects of the pandemic in detail but had still been able to take the pandemic into consideration when discussing and issuing recommendations.

Being aware of a new reality due to the pandemic, Mr Wallmark explained, the Working Group was urging that the issue of migration and integration continued to be given high priority. It was necessary to maintain and further develop the institutions and projects set up in many countries in the Baltic Sea region as a result of the sharp increase in refugee numbers in 2015 and 2016 and which had made a decisive contribution to improved integration, in order to better respond to future needs in this area.

It was furthermore required to maintain and extend the support for regional and local authorities in this task, because in the long term, they would be bearing the main responsibility in the context of sustainable integration and implementation of long-term integration measures. Third Session 55

And once again, it was necessary to continue to bring up and highlight successful examples of best practices in other Baltic Sea countries, provided that they could be integrated into the respective legal and structural framework. Mr Wallmark stressed that this was what the BSPC could do best - learn from each other.

He noted that one person that he had learned a lot from during this working group was Carola Veit, its vice chair. He thanked her for her your excellent work as vice chair, her dedication to the task of the working group and their fruitful cooperation. He also offered his gratitude to his fellow colleague, Mr Pyry Niemi, who had taken the chairman’s seat in his absence.

Furthermore, he gave many thanks to the parliaments that had shown great hospitality when hosting the meetings of the working group – Hamburg, Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein, Kaliningrad, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany and – even though the last meeting had not taken place – the Åland Islands. Mr Wallmark thanked all the experts attending the meetings as well as the secretariats of the Parliaments and the Secretary-General, who had supported the group’s work with the highest levels of commitment.

Last, but not least, he was grateful to all the members of the working group for their high-quality contributions, the intense discussions and the harmonious atmosphere. This working group had truly shown that the BSPC was an arena for engaging discussions and cooperation, even in an area that was rather politically sensitive in its nature.

Mr Wallmark pointed out that this was the strength of the BSPC; that it was possible to have open arenas for dialogue despite differences of opinion between members. He concluded by stating that he was very proud to have had the honour of being the chair of this working group. He wished his audience a very successful conference.

Ms Veit thanked him for his excellent presentation of the three years of their work. She agreed that they could be proud to have dared face this topic in a BSPC working group. Ms Veit emphasised that she had also enjoyed working with Mr Wallmark, Mr Niemi and all other members in this policy field. She highlighted the sessions held in Hamburg in con- nection with the great integration seminar as well as the conversations with the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum in Schwerin and the very open discussions they had had in Kaliningrad. 56 Third Session

She moved on to inviting Mr Demidenko to speak about the Russian immigration strategy and the situation in Russia concerning migration and integration.

Speech by Mr Dmitry Demidenko, Deputy Head of the Main Migration Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation

Mr Demidenko thanked his audience for the opportunity to exchange opinions about the important issues of migration. At the moment, the Russian Federation was pursuing an open migration policy. It was based on weighing the interests of the individual and the government. Each person who observed the law, respected the history, culture and many different ways of life of the Russian society was within their right to choose the place where they lived and the kind of work they did. Every day, they were working to make it possible for citizens to achieve this end. Important conditions of their openness were security and safeguarding their country against different threats.

Issues of foreign nationals adapted to the legal, social and cultural conditions of Russia were important for realising migration policy. Naturally, he added, adaptation criteria had to be applied in a dif- ferentiated manner. Two years earlier, he noted as an example, the Russian Federation State Migration Concept had been adopted per the Presidential Decree of 31 October 2018. The concept aimed at formulating clear rules for entry being granted, acquiring residence permits and citizenships. This policy was placing special emphasis on creating conditions as conducive as possible for the return of their compatriots to Russia as well. Most of this, Mr Demidenko noted, could be done online, and a lot of services were included. Online visas were available as well. At this point in time, participants of the State Programme for Assistance to Voluntary Resettle- ment of Compatriots Living Abroad wishing to relocate to Russia and to go to priority resettlement areas had received material support. The Russian side was also offering additional types of stimulus payments. Over 1,000 people had relocated to Russia in the preceding year. They had nearly completed the transition to electronic invitations to the Russian Federation, allowing electronic visas to enter the country to be issued. The mechanism set up had already been tested in the Leningrad and St Petersburg region. These meas- Third Session 57

Mr Dmitry Demidenko

ures were part of a plan implementing the concept in the period from 2020 – 2022. The Russian side was looking at ways of how to manage flows of migration.

Against the background of the coronavirus in the present day, they were considering how they could deal with criminality within the framework of illegal migration and attempts to use legal integration channels for unlawful entry. In order to work out common approaches to solving this problem, Mr Demidenko suggested beginning consultations on closer cooperation between the law-en- forcing agencies along the migration routes.

He then spoke about how Russia was adapting to the situation of COVID-19. The country was a centre of migration flows. Every year, there were thousands of people passing through Russia, even millions. Most of these, because of the virus, had been stuck in Rus- sia, and they had had to determine how to cope with them. When they had closed the borders, the vast majority of some 10 million foreign nationals had been forced to stay in Russia without the respective documents allowing longer residence. The Russian side had been aware of the difficulties these foreigners had found themselves in, and out of humanitarian concerns, the president of the Russian Federation had issued a decree giving all of these persons the opportunity to regulate their legal status regarding the legal right of residence and right to work in Russia. Until 15 September, the expiry date of migration documents would be suspended, and no decision would be taken about annulling them. Restrictions had also been introduced on the control and surveillance activities in 58 Third Session

the area of migration. No decisions on expulsion, deportation and the undesirability of anyone’s stay or reduction of temporary stay periods were taken during the pandemic. The territorial organisation of the interior ministry of Russia had not reduced their work- load and continued to provide all citizens with their required documents. Thanks to the implementation of a range of measures, over 1.5 million people had received their documents, allowing them to extend their stay and legally apply for work permits. Particular attention was being paid to returning citizens to their countries of origin while already in special temporary detention facilities. Meas- ures had also been taken to disallow the outbreak among foreign nationals of labour conflicts, protests and strikes. In this way, all social risks were levelled out, including an exacerbation of the crim- inal situation linked to the rise in crime among foreigners. Contrary to many predictions by many Russian and foreign experts, their country did not see a surge in illegal activity by migrants nor mass protests nor disturbances. Mr Demidenko added that it was worth mentioning that this had been achieved through close cooperation with their colleagues and the active participation of civic society organisations.

With that, he brought his presentation to a close.

Ms Veit thanked Mr Demidenko for his contribution and introduced the next speaker, Ms Vladlena Avdeeva. The chair noted that Ms Avdeeva had already informed the Working Group on Migration and Integration in Kaliningrad about her work in the preceding spring.

Speech by Ms Vladlena Avdeeva, representative of the NGO «Stellit» from St Petersburg

Ms Avdeeva was glad she had been able to join the working group in Kaliningrad, adding that it was a great honour for her to be invited to the BSPC Conference. On this day, she would like to talk about the role of online technologies in engaging with migrant children in trafficking in persons. First of all, she wished to define the phrase trafficking in persons for her presentation. According to the main international document, the Palermo Protocol, trafficking in persons meant recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or Third Session 59

Ms Vladlena Avdeeva

receipt of persons with the purpose of sexual, labour exploitation, exploitation for the purpose of forced begging and other forms of exploitation. Russia was a country of destination for child victims of trafficking from many Central Asian countries such as Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan but also from other countries such as Nige- ria, Congo and many others. St Petersburg in particular was a destination for the migration of children from other regions of Russia and also from other countries.

The speaker noted that all children were vulnerable to trafficking in persons, but some groups of children bore special risks of falling victim to trafficking in persons. These included children who had left their homes (or parental families) or formal care institutions; unac- companied minors, i.e., children travelling alone without supervision by parents or guardians; children who did not attend school or kin- dergarten and were not registered in medical institutions, which made it more difficult to identify or track them; undocumented children as well as children from families of migrants from other regions of the Russian Federation or other countries.

Ms Avdeeva reiterated that she was concerned in her speech with online technologies with engaging children in human trafficking. She pointed out that, according to the UNICEF report Children in a Digital World, every third Internet user was a child. This number was growing every day. Recruitment into trafficking in persons was taking place on every online platform: in social networks, messen- gers, even in computer games where children were playing and communicating with other players, and also on DarkNet platforms. 60 Third Session

The COVID-19 pandemic had significantly increased the risk of child trafficking as children were spending more and more time online, studying or communicating with their peers over the Inter- net while experiencing much less control from their parents.

Concerning the recruitment, geographic distances between the child and the perpetrator were erased as the accessibility to children increased when communicating online. This created an opportunity for the perpetrator to choose a potential victim because there was a great amount of information about children – their age, photos and many other materials about themselves. Thus, the recruitment process was being accelerated since there was no need for a face-to-face meeting with the child and all the communication could take place online. At the same time, there was decreased control from the child’s family members who tended to use online communication less than their children. Moreover, the recruiters did not have to be strangers but could also be relatives of a child or people familiar to the child’s family, such as friends, acquaintances and fellow villagers. Ms Avdeeva believed it worth noting that in many Central Asian countries in particular, there were cultural features conducive to recruitment. Here, she mentioned a high level of trust in fellow countrymen and people familiar to the children.

While talking about the prevention of the involvement of children into trafficking and providing assistance, Ms Avdeeva mentioned the manual produced by her organisation, serving to assist stakeholders, with the title “Sexual abuse and exploitation of children: identification, assistance and prevention”. This manual, she explained, was not directly devoted to the problem of trafficking, yet many parts of the document were very helpful and useful for the specialists working with migrant children and children at risk of being dragged into trafficking. When working with children – especially migrant children -, there was a number of difficulties. In particular, this concerned the identification of children’s personal- ity, age and place of residence. This could be further exacerbated by the fact that many children from other countries, that had been identified by the specialists, did not speak Russian. They could acquire the Russian language while living in a shelter or accommodation centre. Other children from the same country leaving the shelter could assist in translation. Ms Avdeeva conceded that it was possible to invite a professional interpreter, but they should take into account the risk of information distortion or leakage. This posed a threat to the protection of children and their personal development. Very often, the facts of abuse and exploitation of children were revealed as it was necessary to report all of these Third Session 61

cases to law enforcement agencies. Ms Avdeeva stressed that they should remember that rehabilitation should be considered a priority when working with a child at all stages.

As her final statement, the speaker noted that online technologies were playing a more important role in the work of non-governmental and governmental organisations alike in the spheres related to the migration of children and engaging with them. Online technologies could be used in the process of identification of children, providing assistance to them and monitoring the children’s condition after completion of the rehabilitation process. Moreover, the Inter- net providers should be involved in the prevention of children being recruited into trafficking and raising awareness about this programme.

Ms Veit thanked Ms Avdeeva for her interesting presentation as well as all the other speakers. She opened the floor for debate. The first speaker was Annika Jansson from Skåne.

Speech by Ms Annika Annerby Jansson, President Skåne Regional Council

Ms Jansson thanked and offered her compliments to Mr Wall- mark and the working group as well as Ms Veit for their excellent work and a very useful survey of the conditions in the Baltic Sea region when it came to migration and integration. This was useful also for people like her who were working at the regional level. In a very interesting part with political recommendations, she wished to dwell a bit on the suggestion stressing the importance of com- piling more comprehensive data at the local level on social, economic, employment and popular trends in the BSPC region which would assist immigration policy-making. Here, her side hoped that the Baltic Sea region would benefit from the project funded by the EU Migration, Asylum and Integration Fund. The overall goal in their region was to create an evidence-based framework for regional policy-making on migrants and integration. One part of the region particularly touched upon the recommendations of the working group. The sub-goal was to build regional indicators for migrant and refugee integration. This would be 62 Third Session

Ms Annika Annerby Jansson

done by new and fine-tuned indicators of integration policy and outcomes, by assessing and comparing regions and beyond as well as by supporting evidence-based actions. Her side had called this the regional version of the well-known migrant and integration policy (MIPEX). Ms Jansson noted that Mr Wallmark had mentioned COVID-19. On that note, she shared some related information. As she and her colleagues had mentioned when they had met in Oslo, the cooperation and partnership project in Skåne called Civic and Health Communication had been a model for information and communication with newly arrived migrants. The outbreak of COVID-19 had shown the importance of systems of communication with citizens that normally do not take part in the information flow from the authorities. This included, of course, large numbers of foreign-born men and women often living in Sweden for some time but unfortunately not always in tune with the language and recommendations of their society. This was also the case in some other parts of Sweden where some groups were harder hit than others. In Skåne, they had had the great advantage of having a large number of established civic and health communication specialists that had been trained to provide information in a great number of languages. They had now been able to switch over to educating not only new arrivals but also a broader and larger part of society. This meant that they had been very fortunate insofar as they did not see significant differences in how the pandemic had affected their society with regard to ethnic origin. Again, Ms Jansson reiterated her gratitude for the hard work in the field of migration and integration. Third Session 63

Ms Veit thanked her for her contribution. As there were no more requests to be heard, the chairwoman moved on to the second part of this session, namely further reports by rapporteurs and working groups. Here, the next speakers would be the Rapporteurs on Integrated Maritime Policy, Mr Jörgen Pettersson and Mr Jochen Schulte. Ms Veit underlined that both had been highly committed to the BSPC in this policy area for many years.

Reports by the BSPC Rapporteurs

Speech by Mr Jörgen Pettersson, former BSPC president, MP Åland

Mr Pettersson noted it was a joy to see his colleagues and to listen to them, but it was a pity that they could not touch each other. He was honoured to address his audience again in a matter he truly believed to be important for literally everything one appreciated in life. Shipping and maritime policy made a difference. The very computer screens the attendees were now looking at in their offices had arrived after spending weeks or even months on a ship at see, their phones had been transported via waterways, probably from China, and the cereals they’d had for breakfast had been transport in a huge ship, carefully placed in the cargo hold by skilled drivers. Likewise their shirts, trousers, socks, cars, bicycles and the television set they would likely watch before going to bed that night. He further pointed out that even the bed probably had also been transported on a ship or ferry, as had been the fridge from which they took their nightly sandwich.

The speaker pointed out that the was saying all of this to make his listeners understand the need for infrastructure in general and shipping in particular.

Up to March of 2020, the shipping industry had been mainly developing to plan. The cruise industry had been constantly increasing, and in Europe alone, there had been over two million people working directly and indirectly in the maritime business. Within the Bal- tic Sea, great efforts had been made to attract the cruise ships to 64 Third Session

their ports and cities. The tourism industry had been clearly and strongly future-orientated, affecting the maritime industry. The contribution to the total European GDP had been calculated to be 150 billion euros. Mr Pettersson noted that, of course, there had been challenges, such as gender equality, social safety, sustainability, greenhouse gas emissions and so on. At the end of the day, though, everyone realised that the shipping industry had been needed to provide an increased population with food, clothes, products, lei- sure, transport etc.

He went on to explain that the EU-controlled fleet had been larger than ever but still smaller compared with the rest of the world. The demand for shipping services had been rising more than European ship-owners could provide which led to a business opportunity. Still, shipping had been one of the major employers in Europe and the world. Besides the direct effects in the industry, there had been indirect impacts like purchases of inputs from suppliers and supplier-owned supply chains. Furthermore, there had been induced impacts like consumer spending by those employed in the shipping industry and its ship supply chains, like food and beverages, recrea- tion, clothing, household goods and so on. The total impact had created an industry had impacted literally everything people were consuming in their daily lives.

Then, Mr Pettersson said, the pandemic had come, and everyone was forced to stay inside and stop consuming, which had huge impact on the maritime industry – the infrastructure of literally all their daily lives. Except for tankers, the rest of the industry had suffered from significant immediate losses. So far, it had been bad, but it was most likely far from over, he cautioned. The situation for ferries, car carri- ers, offshore service vessels and also generally cargo and containers were expected to deteriorate, and the cruise industry as they had known it had disappeared. At the beginning of 2020, the world fleet of cruise ships, including 108 in order, had consisted of 474 ships worth 170 billion dollars. The same fleet on this day was expected to be worth 32 billion dollars less. The older units were expected to have fallen 90 per cent and more. It was mayhem in the cruise industry which, up to this year, had increased steadily every year.

Behind all these figures, Mr Pettersson underlined, there were also human beings unable to travel home to their families, being stuck on cruise ships for example, and of course all of those who no longer had a job to attend. They were facing massive job losses due to the crisis. The speaker said that he would have loved to have come up with advice and recommendations on how shipping would survive this, but for the moment, the uncertainty was larger than everything Third Session 65

Mr Jörgen Pettersson – BSPC Rapporteur on Integrated Maritime Policy else. He was quoting Phil Hogan, the Commissioner for Trade in the European Commission, saying that their world is reshaping and that they had to adapt. In order to keep a European shipping industry, they had to make sure their ship owners would stay competitive and ambitious in the future as well. That would require money and legislation along with an acceptance of the change they were facing.

Keeping in mind all the challenges that had rammed the industry, he noted that it was also important to remember the heroic deeds seafarers and ship owners had performed during the first months of the pandemic. Risking their own lives, they had continued to transport the goods the ones who had stayed in their homes had required every day. They could continue to buy gas, eat bananas, watch tv and work in Teams because the supply chain had continued to work and deliver. That was something Mr Pettersson asked all of them in the BSPC to acknowledge and praise and to realise the unbelievable efforts made by sailors unable to return home.

In numbers, there was a fact that the passenger volumes had decreased by 90 per cent and more while the trade volume had been down by 20 and 30 per cent. Transport had been working so far, but travel had disappeared which would in the long run also affect the transportation of goods.

It was far from over, Mr Pettersson stressed, but they still had to focus on the future and make sure that they were ready the day they could pronounce that they had beaten the virus. From ECSA, the European Community Shipowners’ Association, he quoted the fol- 66 Third Session

lowing requests in order to grow. They had to focus on building a resilient and sustainable EU economy after the coronavirus, and they should reform the World Trade Organisation in order to create global trade opportunities for businesses and in particular small and medium-sized enterprises. They also needed to handle global challenges such as climate change, sustainable development and the digital transition. Improving the level playing field and protecting EU businesses and citizens was as vital as providing a well-functioning maritime structure was necessary in order to go back to sort of a normal again.

Finally, Mr Pettersson conceded that this report was nothing like it used to be. It was different, like the rest of the world. He was however delighted having discussed a printed version together with their dear friend Georg Strätker from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and his colleague in maritime policy, Jochen Schulte, and hoped that this would become reality later. He thanked his audience for listening and keeping up their enthusiasm, high hope and great ambitions for what was probably the best little ocean in the world, the Baltic Sea. He noted that certainly, things were bad at the moment. Yet he assured his colleagues that they were strong, and life was not over, far from it. Therefore, they had to push themselves to see the possibilities that would inevitably turn up when tis sort of miserable year would come to an end. He wished everyone good luck in their work for a better Baltic Sea.

Ms Veit thanked Mr Pettersson very much for his impressive presentation, his work and for going so deeply into the issue and sharing what he had found. She wished the next speaker, Mr Jochen Schulte, also BSPC Rapporteur on Integrated Maritime Policy, a happy birthday, thanking him for spending part of his birthday with the BSPC, and invited him to speak. Third Session 67

Speech by Mr Jochen Schulte, Former Chairman of the BSPC Working Group on Integrated Maritime Policy

Mr Schulte said that it was an unusual situation for him, not to spend his birthday together with his colleagues at the Conference but rather not to be there in person. He was hoping that in the next year, things would work out the way they had been in the past and they could meet each other in person. That made a difference whether they were meeting eye to eye. Video streaming was a nice thing, but if you could talk to each other directly, that could not be replaced by virtual means. Still, he was very happy and delighted that they did have the opportunity to meet despite the difficulties they were confronting and that he could be reporting, together with Mr Pettersson, on what had happened in the field of integrated maritime industry policy over the past twelve months.

He noted that he would like to emphasise a couple of the points made by Mr Pettersson. First, he mentioned that the attendees would be receiving the joint report written by the two rapporteurs shortly. Some of the information was available there in more detail.

COVID-19, Mr Schulte stated, had led not only to a postpone- ment of many popular maritime events. As Mr Pettersson had

Mr Jochen Schulte– BSPC Rapporteur on Integrated Maritime Policy 68 Third Session

already drawn their attention to the issue, long-standing economic impacts had affected the industry as well as important negotiations in the area. Unfortunately, many thriving businesses had been severely hit in the course of the coronavirus pandemic by supply and demand disruptions. The blue economy, the maritime economy was no exception. This applied not only to the ship owners’ and the shipyards’ industry but also everything around it: supplier companies in all regions involved as well as the tourism industry. In total, they had to see that, for the time being, for cruise ships, shipyards and for the supply industry, the ongoing financial year and presumably the beginning of the next year would turn out to be a very difficult situation. All of them had experienced the fact that the demand for new ships of any kind would be very low. So, it was all the more important for all of them, in the regions they were working and living in, that this industry – which was very important for northern Europe – be maintained. They shouldn’t forget that building contracts for ships were one of the strengths of Europe. Modern propulsion engines could help find a way out of the crisis. Mr Schulte underlined that this applied to the economic crisis as well as the environmental challenge.

As part of the COVID-19 recovery package, the European Mari- time Recovery Fund had been increased by 500 million euros. The money was supposed to enhance investment contributing to the New Green Deal, including Farm to Fork and the 2030 Biodiversity Strategies. Even more, in March and April 2020, the EU had adopted an emergency aid for fisheries and aquaculture, in a temporary framework for state aid.

There was another point, Mr Schulte added, a topic that the BSPC had been dealing with for a very long time and that they have had some disputes over. He specified that he was talking about the Nordstream 2 Baltic Sea pipeline. He didn’t wish to assess the various positions regarding the pipeline or the relevant arguments as each of the people putting these forth had the right to be listened to. Nonetheless, he wanted to address a fundamental issue. Mr Schulte was talking about infrastructure and energy as such. There were some points that had to be mentioned. New EU rules and pro- ceedings had promoted competition on the gas market. Owners of gas infrastructure now had to allow third parties access to their pipelines. This included those connecting member states of the European Union to external countries. The interregional group Nordstream 2 within the European Committee of the Regions – which he had also been a member of – had ceased to exist. At the same time, the construction work on the pipeline had stopped in December 2019. Since 15 June 2020, the US had implemented a Third Session 69

censure act against Nordstream 2, putting into place sanctions against European companies involved in the pipeline’s construction and operation. At this point, 24 member states of the European Union had issued a démarche to the US government, expressing that extraterritorial sanctions imposed by third countries were against international law.

Mr Schulte clarified that he was not concerned with assessing the pipeline or energy policies. Instead, his concern lay with the sover- eignty of the European Union and all Baltic Sea states. Greening of energy supply was underway, he noted. In northern Germany, LNG terminals were being built. One of these was built in Rostock, funded by the EU. Climate initiatives, he pointed out, were having an effect on supply and demand of natural gas.

Another point they had been dealing with in the past time and again were the greenhouse gas emissions. Since 2020, maritime traffic had increasingly banked on less GHG-intensive fuels. A full decarbonisation would have to be achieved in the future. According to an EU report, the move towards climate neutrality had started. The European Union which was responsible for 10 per cent of global GHG emission had reduced these by some 20 per cent in-between 1990 and 2018. The potential of the shipping industry was huge as it played an important role, but it needed to be used in a consistent manner so that the increasing emissions in this industry could be brought down further.

Since 2019, progress could be noted in this field, on the basis of the European Union regulation on monitoring and verification systems. Shipping industries needed to report to the EU Commission and to the flag states via the THETIS system about their emission status. This was true of all ships that would have travelled within the European Economic Area.

In addition to that, the IMO initial strategy on the reduction of GHG emissions was reflecting the endeavour of the European Union to bring down the GHG emissions by 40 per cent by 2030. In view of the long lifecycles of ships, these activities had to be prepared and kept in mind during these developments.

Mr Schulte hoped that together with his colleague Mr Pettersson, he had managed to give his audience a brief overview that was nonetheless sufficient for them for their purpose at hand regarding the current developments in the field of integrated maritime industry and policy. He wished all of them a successful working day, not only for this day but for the rest of the year in general. 70 Third Session

Ms Veit thanked him for providing the overview of the activities. She announced that Ms Beate Schlupp, first vice president of the state parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, would be the next speaker, informing the Conference about the activities of the HELCOM. She would also provide a report on sustainable tourism, on behalf of the president of the same state parliament, Ms Birgit Hesse.

Speech by Ms Beate Schlupp, BSPC Observer at the HELCOM

Ms Schlupp noted that the first report had come as a bit of a surprise to her as she hadn’t been expecting it. Regarding HELCOM, she explained that she had continued her colleague’s work as an observer at the HELCOM as well as possible within the framework of the COVID-19 pandemic. This had been a challenge, but she very much wished to thank the HELCOM for their continuous and hard work that had been carried out, particularly the transparency of the commission in terms of its online presence. To begin with, Ms Schlupp said she would like to share a few personal impressions. In her new role as a rapporteur, she had had to deal with the role of the HEL- COM as well as the restrictions imposed by the mandate. This role was by nature limited to acting as the BSPC’s eyes and ears at the meetings of the executive – but not as the voice of the constituents, which they were all accustomed to as parliamentarians. This, she conceded, had required some adaptation but it had also made her think about the ways in which they could make the most of their observer status and not only act as silent guests.

Here, Ms Schlupp chose to quote Ms Svenja Schulte, minister of the environment of Germany, who spoke about partnership. That was something she felt needed to be discussed intensely. In this regard, she mentioned point 24 of the BSPC’s preceding year’s resolution and drew attention to point 10 of the current year’s draft resolution. In those, the BSPC was calling upon the governments of the Baltic Sea region to “support that the HELCOM chairmanship” was pursuing efforts “to intensify efforts to address the problem of munition dumps in the sea”. She noted that they had discussed this intensely earlier. The German team which had assumed the HEL- COM chairmanship in July was advocating exchanges of expertise, information sharing and technology tests to gain a better overview of the scale of munition compounds and their potential impacts. Third Session 71

Ms Beate Schlupp

The ultimate goal remained ensuring the environmentally sound removal of the munitions from the Baltic Sea.

In the framework of the Baltic Sea Action Plan update process, the HELCOM expert group on environmental risks of hazardous submerged objects (SUBMERGED) had submitted a corresponding proposal for new action. It aimed at the development of best environmental practices and control of threats posed by munitions, wrecks and other hazardous submerged objects in the Baltic Sea. On this day and the following, the BSAP UP workshop on hazardous substances would discuss and evaluate this proposal among others. The BSPC should keep a close eye on these developments, bearing in mind that the 41st HELCOM Ministerial Meeting had stressed that the BSAP update process should be participatory and inclusive.

As far as the update of the Baltic Sea Action Plan was concerned, Ms Schlupp pointed out that 2019 – 2020 had marked a departure from plans to correct actions. The work her had mainly concen- trated on two aspects: review and reassessment of current actions and considerations of proposals for new ones. The HELCOM was working on a tight schedule despite the pandemic-induced limita- tions. She expected the updated Baltic Sea Action Plan to be adopted at the following year at the 42nd Ministerial Meeting.

With the BSAP update high on the HELCOM’s agenda, the speaker went on, regular work on pressing issues had to continue regardless. Their goal was to improve the safety of navigation and protection of the marine environment, given the increase of Baltic Sea traffic, the 72 Third Session

current year’s ministerial meeting had adopted recommendations on deep-sea pilotage and enhancing the use of pilots in Route T and Sound. Moreover, it had revised the recommendation on the protection of harbour porpoises in view of increased human activities and the critical status of harbour porpoise populations.

At the same time, the HELCOM was actively working to increase its outreach and contribute to global commitments. State representatives had agreed to use the HELCOM platform to coordinate the regional implementation of ocean-related SDGs in the Baltic Sea. In addition, the HELCOM had undertaken new voluntary commitments for the 2020 UN Ocean Conference – as they had done in 2017 as well. These ranged from integrating ocean-related SDGs into the updated Baltic Sea Action Plan, contributing to the UN Decade of Science for Sustainable Development through the development of the HELCOM Science Agenda to sharing experience within the framework of the UN Regional Seas Programme.

Less than two months earlier, the German team had assumed the chairmanship of the HELCOM and had presented six strategic priorities covering such issue areas as: updating and implementing the Baltic Sea Action Plan; strengthening marine biodiversity; the problem of dumped munitions and finally understanding and responding to climate change. The outlined priorities, Ms Schlupp pointed out, showed potential synergies with the newly established BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity and could serve as a solid basis for further cooperation between the BSPC and the HELCOM.

Overall, Ms Schlupp concluded this part of her speech, it had been an intense year, not only because of COVID-19. Much work still had to be done in order to achieve their goal of having a healthy and safe Baltic Sea. Third Session 73

Ms Beate Schlupp on behalf of Ms Birgit Hesse, BSPC Rapporteur on Sustainable Tourism, President of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg Vorpommern

Ms Schlupp began the speech on behalf of the BSPC Rapporteur on Sustainable Tourism by noting that the unusual format of this year’s first digital Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference was reflecting the extraordinary circumstances caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic. It had brought the world to a standstill. The tourism industry had been among those economic sectors hit the hardest. Ms Schlupp noted that the BSPC had been forced to cancel their meeting in Vilnius. Similarly, hundreds of millions of people around the world who had had to cancel their international business and vacation trips in recent months. The United Nations World Tour- ism Organisation had registered a 58 % decrease in international arrivals in Europe from January to May, and that included the first shutdown-free months. In the Baltic Sea region, Denmark, Iceland, Germany, Estonia and Latvia had experienced the highest losses with an almost 60 % decline in international tourist arrivals compared to the previous year. The tourism industry was one of the major sectors in the Baltic Sea region, contributing between 8.6 % and 1.2 % to the states’ total GDP and between 15.7 % and 3.4 % of total employment. The economic impact of the crisis remained uncertain, yet the forecasts were not encouraging.

Ms Schlupp moved to a cautiously optimistic note: With the care- ful lifting of travel restrictions and easing of curfews in June and July, tourism in Europe was slowly resuming. It was expected that domestic tourism would recover faster – and her side had experienced this trend first-hand in the federal state of Mecklenburg-Vor- pommern. Ms Hesse was president of their regional tourist board, and Ms Schlupp quoted her directly by providing a brief overview.

Even under the current circumstances, seasonal tourism demand in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern was high, and accommodation capacities were well filled. On average, during the summer vacation time, they had registered around 400,000 overnight arrivals on a daily basis. According to a poll conducted by the Mecklenburg-Vorpom- mern tourist board, accommodation facilities were offering 85 % of their capacities. The absence of day-trippers, though, was noticea- ble. On the one hand, it allowed for better implementation of social distancing regulations but led on the other hand to revenue losses in retail, restaurants and cultural institutions. What was particular astounding, Ms Schlupp noted in Ms Hesse’s name, was that until now, there had been no acute infection outbreak in Mecklen- burg-Vorpommern despite the high tourism intensity. The local 74 Third Session

tourism industry had – also thanks to the safety standards jointly developed by the tourism board and its partners – prepared itself well for the vacation season in times of the pandemic and had taken the necessary steps to ensure safe tourism.

With that, Ms Schlupp returned to her own report, noting that the recovery of domestic tourism was good news but unfortunately did not affect everyone equally. There was significant variation in the shares of domestic as compared to inbound expenditures from tourism across the Baltic Sea states, with figures ranging from 85 % in Germany to 12 % in Estonia.

Yet the pandemic’s impact on tourism was not only of financial nature, Ms Schlupp clarified. Lockdowns and border shutdowns were also preventing inter-personal contacts and communication which were essential to fostering understanding, promoting trust and building bridges between people and peoples. Under the current circumstances, working together rather than in isolation on common solutions for the future was becoming more important than ever. Beyond immediate crisis responses to supporting the industry and preparing recovery plans, it was incumbent on them to think about the long-term implications and further pave the way for the structural transformation of tourism. The UNWTO, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development as well as the EU had called upon states to use the crisis to step up efforts in the direction of sustainable tourism and mobility. Thus, in its tourism and transport package from May, the European Commis- sion had set the long-term goal of making tourism more resilient and sustainable. In line with the European Green Deal, the strategy was aimed at developing sustainable transport and tourist accom- modations, smart management of tourism flows as well as sustainability skills among tourist professionals.

Special emphasis had to be placed on the digital transition, Ms Schlupp underlined. On this matter, she drew her audience’s attention to the first trend report on digital tourism in the Baltic Sea region prepared by the Baltic Sea Tourism Centre in 2019. The publication showed, for example, that both tourism providers and consumers in the region were increasingly open to digital tools and products. Additionally, in its report of the preceding month, Routes4U, a joint project between the Council of Europe and the European Union, had proposed that the focus on digital technology and innovation could be one of the building blocks of the Baltic Sea Region brand. Indeed, Ms Schlupp noted, there were considerable discrepancies in digital tourism trends within the region. The Nor- dic states were spearheading the development. Digitalisation was Third Session 75

also a horizontal and overarching theme within policy area tourism of the revised EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea region which had been forwarded to the European Commission in July. It noted that digital technologies could contribute to sustainable tourism, for example through improving the visibility of remote and rural areas in order to redirect tourist flows and minimise overcrowding. IN addition, controlling and monitoring tourism flows could help reduce negative impacts on the environment. Moreover, digitalisation might serve to raise awareness and promote sustainable consump- tion. The digital transformation in itself should of course be sustainable and environmentally friendly in line with the Green IT concept.

Ms Schlupp further mentioned that green tourism had been identified as one of the priorities of the Lithuanian presidency of the Council of the Baltic Sea States in 2020 – 2021. She congratulated the country on assuming the presidency and wished their organisation team all the best in their preparation of the 13th Baltic Sea Tourism Forum in Palanga in November 2020. Ms Schlupp was hoping that the forum could be helped as planned.

In conclusion of her speech, Ms Schlupp stated that the pandemic had dealt a serious blow to the tourism sector. Upholding the balance between keeping people safe and minimising pressures on travel and tourism could be challenging. Yet the crisis could also be used to reflect on the future of the tourist sector with a view to its green transition, sustainability and digital transformation. With that, she brought her presentation to a close.

Chairwoman Veit thanked Ms Schlupp for her contributions as well as the other rapporteurs for providing reports in this year of the COVID- 19 pandemic. She opened the floor for comments or questions, yielding first to Mr Simon Påvals, Member of the Åland Parliament and then to Mr Asaf Hajiyev. 76 Third Session

Mr Simon Påvals

Speech by Mr Simon Påvals, MP Åland

The speaker offered a brief invitation on the subject of cleaning the Baltic Sea from sea-dumped ammunitions. He presented Åland as a meeting place for the Russian, German and other delegations concerning the future cleaning of the Baltic Sea from sea-dumped ammunitions. On the behalf of his island, he was reaching out the hand for future cooperation, noting that Åland was known as the island of peace. Moreover, Finland had been in 2019 ranked as #12 of the greatest countries to have meetings in, and in that regard, he viewed his home as the perfect meeting spot.

Ms Veit thanked him very much and moved on to Mr Hajiyev, the Sec- retary General of the PABSEC. Third Session 77

Addresses by observers and guests of the BSPC

Speech by Mr Asaf Hajiyev, Secretary General of the PABSEC

Mr Hajiyev thanked the president, secretary-general, the members of parliaments for the high honour and privilege to address the BSPC on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Cooperation (PABSEC). He wished his Baltic colleagues good work for their general assembly.

Noting that the pandemic had reduced the frame of their cooperation, he was grateful for IT enabling them to continue their activity. He informed his audience that during the last two months, the PABSEC had organised three meetings of committees and also the general assembly which had taken place at the beginning of August 2020. Three further committee meetings were planned for Septem- ber and October. A topic in all of these discussions would be the coronavirus pandemic, its economic, political and social aspects. It was their hope that in early December, on 9/10 December, the general assembly would take place in Athens, Greece. Mr Hajiyev also offered his hope that a representative from the BSPC could participate in the PABSEC meeting.

Mr Asaf Hajiyev 78 Third Session

The speaker said that the relation with the Black Sea Parliamentary Conference was very good, and he was glad it had been mentioned in the intervention of the president of the BSPC, Mr Valerijus Sim- ulik. Mr Hajiyev hoped that their joint meeting which had been planned for Stockholm would take place physically, although none could know when that would be.

He went on to say a few words about the damages the coronavirus had wrought because today, the damage to the world economy was estimated to be more than 2.5 trillion US dollars. This sum, he underlined, was unimaginably huge. Therefore, it was vital to pay attention to local business. It was very important in this period. A very good example could be Turkey, Mr Hajiyev said, because they were developing their local business as well as e-trade and also e-business. As a parliamentary assembly, he thought it was their obligation to pursue this.

Once again, Mr Hajiyev wished the Baltic parliamentarians good work and hoped that their good relations would continue. To all of his listeners, he wished success and very importantly good health. He thanked them for the invitation to participate in this meeting.

Ms Veit offered her gratitude to Mr Hajiyev. Next, it was her great pleasure to introduce as another of their close partner organisations, Mr Mieczysław Struk, president of the Baltic Sea States Subregional Coop- eration (BSSSC) and the Marshal of the Pomorskie Voivodeship. Third Session 79

Mr Mieczysław Struk

Speech by Mr Mieczysław Struk, President of the Bal- tic Sea States Subregional Cooperation (BSSSC) and the Marshal of the Pomorskie Voivodeship

Mr Struk thanked President Simulik for inviting the BSSSC to address this honourable forum. He considered it a pleasure to attend as a partner organisation representing local and regional authorities as well as their youth. He explained that the BSSSC was a platform to voice the interests of regions, debate and lobby for issues most urgent to them as well as to support and initiate projects and bottom-up cooperations. It also organises its activities against the background of the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, Sustainable Development Goals, Baltic 2030 Action Plan, the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, Northern Dimension, the Euro- pean Green Deal and the EU Digital Agenda, to mention just the key policies and visions.

Having a nearly 30-year history behind them, they could see how much had already been done for this part of Europe and its citizens. But the current challenges – climate crises, ageing societies, digitalisation and all sorts of cyber threats – were decreasing trust in tradi- tional democratic mechanisms, to mention just a few, demanded an even more active and concerted approach. When adding the experience from COVID-19, it became clear that they had to rethink and remodel many areas of life to prepare better for what would come 80 Third Session

next. They had to act together to stop society disruption, the spread of fake news, the increase of populism and nationalism as well as the loss of trust in science and logic.

To address those challenges successfully, they had to follow good governance principles: the rule of law, transparency, accountability and consensus. Solidarity was required in all aspects: with those in need, including migrants, with future generations and with nature. Mr Struk underlined that this what they stood for in the BSSSC.

As the Pomorskie chairmanship in the BSSSC, they had opened the current year’s work with a seminar on democracy, showing how important it was for all the aspects of life to thrive. They had discussed the need to redefine the democratic model, showing new forms of deliberative democracy, like citizens’ assemblies involving all levels of citizenship. In this respect, they were looking forward to the Conference on the Future of Europe but also to initiatives like “Citizens take over Europe”.

Mr Struk went on to say that they were building on the past developments and thus were taking care to involve the youth in all their activities and to provide cooperation and discussion platforms for them. He noted that examples were plentiful, including the BSSSC Spring Youth Event. In that respect, he offered his gratitude to the BSPC director for joining them. Further activities encompassed the planned BSSSC Autumn Youth Event, involvement in the Baltic Sea Youth Camp and the Baltic Sea Youth Platform, where they were happy to be partners of the CBSS. But his organisation was also proud that both initiatives had originated among the BSSSC Youth.

He noted that their biggest event would be the annual conference to be held this year in virtual form from 29 September – 1 October. There, they would discuss developments within the European Strat- egy for the Baltic Sea Region and the Strategy for the West North Regions of the Russian Federation. They would look into the new Territorial Agenda and showcase the best examples of Interreg cooperation. On this basis, they would be preparing ideas for future initiatives. This would be done in the areas of: Culture, creativity and Baltic Identity, Plastic Free Baltic, Intelligent Transport and Mobil- ity, Energy Islands and Circular Economy. Regarding Interreg, Mr Struk highlighted the 30th anniversary of this great financial instrument to be celebrated in October of the current year. The BSSSC appreciated having this important financial support, allowing them to implement ambitious and necessary solutions. In this respect, they were looking forward to the Youth Manifesto on European Third Session 81

Territorial Cooperation which would be presented at that event. They were proud to be part of the discussions.

In his conclusion, Mr Struk conveyed a very strong plea from the regional and local level to the legislative on the macroregional level but also within the nations to involve both them and the youth in the decision-making processes. Only by truly acting together could they find success. Mr Struk further invited his audience to participate in their annual online conference and to follow their other activities.

Ms Veit noted her gratitude for his contribution. She went on to offer her thanks to everyone for taking part in this session, noting that it had been a pleasure for her to see everyone’s faces after such a long time. She hoped that they would be able to come together soon and have debates in person. With that, Ms Veit closed the third session and handed the floor back to President Simulik for the closing of the 29th BSPC Confer- ence. 82 Closing

CLOSING

The Digital 29th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference

Chaired by BSPC President Valerijus Simulik

President Simulik thanked Ms Veit in turn. He said that the was very grateful for the wonderful chairman ship of all these sessions and offered his congratulations to Mr Niemi, Ms Pivnenko and Ms Veit. Beginning the closing session of the digital 29th Baltic Sea Par- liamentary Conference, he pointed out that they were all invited to adopt the Resolution of the 29th annual conference. He reminded his audience that they could only approve it by unanimous vote. However, there was one matter he liked to address first: During the digital Standing Committee meeting in June, they had welcomed an in-depth analysis and a scope of work for the new BSPC Work- ing Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity. A lot of prepara- tory work had been done before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. He was very grateful to Ms Tenfjord-Toftby, the desig- nated chair of the working group, and the Swedish delegation for their effort and commitment. Mr Simulik wished Ms Ten- fjord-Toftby great success in her work and was confident that good results would be achieved.

The president asked the Secretary General of the BSPC, Bodo Bahr if there were any administrative issues that had to be resolved. To that, Mr Bahr clarified that what remained was a decision on the resolution, after which the work of the working group under the chairmanship of Ms Tenfjord-Toftby could begin.

Mr Simulik turned to the resolution of the 29th Baltic Sea Parlia- mentary Conference. The president thanked all the delegations for their constructive proposals and their hard work in the digital Draft- ing Committee meeting. As always, it had not been an easy feat to find agreement, but they had managed it at the end of the day. Pres- ident Simulik underlined that that had been worth it. He thanked everyone for their mutual tolerance and ability to compromise, noting this pride that they had succeeded. Moreover, they had proven that even online, they were able to bring such a difficult resolution to an excellent result. He further mentioned that the resolution had found the unanimous agreement of the Drafting Committee. Closing 83

Mr Bodo Bahr

Now it was up to the Conference to decide whether they wished to adopt it in its current form.

The Conference adopted the Resolution of the 29th Baltic Sea Par- liamentary Conference.

Mr Simulik thanked everyone, for their tolerance and for achieving consensus. He hoped that the contents of the resolution would be acted upon by their governments, ministers and institutions around the Baltic Sea.

He preceded to the moment of passing the baton on to the next team and they all went back to a different kind of work. Mr Simu- lik further noted that they were both glad and sad – sad for the colleagues that would be leaving the BSPC, and he thanked them.

In particular, he thanked Dr Marika Laizane-Jurkane for her great commitment to the BSPC. As Secretary-General of the Baltic Assembly, she had worked with the BSPC for 19 years in the closest and most committed way and had coordinated the cooperation and input of the Baltic Assembly and the Baltic parliaments. She had ensured that comprehensive and continuing contributions of the Baltic States had been incorporated into the work of the BSPC. In the overall structure of the BSPC work, she had been one of the supporting pillars for many years, conscientiously contributing many years of experience. The president pointed out that as of 28 August, Dr Laizane-Jurkane would take on a new challenging task as Chancellor of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lat- 84 Closing

via. On the BSPC’s behalf, he thanked her for many years of cooperation on the basis of trust and for her commitment to the BSPC. He wished her every success in her new task and future life as well as continuing success.

Mr Simulik gave her the floor for final remarks.

Dr Laizane-Jurkane thanked everybody for the years of cooperation. As they were always saying, she noted, they were members of a very safe Baltic Sea boat. She wished them every success in implementing cooperation initiatives. She assured her audience that they would all be seeing each other again as they were living in a digital time and digital network. None of them were leaving but rather staying in very strong communication. Dr Laizane-Jurkane underlined that she would be following the future work of the BSPC.

The president thanked her again, reiterating his wishes of success to her.

He went on to state that it had been a true honour for him to the BSPC president, although the time of the presidency had been, in many respects, unprecedented. Mr Simulik thanked all of their colleagues for their friendly cooperation, mutual understanding and for their respect as well as the good work they had been able to do together.

With a great deal of pleasure, he said, he would be passing the baton to the incoming president, Mr Pyry Niemi from the Swedish Parlia- ment.

Ms Dr Marika Laizane-Jurkane Closing 85

Speech by Mr Pyry Niemi, MP Sweden, Incoming BSPC President 2020 – 2021

Mr Niemi thanked Mr Simulik and began by congratulating their Lithuanian friends for having successfully leading the BSPC during the last year, despite the unusual circumstances with the pandemic affecting all of them in their countries and their parliaments. It had been a very special year, he underlined, and it was in times like these when they were facing common challenges that they were reminded of the importance of their strong regional and parliamentary cooperation. He was therefore very happy and proud that they had now had their first digital Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference.

Addressing Mr Simulik, he thanked him for his commitment to the BSPC and for the professional way that he had led their cooperation. Everyone had been looking forward to visiting him in his beautiful country and to meeting in the Seimas for the conference, and they all hoped very much that they would get another chance to attend a Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Lithuania in the very near future.

Mr Niemi went on to thank everyone involved in the programme. On behalf of all of them, it had been most interesting and absorb- ing, adding that he believed all of them had learnt a lot. He further stated his gratitude to the secretariat, the Lithuanian team, the tech- nicians and the interpreters, congratulating them on the successful work they had accomplished.

Mr Pyry Niemi 86 Closing

On this day, Sweden would take over the presidency of the BSPC. It was a great honour and pleasure for Mr Niemi to take over as president and to invite all his listeners to the 30th Baltic Sea Parlia- mentary Conference in Stockholm in August 2021. He hoped that they could not only enjoy the beautiful views of the water surround- ing the parliament building - where the Baltic Sea met the Lake Mälaren – but also the pleasure of seeing each other face to face again.

During their presidency, Sweden would like to focus on sustainable democracy and how to face common challenges, with COVID-19 as one example. The spread of the virus and the fight against the pandemic was one of many reasons to safeguard the strong cross-border cooperation that constituted the BSPC as well as the democratic values on which it was based. Furthermore, Mr Niemi pointed out, COVID-19 also constituted an area where BSPC members could exchange best practices and follow up different strategies that were put to use in order to combat the pandemic, with the aim of learn- ing from each other.

In light of the Swedish parliament’s commemoration and celebra- tion of 100 years of democracy, the Swedish presidency of the BSPC would like to highlight the importance of democracy. Democratic institutions, strong cooperation as well as environmental and social sustainability were cornerstones of the work of the BSPC. Preserv- ing these was the clear priority of the Swedish presidency, he underlined.

During the upcoming year, they would like to focus on four areas related to achieving sustainable democracy. First of all, he said that they would concentrate their common work on peaceful and relia- ble neighbourliness and intense cooperation built on participation and trust in the democratic system. Mr Niemi explained that they were seeing various new forms of political engagement around them, and Sweden would therefore focus specifically on youth and the role of civil society.

His side further believed that it was important to view democracy in a changing media landscape. Digitalization, disinformation and fake news had changed the playing field, and it was now more important than ever to protect free media and freedom of speech.

The world was changing, he noted, and their region was changing. Another area of their concern was how to best adapt to a new demography in the Baltic Sea region and what challenges this implied for their welfare model. Questions of interest were how Closing 87

urbanisation, an aging population and labour shortages were connected to trust in public institutions, social and regional equality and young people’s opportunities. The resulting question for the Baltic Sea region was how they could tackle these challenges in a sustainable and democratic way.

Finally, the Swedish presidency wished to focus on an aera where the BSPC had a long tradition of commitment and engagement: the environment. This was a subject that had been discussed at this conference, and Mr Niemi said that he was very glad that they could continue to focus on the environment during the upcoming two years with the new working group on climate change and biodiversity. His colleague, Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby, had agreed to chair the working group, and Mr Niemi wished her and the working group the best of luck with their vital task.

In 2021, he said, the BSPC would celebrate 30 years of parliamentary cooperation which would be commemorated at the conference in Stockholm. They believed that the BSPC as a forum for political dialogue, for exchange of best practices and ideas and as an actor for strong regional cooperation should be celebrated, and they looked forward to doing so with all of his listeners.

Mr Niemi once again offered his gratitude to Mr Simulik, his team as well as to Bodo Bahr for organising this year’s conference. He promised that he would roll up his sleeve and do his very best as president and was sure that the Swedish delegation would do all their best to make the upcoming year a very good year for BSPC cooperation. He concluded by saying that he looked forward to seeing all of them in Stockholm. 88 Closing

Closing Words by Mr Valerijus Simulik, President of the 29th BSPC

Mr Simulik said that they were reaching the end of their digital conference. As such, he thanked everyone for the work that had been put into the conference. He noted that in their debate, a number of issues had cropped out on which he hoped that they could be addressed in Sweden, namely the situation in Belarus, a fund to clean the seabed of the Baltic Sea and a no-nuclear zone around the Baltic Sea. These were topics that could be talked about in the future. He reiterated his gratitude to everyone who had worked hard so they could hold this conference, the professional conference team, the interpreters and finally all of the delegates for the time they had put into attending and contributing to the success of this conference. He particularly thanked Renata Godfrey and Bodo Bahr.

He looked forward to seeing everyone in a year in Stockholm. With that, he declared the 29th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference closed. List of Participants 89

List of Participants

Republic of Lithuania 1. On behalf of H. E. Mr. Gitanas Nausėda, President of the Republic of Lithuania, Mr. Sigitas Mitkus, Adviser to the President on Foreign Policy Issues

2. Speaker of the Seimas H.E. Mr. Viktoras Pranckietis

Member Parliaments and Parliamentary Organizations

Åland Parliament 3. Wille Valve, Member of the Åland Parliament 4. Jessy Eckerman, Member of the Åland Parliament 5. Liz Mattsson, Member of the Åland Parliament 6. Simon Påvals, Member of the Åland Parliament 7. Jesper Josefsson, Member of the Åland Parliament 8. Jörgen Pettersson, Member of the Åland Parliament 9. Emma Dahlén, Secretary of the Delegation of the Åland Parliament

Baltic Assembly 10. Prof Aadu Must, President of the Baltic Assembly 11. Prof Jānis Vucāns, Vice President of the Baltic Assembly 12. Inese Voika, Member of the Presidium of the Baltic Assembly 13. Atis Lejiņš, Vice Chair of the BA Economics, Energy and Innovation Committee 14. Dr Marika Laizane-Jurkane, Secretary General of the Baltic Assembly 15. Agnija Antanoviča, Senior Consultant, Baltic Assembly Secre- tariat

Bremen 16. Sülmez Dogan, Vice President of the State Parliament of Bre- men 17. Antje Grotheer, Vice President of the State Parliament of Bremen 90 List of Participants

Denmark 18. Christian Juhl, Member of the Danish Parliament 19. Joan Ólavsdóttir, Secretary of the Delegation of the Danish Parliament

Estonia 20. Erki Savisaar, Member of the Estonian Parliament 21. Urve Tiidus, Member of the Estonian Parliament 22. Regina Sepp, Secretary of the Delegation of the Estonian Parliament

European Parliament 23. Aušra Rakštelytė, Secretary of the Delegation of the European Parliament

Finland 24. Sakari Puisto, Member of the Parliament of Finland 25. Mika Laaksonen, Secretary of the Delegation of the Parliament of Finland

Germany 26. Johannes Schraps, Member of the German Bundestag 27. Gyde Jensen, Member of the German Bundestag 28. Enrico Komning, Member of the German Bundestag 29. Petra Nicolaisen, Member of the German Bundestag 30. Peter Stein, Member of the German Bundestag 31. Katalin Zádor, Secretary of the Delegation of the German Bundestag 32. Pia-Sophie Brandenburg, Secretary of the Delegation of the German Bundestag 33. Lynda Lawrence, Secretary of the Delegation of the German Bundestag 34. Wiebke Jafra, Secretary of the Delegation of the German Bundestag

Hamburg 35. Carola Veit, President of the State Parliament of Hamburg 36. David Erkalp, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg 37. Danial Ilkhanipour, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg 38. Lisa-Maria Otte, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg 39. Dr Miriam Putz, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg 40. Sören Schumacher, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg 41. Ulrike Sparr, Member of the State Parliament of Hamburg 42. Johannes Düwel, Director of the Parliament of Hamburg List of Participants 91

43. Friederike Lünzmann, Secretary of the Delegation of the Parliament of Hamburg

Iceland 44. Kolbeinn Óttarsson Proppé, Member of the Parliament of Iceland 45. Helgi Thorsteinsson, Secretary of the Delegation of Parliament of Iceland 46. Iris Dager, International Secretariat of the Parliament of Iceland

Kaliningrad 47. Evgeny Mishin, Member of the Parliament of the Kaliningrad Regional Duma 48. Marina Prozorova, Secretary of the Delegation of the Kaliningrad Regional Duma

Latvia 49. Arvils Ašeradens, Member of the Parliament of Latvia 50. Iveta Benhena-Bēkena, Member of the Parliament of Latvia 51. Jānis Butāns, Member of the Parliament of Latvia 52. Edgars Kucins, Member of the Parliament of Latvia 53. Ingrida Sticenko, Secretary of the Delegation of the Parliament of Latvia

Leningrad 54. Sergei Bebenin, Chairman of the Leningrad Region Legislative Assembly 55. Nikolay Pustotin, Vice-Chairman of the Leningrad Region Legislative Assembly 56. Iurii Terentev, Member of the Leningrad Region Legislative Assembly 57. Maxim Gindin, Secretary of the Delegation of the Parliament of Latvia

Lithuania 58. Valerijus Simulik, President of the BSPC, Member of the Parliament of Lithuania 59. Renata Godfrey, Secretary of the Delegation of the Parliament of Lithuania

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 60. Birgit Hesse, President of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg- Vorpommern 61. Beate Schlupp, Vice President of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 92 List of Participants

62. Dirk Friedriszik, Member of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 63. Karsten Kolbe, Member of the State Parliament of Mecklen- burg-Vorpommern 64. Nikolaus Kramer, Member of the State Parliament of Mecklen- burg-Vorpommern 65. Jochen Schulte, Member of the State Parliament of Mecklen- burg-Vorpommern 66. Georg Strätker, Secretary to the delegation of the State Parlia- ment of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 67. Evgeniya Bakalova, Secretary to the delegation of the State Par- liament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Nordic Council 68. Silja Dögg Gunnarsdottir, President of the Nordic Council, Member of the Parliament of Iceland 69. Oddný G. Harðardóttir, Vice President of the Nordic Council, Member of the Parliament of Iceland 70. Michael Tetzschner, Member of the Parliament of Norway and the Nordic Council 71. Britt Bohlin, Secretary General of the delegation of the Nordic Council 72. Arne Fogt Bergby, Secretary of the delegation of the Nordic Council

Norway 73. Jorodd Asphjell, Vice President of the BSPC, Member of the Norwegian Parliament 74. Ulf Leirstein, Member of the Norwegian Parliament 75. Ove Trellevik, Member of the Norwegian Parliament 76. Torhild Bransdal, Member of the Norwegian Parliament 77. Thomas Fraser,Secretary of the delegation of the Norwegian Parliament

Poland 78. Jarosław Wałęsa, Member of the Sejm Parliament of Poland 79. Kacper Płażyński, Member of the Sejm Parliament of Poland 80. Jerzy Materna, Member of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland 81. Grzegorz Matusiak, Member of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland 82. Artur Łącki , Member of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland 83. Piotr Koperski, Secretary of the Delegation for International and European Union Affairs List of Participants 93

Russian Federation Council of the Federation 84. Anna Zhiltsova, Councilor of the Committee for Foreign Af- fairs of the Council of the Federation State Duma 85. Valentina Pivnenko, Member of the State Duma 86. Vladimir Bortko, Member of the State Duma 87. Vadim Dengin, Member of the State Duma 88. Alexander Kozlovskiy, Member of the State Duma 89. Oleg Nilov, Member of the State Duma 90. Alexey Veller, Member of the State Duma 91. Sergey Karseka, Deputy Head of the Department on International Relations at the State Duma Staff 92. Yulia Guskova, Secretary of the Delegation of International Relations at the State Duma Saint Petersburg 93. Dmitry Tugov, Member of the Saint Petersburg Legislative As- sembly 94. Nargis Akhadova, Secretary of the Delegation of Saint Peters- burg Legislative Assembly

Schleswig-Holstein 95. Hartmut Hamerich, Member of the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein 96. Regina Poersch, Member of the State Parliament of Schleswig- Holstein 97. Bernd Voß, Member of the State Parliament of Schleswig- Holstein 98. Stephan Holowaty, Member of the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein 99. Volker Schnurrbusch, Member of the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein 100. Jette Waldinger-Thiering, Member of the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein 101. Jutta Schmidt-Holländer, Secretary of the Delegation for International Affairs of the State Parliament of Schleswig- Holstein 94 List of Participants

Sweden 102. Pyry Niemi, Vice President of the BSPC, Member of the Swedish Parliament 103. Cecilie Tenfjord Toftby,Member of the Swedish Parliament 104. Aron Emilsson, Member of the Swedish Parliament 105. Pernilla Stålhammar, Member of the Swedish Parliament 106. Hans Wallmark, Member of the Swedish Parliament 107. Johanna Ingvarsson, Secretary of the Delegation of the Swedish Parliament 108. Dan Alvarsson, Secretary of the Degation of the Swedish Parliament

BSPC and Observers

Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference 110. Bodo Bahr, Secretary General of the BSPC

Baltic Sea States Subregional Co-operation (BSSSC) 111. Mieczysław Struk, Chairman of the BSSSC 112. Krystyna Wróblewska, Secretary General of the BSSSC 113. Małgorzata Maria Klawiter-Piwowarska, Secretariat of the BSSSC 114. Marta Czarnecka-Gallas, Secretariat of the BSSSC 115. Anna Drążek, Secretariat of the BSSSC

Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) 116. Bernd Hemingway, Deputy Director General of the CBSS 117. Maria Nadybska, Core Team Intern of the CBSS

CPMR Baltic Sea Commission 118. Lucille Ehrhart, Executive Secretary

Northern Dimension Partnership in Public Health and Social Well-being (NDPHS) 119. Ülla-Karin Nurm, Director 120. Silvija Geistarte, Senior Adviser

Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Coopera- tion (PABSEC) 121. Prof. Asaf Hajiyev, Secretary General of the PABSEC List of Participants 95

Skåne Regional County Council 122. Annika Annerby Jansson, President, Region Skåne 123. Lennart Pettersson, Vice President, Region Skåne 124. Ewa Pihl Krabbe, Vice President, Region Skåne 125. Maria Lindbom, Senior Advisor, Region Skåne 126. Maria Korner-Westin, Head of unit EU and International Relations, Region Skåne

Executive

European Commission 127. H.E. Virginijus Sinkevičius, European Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries

Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany 128. H.E. Svenja Schulze, Federal Minister, HELCOM Chair, Eu- ropean Council Presidency, Video message

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania 129. Neris Germanas, Vice-Minister

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Denmark 130. Ove Ullerup, Ambassador

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Norway 131. Dag Wernø Holter, Senior Adviser, Nordic-Baltic Section

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia 132. Alexey Ivanov, Head of Section 133. Timofey Kunitskiy, 1st Secretary 96 List of Participants

Experts

134. Dmitry Demidenko, Deputy Head of the Main Migration Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia 135. Mayya Rusakova, Founder, Regional Public Organization «STELLIT» 136. Vladlena Avdeeva, Manager of Social Projects, Regional Public Organization «STELLIT» 137. Victoria Ledeneva, PhD, member of the Commission on migration issues of the Council on Interethnic Relations under the President of the Russian Federation 138. Marina Kazmina, Acting Head, Neva and Ladoga Basin and Water Management. Department, Federal Agency of Water Re- sourses of Russia 139. Ekaterina Zakharova, Consultant, Water Use Regulation Sec- tion, Neva and Ladoga Basin and Water Management Depart- ment, Federal Agency of Water Resourses of Russia

Other Participants

Interpreters 140. Catherine Johnson 141. Matthias Jansen 142. Martina Würzburg 143. Gyda Thurow 144. Alexei Repin 145. Margarita Höckner 146. Elena Almas 147. Stein Larsen 148. Piotr Krasnowolski 149. Aleksander Jakiemovic

BSPC Secretariat Support 150. Malgorzata Ludwiczek 151. Gildo Kweton 152. Roman Kweton

Technical Support - Professional Conference Systems (PCS) 153. Christoph Körner, technical moderator 154. Sebastian Meyer, technical moderator List of Participants 97

Speakers

· Sigitas Mitkus, Adviser to the President on Foreign Policy Is- sues, on behalf of the President H.E. Mr. Gitanas Nausėda · Viktoras Pranckietis, Speaker of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania · Virginijus Sinkevičius, European Commissioner for Environ- ment, Oceans and Fisheries · Valerijus Simulik, M P, President of the BSPC · Neris Germanas, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Re- public of Lithuania · Ove Ullerup, Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Denmark · Dag Wernø Holter, Senior Adviser, Nordic-Baltic Section, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Norway · Svenja Schulze, Federal Minister for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany, HELCOM Chair, European Council Presidency, Video Message · Oleg Nilov, Member of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation · Hans Wallmark, MP, Chairman of the BSPC Working Group on Migration & Integration, Sweden · Dmitry Demidenko, Deputy Head of the Main Migration De- partment of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia · Vladlena Avdeeva, Representative of the NGO «Stellit», St.-Petersburg · Jörgen Pettersson, former BSPC President, and · Jochen Schulte, MP, BSPC Rapporteurs on Integrated Policy · Beate Schlupp, BSPC Observer in HELCOM, First Vice Presi- dent of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern · Peter Stein, BSPC Rapporteur on Sea-Dumped Munitions Ger- man Bundestag · Mieczysław Struk, President of the Baltic Sea States Subregion- al Cooperation, BSSSC, Marshal of the Pomorskie Voivodeship · Pyry Niemi, MP, Incoming President of the BSPC 98 Closing Closing 99 100 Closing Closing 101 Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Secretariat www.bspc.net

BSPC Secretariat Schlossgartenallee 15 19061 Schwerin 26Germany