Ministries, other stakeholders full of criticism for draft forestry bill
Forestry legislation drafted by the Ministry of Climate has been met with widespread criticism from some of the other ministries and from key stakeholders.
Overall, the feedback suggested that the proposed changes were inadequately considered, and many stakeholders called for the draft to be withdrawn or significantly revised to address these concerns.
The Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture has refused to approve it, citing various issues, while the main private forest owners' lobby group, along with some environmental organizations, has also urged the bill be withdrawn in its current form.
One of its key proposals concerns the creation of forestry plantations on around 100,000 hectares land, either existing forest land or unused agricultural land.
This has been met with strong opposition.
The Ministry of Regional and Rural Affairs was highly critical, arguing that the move could take away valuable agricultural land, posing risks to the security of food supply.
Regional minister: Agricultural land now at a premium
Regional Affairs Minister Piret Hartman (SDE) has said that, given the growth in population globally, agricultural land in general is becoming increasingly valuable.
For this reason, Estonia must preserve land set aside for this purpose, and again, to ensure food security.
"Set against the backdrop of global population growth, agricultural land, as a scarce resource, is becoming increasingly valuable.
"According to the various studies, in order to feed adequately the world's population in 2050, up to 50-70 percent more food must be produced, compared with the situation today," the minister went on.
Hartman also said that agricultural land is already in competition with renewables and other infrastructure projects, so far as land use goes.
The bill's proposal to set up forestry plantations should only be considered if it does not harm biodiversity, and if other measures to meet climate goals prove insufficient.
"The bill's explanatory memorandum refers to limited knowledge about the long-term environmental impact of plantations, both on the planted area and the landscape surrounding it," Hartman said.
"So for this reason, it cannot be claimed that plantations somehow promote environmentally sustainable land use," the minister added.
Economic affairs minister: Incomplete analysis
The Ministry of Economic Affairs also flagged its concerns, pointing out that the bill as is lacks thorough analysis of the problems it aims to solve, and its potential impact on businesses.
Minister Erkki Keldo (Reform) said: "Without thoroughly analyzing the referenced circumstances, in our opinion drawing conclusions on whether the picked solutions are appropriate, purposeful, or not, is not viable. Similarly, whether the infringement on the freedom to do business is proportional [cannot be concluded either]."
Justice minister: A rushed job
Meanwhile Justice Minister Liisa-Ly Pakosta (Eesti 200) questioned why the draft was being rushed without proper attention to laying the groundwork and holding consultations.
She said: "We are drawing attention to the fact that urgent changes must concern circumstances that the drafters of the bill cannot influence themselves and which they are obliged to respond to immediately (for example, various crises), and whose postponing could cause significant harm if not resolved."
Environmental bodies: Moves away from stated goals
Environmental groups the Eesti keskkonnaühenduste koda and Päästame Eesti Metsad MTÜ both criticized the draft for straying from sustainable forestry and conservation goals, citing insufficient involvement of relevant stakeholders in its development.
The bills from the Ministry of Climate worsen the situation, while there has been a move away from the ideas of sustainable forestry and nature conservation. If the goal of these changes is to improve nature conservation, then it has not worked, the groups say, adding that they were insufficiently involved in the development of the bill.
They also pointed to what they said is a significant contradiction between the stated environmental goals in the bill's explanatory memo and the actual amendments, which, they said, is misleading.
That the bill would restrict the public's ability to propose protected zones, limiting this right to the state's Environmental Board (Keskkonnaamet) alone, was another complaint the environmental groups had.
Private forest owners: Compensation not equitable
The Estonian private forest owners union (Erametsaliit) voiced concerns over increasing conservation restrictions yet without fair compensation for private forest owners.
"The sharpest issue remains the limitless addition of nature conservation restrictions, without creating fairness in terms of compensating for the restrictions," the organization noted.
University of life sciences: Inconsistent with forest development plan
In academia, the Tartu-based Estonian University of Life Sciences (Maaülikool) criticized the bill in its current guise for being inconsistent with the objectives outlined in Estonia's own forest development plan, and with 2050 climate goals.
The university's forestry and engineering institute director Marek Metslaid said: "Regrettably, the legislative amendment proposals as published only partly follow the development plan, and are also amending the law in a way that contradicts what was agreed in the development plan and in previous forestry council agreements."
The university called for a more thorough review and the involvement of forestry specialists in the legislative drafting process.
Finance and defense ministries
Finally the Ministry of Finance also noted that the draft does not assess the financial impact on the State Forest Management Center (RMK) and on private forest owners alike.
The Ministry of Defense requested exemptions from forestry clearance restrictions in areas critical for aviation and defense.
--
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Karin Koppel, Andrew Whyte