The draft Climate Resilient Economy Act, which was sent for review on August 5, has received a substantial amount of feedback from various interest groups, including business representatives and environmentalists. Some view the draft as overly ambitious, while others see it as lacking ambition. Climate Minister Yoko Alender (Reform) recently addressed this feedback on the "Terevisioon" morning show, stating that the government must find a balance.

However, the state's own feedback is also noteworthy. Two ministries, the Ministry of Regional Affairs and the Ministry of the Interior, did not approve the draft. Several other ministries made a series of sharp comments and stated they would only approve the draft if their concerns were addressed.

A recurring word in many ministries' feedback on the climate law is "declarative." A letter signed by Justice Minister Liisa-Ly Pakosta (Eesti 200) clearly summarizes this concern: "We find that the climate policy goals and obligations presented in the draft are largely declarative. We note that regulation based solely on principles and objectives is not customary in Estonian law. A regulation based only on principles and goals, without specifying the individuals and institutions responsible or the legal consequences for failing to fulfill these obligations, does not form the necessary framework for a functioning law."

In other words, as Ministry of Justice official Margit Juhkam put it, the draft contains too few enforceable legal provisions. After more than a year of work on the draft, why are there so few concrete binding or prohibitive legal measures included?

This is one of those issues that has been discussed from the very beginning in drafting this law. To simplify the overall picture, the responsibility for meeting climate targets – considering that we have joined international agreements and, of course, have a duty to future generations – ultimately rests with the state. The state can fulfill this obligation by applying specific measures.

Our approach and understanding of this law have always been that we are establishing the ambition of goals through this law. We have calculated these goals quite precisely, and they have been discussed with ministries and interest groups to determine how to achieve them. However, we have deliberately chosen not to include very specific practical measures and steps in the law itself, for various reasons. The first reason is that circumstances constantly change –technologies evolve, budget possibilities shift – and this is one of the main reasons for our decision.

Secondly, the scope of the climate law is extremely broad – it affects all sectors. If we were to draft a highly detailed law, we would essentially be trying to regulate all of Estonia's various sectors with a single piece of legislation, which is certainly not reasonable.

In its current form, this law is largely in line with the climate laws of many other countries and, in fact, is even more detailed than those of many other nations. Before we began drafting this law, we also looked at examples from other countries, and the key components are generally the same everywhere: first and foremost, the targets, and then the oversight mechanism. In this law, we clearly have both, including the establishment of an independent Climate Council and continuous analysis, which will lead to further proposals based on the findings.

Minister of Economy and Industry Erkki Keldo (Reform) points out in his letter that, according to the draft law, the Ministry of Economic Affairs is required to periodically prepare competitiveness assessments and, in conjunction with those, make proposals on how to adjust public sector support measures for businesses so that the transition toward a climate-resilient economy does not unduly affect them. However, Keldo notes that the draft says nothing about whether these proposals from the ministry need to be taken into account or not. We are assigning an obligation to create such a recommendation paper, but what's the point of producing a meaningless document?

We need to delve a bit into the nuances of governance in Estonia. Before I get into that, I'll explain the general principle. The Competitiveness Report is extremely important, and the reason we introduced it is primarily that when we assess the achievement of climate goals, we are not just looking at whether we meet climate targets, but also at the state of the economy and competitiveness. When we talk about several proposals, including those made by state institutions suggesting that ambition should be raised, ambition does not rise by itself. Decisions need to be made, such as closing businesses, abandoning industrial development or giving up economic growth ambitions, and that's something I have not wanted to do. In this sense, the Competitiveness Report is very important.

No law can give any minister a blank check for their proposals to be implemented immediately; that's not how things work in a democratic country. The Estonian state works like this: a minister makes proposals to the government, the government first discusses them, and if it considers them reasonable, and if funding is found for their implementation, then these are often presented to the Riigikogu. If legislative proposals are involved, the Riigikogu approves them.

If we write into law an obligation that all proposals from the minister of economic affairs must automatically be considered, it simply does not fit within the context of how the Estonian state is governed.

Another example from these same support measures, I quote: "To contemplate the competitive advantages of Estonia's climate-resilient economy and to move toward climate neutrality, entrepreneurs and industry associations, in cooperation with the Ministry of Climate, may develop roadmaps for technological development and achieving climate neutrality. The state will consider the directions outlined in these roadmaps where possible." We are writing something into the law that doesn't need to be done, but can be done. And if this promise is taken seriously and the roadmap is indeed created, the government will look at it and decide whether or not to take it into account. I understand that we cannot give orders to future governments or write future ministers' proposals as a so-called blank check, but why are we writing this into the law at all? Why are we writing into the law that you may do something if you want to, which we'll consider if we want to? What is the point of this provision?

The idea here is the same one I emphasized earlier, which is to create a framework for discussion and debate. We set the goals and begin monitoring their achievement, and we foresee certain actions to meet them. I can give an example from Sweden's climate law. Sweden has done relatively well in meeting climate goals, but even their recently released Climate Council report, which is an independent report, points out several shortcomings in the current government's policy.

This sparks societal debate. In no democratic country can the proposals of the Climate Council be automatically implemented – ultimately, the government makes the final decisions. Why are these technological roadmaps important? I can illustrate this with a concrete example that is at the center of the climate policy debate in many countries today: carbon capture and reuse technology. In fact, the European Commission's current impact assessment also states that without these technologies, it will not be possible to achieve a 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2040.

We are already working on this same kind of roadmap with businesses, mapping out the conditions, investment needs and whether we should use carbon utilization technologies in Estonia. However, writing into law that no matter the outcome of this roadmap, it must automatically be implemented is certainly not wise. Different arguments need to be weighed when the analysis is completed. First, what impact it will truly have on achieving climate goals and on the environment, what the investment needs are and whether it makes economic sense. That's why it's not reasonable to issue blank checks, and I think the law largely reflects how the Estonian state and democratic countries operate. Different parties make proposals, they are given legal grounds to do so, as well as certain resources, and then the government makes the decisions – or, if necessary and within the jurisdiction of the Riigikogu, the Riigikogu does.

In the end, you want to include different formats and structures in the law. Are you planning to establish the format for future discussions, reviewing what has been done, setting future plans and ensuring that at a certain point we will all likely sit down and discuss how things have gone and what's next? Are you writing it into the law to guarantee that this discussion will definitely take place?

Exactly. This keeps the issue in focus and brings both politicians' and society's attention to the fulfillment of these goals, just as the entire process of developing the Climate Resilient Economy Act has done. We are having very intense discussions about whether to take action at all, and if so, what action to take and what the ambition should be. This was also one of the key ideas behind the development of this law, and in that sense, the discussion has been very positive.

There are various points we could highlight from the ministries' proposals, but I think that with a law like this – since it's new, with no previous version, containing a lot of new terminology and truly new approaches, and many obligations coming from the European Union as well as from our own side – the fact that there is such a large amount of feedback is quite normal. Much of the feedback from the ministries has been very useful. It will undoubtedly make the law significantly better, and I want to sincerely thank all colleagues from other ministries for their substantive and active contributions to the discussion, especially through the coordination process.

Coming back to the feedback from the Ministry of Justice, they point out that amidst all the ambiguity they criticize, there is one fundamental change in the draft bill. Namely, the draft would impose an obligation on the public sector to take into account the principles and objectives set out in the bill when making administrative decisions. Moreover, according to the draft, officials would be required to take other appropriate measures to achieve these objectives. According to the Ministry of Justice, all of this together provides a very broad scope of discretion. Now, to quote the Ministry of Justice: It remains unclear whether the provision aims to give administrative bodies the freedom to devise and apply any measures they see fit in pursuit of the goals set out in the draft bill?

What's important here is to ensure the applicability of this law, which is the same point raised by several other feedback letters. I believe that even today, enforcement agencies will certainly not start coming up with measures on their own. Even now, there are many examples, both in Estonia and other countries, where climate goals have been interpreted. In Estonia, we already have many such examples, and one of the main goals of this law is to establish a framework and principles more precisely so that when administrative bodies or others have to interpret the law, they don't come up with things on their own, but rather rely on the objectives and principles outlined in it.

We also have a separate legal working group where we will certainly discuss all these legal issues with the Ministry of Justice and other ministries, and we will surely find a reasonable solution that suits all parties involved.

Please describe such a real-life situation. An administrative decision, likely some sort of permit process, such as the issuance of a comprehensive environmental permit, a water special-use permit or another type of permit. Up to now, these decisions have, for example, been based on the results of strategic environmental impact assessments, which are used to determine whether a particular action has a potential impact, with decisions made accordingly. So far, these decisions have relied on clearly established rules, such as what exactly is allowed, how much impact can be tolerated and what cannot be exceeded etc. These are fairly straightforward criteria and easily contestable in court. At what point does the climate law come into play in such an administrative decision? For example, the goal outlined in the climate law – that in moving toward climate neutrality, other environmental objectives, including biodiversity goals, must not be compromised.

I do not wholly agree here, as today, this framework is not entirely clear. When we look at administrative decisions related to climate and the environment, and the permits issued on this basis, we have seen many court cases on these issues, and the state has lost quite a few of them. This is precisely because the framework, the level of climate ambition and climate goals have not been clear. One of the key principles of this law is to make these goals clearer. Whether it's a local government issuing a building permit for something like the Enefit oil plant or the Environmental Board issuing a permit for opening the Elbu mine, these decisions should more clearly align with the principles set out in the law. In reality, these frameworks have not been sufficiently clear in proceedings, and that's a flaw we definitely aim to correct with this law.

You have stated that the objectives set out in the draft law should primarily guide the public sector. The Ministry of the Interior raises an important question: Do individuals have the right to appeal, and to what extent, if legislative bodies – whether state agencies or local governments – fail to adhere to the principles of the climate law in certain cases?

This is something that the legal environment will define in the future, and if appeals are made, the courts will ultimately decide. To some extent, every legal provision creates a legitimate expectation. The reason we focus so much on the obligations of the public sector is that this is an area where we can genuinely steer the course, where we can impose obligations that the government can more clearly oversee. Therefore, the transition of the public sector from fossil fuels to non-fossil fuels is, in a way, at the heart of this law and one of the central tools for achieving these goals.

Other ministries consistently ask why there are no provisions in the draft bill for amending specific laws. For example, the draft states that by 2035, only zero-emission taxis will be used in cities with populations of at least 50,000. The Ministry of the Interior asks why specific legal amendments for this aren't proposed. The Ministry of Justice gives an example where public procurement should align with the goals set out in the climate law. They have the same question – why are no amendments to the Public Procurement Act included in the draft? Furthermore, in neither case is there a specific obligation set for who, by when and how these legal amendments should be developed.

You mentioned two specific examples. In many cases, we have actually linked the amendments to specific laws with this legislation. We've also discussed this quite a lot with the other ministries – where to draw the line on how many special laws we attach to this one so that it doesn't turn into a massive omnibus bill that regulates every sector. At this point, we've decided to use amendments to specific laws only in key areas that significantly impact the achievement of the objectives.

This includes, for example, mining permits for oil shale and how climate goals are considered in environmental impact assessments, which involve amendments to specific laws. For other areas, we have not found it as necessary.

We will certainly have detailed discussions with the Ministry of Finance on the issues related to public procurement and find the right solution – whether to amend specific laws or whether it's unnecessary to change the law at all. There is also another view that says amending special laws isn't actually needed to meet these goals.

As for public transportation, we've had quite an extensive discussion within the ministry, and in the case of taxis, for example, our current assessment is that there is no need to amend specific laws, such as the Public Transport Act. We've ensured in all cases that we don't overregulate or write everything into the law, and we can use other legal tools. We'll engage in many legal discussions, and all of these details can be debated during those discussions.

But it is still very important. When 2035 arrives and someone in Tallinn is still driving an old Bolt taxi, what happens then? Who gets penalized? Will it be members of the Riigikogu for not passing the climate law, the Ministry of Climate for not following through on the law they proposed or the taxi driver?

In the end, it's still the state that is responsible, and of course, the taxi driver won't be punished. It's the state that sets the rules. What I meant in this specific case, when I said that there's no need to amend a special law, is that under the Climate Resilient Economy Act, local governments will also issue permits. Taxi services are a regulated sector, and a permit is required. The Climate Resilient Economy Act can serve as a basis for changing the permit issuance process. That was the point behind my statement – it is not our idea for certain goals or activities to just happen on their own. They certainly won't happen automatically, and these goals will be fulfilled by specific state authorities, local government agencies or administrative bodies making decisions. There are indeed many different institutions involved in this process.

It's time to wrap up this interview. We didn't have time to discuss the concerns raised by several ministries regarding the lack of impact assessments for certain aspects, but this ultimately leads to the question: What do you think will happen with this draft bill? Several ministries have stated that they will not give their approval unless their proposals are taken into account. In other words, unless this draft bill becomes much more specific and its fundamental structure, ideology and scope – what it regulates and what it doesn't – are changed, they won't support it.

That last point was your interpretation. Ministries have certainly not said that the ideology of the draft bill needs to change. The ministries have made very practical suggestions, and we are discussing all of them with the ministries. We are reviewing the possibilities for amendments, and in some cases, we are clarifying points where we may not have been clear enough, or at least not precise enough for other parties to fully understand our intentions. We will then prepare a revised draft. Our plan is to complete this during October, and by November, we hope to present the draft to the government for approval, after which it will move forward to the Riigikogu.

--

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