The Ministry of the Interior refused to approve the climate bill, citing a number of issues it contains. According to a document signed by Minister of the Interior Lauri Läänemets (SDE), the relationship between the climate bill in question and other environmental laws is extremely unclear.

The letter also points out that the goal of the bill cannot be simply carrying out an action; it should be about achieving results.

"It would be more comprehensible if the goal were the result achieved by taking the aforementioned measures, rather than contributing to taking measures as an activity," Läänemets stated.

"The letter of explanation, in which specific objectives are reflected, doesn't make things any clearer," he continued. "Namely, according to page three of the letter of explanation, the goal of the law in question is to establish the basis of a climate-resilient economy and establish the preconditions for a competitive economy. Despite this, neither the bill nor the letter of explanation clearly explain what exactly a climate-resilient economy is, for which the foundation is being established."

According to the interior minister, the climate bill is largely vague and declarative, consisting primarily of the field's general principles and policymaking guidelines for the public sector, and therefore doesn't meet the criteria for good legislative practice. Furthermore, the principles contained in the bill aren't well understood, even taken together with the letter of explanation.

"Also questionable is the necessity of enacting a regulation like this – which is primarily intended as guidance for the public sector – as law," he added.

The Interior Ministry likewise finds that the letter of explanation is significantly more detailed in some points than the bill itself, but the activities covered in the letter of explanation alone are neither binding nor have legal significance.

"Therefore it remains unclear why such detailed information has been included in the letter of explanation at all," Läänemets remarked.

According to the ministry, the bill also lacks the necessary amendments to special laws required to implement planned changes. Instead of general obligations, regulations reflecting changes should be established in the relevant laws alongside the climate bill.

The bill should also clearly specify who will see new rights and obligations introduced with the enactment of this law; currently, this is not clearly stated in the bill.

"Likewise unanswered is the question of whether and to what extent individuals will have the right to appeal if any of the addressees mentioned do not act in accordance with the principles set out in the bill," the interior minister noted.

The ministry pointed out that these principles should serve as interpretation guidelines for courts, but as the current bill does not amend the Administrative Procedure Act or any codes of procedure with rules including guidelines on this matter, then these rules will not have their intended effect.

Bill to significantly increase burden on state authorities

The climate bill also lacks rules regarding how to monitor the fulfillment of the objectives set out in the bill, and despite the fact that the bill has been planned as framework legislation that significantly affects the sector, it nonetheless lacks a comprehensive impact assessment.

"Among other things, the bill will no doubt considerably increase the burden on state authorities – however, this has not been addressed at all in the impact assessment," Läänemets pointed out.

"When this bill enters into force, the entire public sector will, among other things, have to take climate change mitigation and adaptation objectives into account when planning investments and budgets," he explained. "As a result, budget planning will likely have to account for the fact that acquisitions will become more expensive. At the same time, it is impossible to assess based on the materials provided what the actual impact of these changes on authorities will be."

The Interior Ministry noted that the bill omits consideration of the impact to arise from the transition of fleets of vehicles away from fossil fuels. As an example, the ministry noted the emerging need in the rescue sector to respond to fires caused by lithium-ion batteries burning. There is also no mention of the high cost of building safe parking and charging facilities for vehicles with lithium batteries or the problematic nature of disposing of these batteries.

"It also remains unclear whether preparations should move as a result of this bill more toward increasing the Rescue Board's capacity to cope with more natural disasters than before, or whether the aim is to prevent climate change and the associated additional negative natural phenomena altogether," it added.

The current climate bill does not take into account the Ministry of the Interior's stated need to avoid dependencies in sectors critical to the functioning and security of the state on technologies and supply chains that pose a threat to Estonia's security.

"Several countries that pose a threat to the security of Estonia and its allies have made it their goal to exploit the economic transformation brought on by the green transition, for example by creating primarily economic dependencies that are a threat to the security of Estonia and its allies," Läänemets noted. "Therefore, when considering the innovations and developments necessary for the green transition, it is essential to assess and mitigate the associated risks and threats to security."

The bill is also criticized for the obligation it imposes on state authorities to publish on their websites the results of their annual greenhouse gas footprint assessments and an overview of the measures being taken to mitigate them; what added value doing so should provide, the ministry said, is unclear.

Regarding the provisions in the bill setting deadlines by which the public sector is to stop using fossil fuels, the Ministry of the Interior finds that the internal security field would require an exception, which would allow expensive specialized vehicles to be utilized through the end of their useful life.

Furthermore, the ministry is dissatisfied with the fact that, going forward, future procurements must take into consideration the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, because in the defense and security fields, the state's security interests may outweigh considerations involving greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the bill, the public sector's vehicle fleets must be greenhouse gas emission-free by 2035, however, it does not specify what support measures will be provided for acquiring vehicles or developing charging infrastructure.

"For the aforementioned reasons, we find that the bill in its current form cannot be adopted into law, and will not be approving it," the Interior Ministry concluded.

Justice Ministry won't approve bill without changes

In a document signed by Minister of Justice Liisa Pakosta (Eesti 200), the Ministry of Justice announced that it would only approve the climate bill if its comments were taken into account.

Similarly to the Interior Ministry, the Ministry of Justice finds that the climate policy goals and obligations set out in the bill are largely declarative in nature.

"We note that regulation based solely on principles and goals is not customary in Estonian law," the Justice Ministry stated. "Regulating only principles and goals while leaving unspecified the individuals and institutions responsible as well as the legal consequences if the obligations imposed are not fulfilled does not constitute the whole necessary for the functioning of a law."

The ministry also finds that the bill does not make clear who is responsible for achieving climate goals and what obligations fall on whom.

"The bill is likewise unclear on what happens if the goals set out in the bill are not met," it continues. "What happens if the goals set out in the bill do not align with the objectives agreed upon at the EU level or those that will be agreed upon in the future? Is the goal of the bill to set stricter goals for Estonia than the EU, or should the goals set out in the bill be viewed as Estonia's positions in negotiations in the EU?"

In addition, Pakosta points out that the bill imposes an obligation on the public sector to take the principles and goals of climate change mitigation and adaptation into account in making administrative decisions, but it does not specify how these principles should be taken into account, thus giving administrative bodies a wide margin of discretion, bringing with it the risk of administrative arbitrariness.

The bill allows for the possibility of taking other appropriate measures to achieve these goals, but does not specify what those measures may be.

"It remains unclear whether this provision aims to give administrative bodies the freedom to come up with and apply any measures in the interests of the goals set out in the bill," the ministry notes.

Commenting on the provision in the bill requiring the state to ensure that the process for obtaining the necessary activity permits for testing technologies for reducing or sequestering greenhouse gas emissions and climate-friendly technologies is quick and efficient, the justice minister noted that this same requirement is already included in the Administrative Procedure Act, and that the currently redundant rule should be removed.

According to the Ministry of Justice, the law or letter of explanation should clarify what discretion the government and Riigikogu have over the climate report, and how their roles and responsibilities are divided prior to the publication of the report.

Likewise criticized is the fact that the bill imposes a significant additional burden on local governments and state authorities, yet this impact is not reflected in the impact analysis.

"We ask that the letter of explanation be supplemented with explanations regarding what additional obligations will be imposed on the public sector (both government authorities and local governments) in the form of monitoring, reporting and other obligations related to climate goals, what costs the fulfillment of these obligations will entail and what revenues these costs will be covered from," Pakosta concludes.

The Ministry of Climate published its climate-resilient economy bill on August 5, giving one month's time to submit any proposed changes to the lengthy bill.

The bill has attracted mostly very critical feedback. According to previous plans, the Ministry of Climate intends to submit the bill to the government for approval next month and to the Riigikogu in November. The law may enter into force next February.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!