President Alar Karis declined to promulgate the amendments to the Earth's Crust Act on the final day of the year, stating that the proposed legislation is not in accordance with the Constitution and that the planned restrictions on entrepreneurial freedom are disproportionate.

The amendment, passed by the Riigikogu on December 18, sought to halt new environmental permits and impact assessments in the oil shale mining sector, which is under pressure due to EU climate goals.

The amendment's aims were to allow time to evaluate oil shale's climate impact and compatibility with Estonia's climate goals.

Igor Taro (Eesti 200), chair of the Riigikogu Environment Committee, told ERR that those involved in drafting and supporting the bill in the committee are likely very surprised by the president's decision.

"The arguments the president raised were, in my opinion, considered with sufficient thoroughness during the bill's deliberations," Taro said.

He added that the Environment Committee concluded, when adopting the amendments, that the temporary suspension of processing environmental permit applications and their amendments for oil shale mining for a one-year period was a proportional measure, as it was limited in duration with a clear beginning and end.

"This was a temporary restriction, and it did not seem appropriate to consider it a disproportionate limitation on entrepreneurial activity," Taro remarked.

However, the deputy chair of the Environment Committee, Andres Metsoja (Isamaa), expressed a different opinion. He stated that Isamaa has consistently believed such legislation is unnecessary.

"The entire discussion in the committee largely revolved around this, culminating in the plenary debate, questioning why such a bill is necessary – particularly when it references a climate act that does not yet exist (the draft Climate-Resilient Economy Act – ed.). It appeared as though this bill was necessary solely to address the nonexistent climate law," Metsoja explained.

Metsoja also pointed out that, according to the justification provided, existing laws should suffice. Furthermore, he found it odd that the oil shale reserves available for mining remain accessible and that existing mining operations can still be expanded.

"The rationale for halting the creation of new mining areas was unclear to the very end – it never became fully clear why this was necessary," the deputy chair concluded.

Metsoja: Individual decisions should not be taken without a look at the big picture

According to Metsoja, businesses did not protest against the amendment waving placards because they stated they had other, larger concerns. However, he maintained that an amendment that restricts entrepreneurial freedom and conflicts with the Constitution is not appropriate.

Igor Taro countered, stating that the restriction on mining permits had been discussed with stakeholders and, in practice, does not hinder any company's ability to exercise their entrepreneurial freedoms. Taro noted that businesses indicated they have sufficient reserves for several years and the one-year suspension of permit processing would not impact them in the long run.

Regarding the bill's future, Taro explained that procedurally, the process is straightforward: if the legislation is sent back to the Riigikogu for further discussion, it will return to the Environment Committee. At that stage, the arguments raised by the president will be examined in greater detail.

"Then we will decide whether to maintain our position and send it [to the Riigikogu plenary] unchanged or to make amendments. At this point, it seems that the amendment we adopted to suspend permit processing for one year provides a clearer framework than the status quo. Companies were informed that permits would not be processed during that year and the focus would shift to the bigger picture and long-term planning," Taro said.

In response to the president's criticism that the amendment references a climate law that has yet to be enacted or scheduled, Taro stated that while the law does not exist, the political intent behind it does.

"If you have a political intent, pretending it doesn't exist seems unfair to businesses," he said, adding that the purpose of amending the Earth's Crust Act and temporarily halting the processing of mining permits was to allocate a year to address the matters intended to be resolved under the climate law.

"Everyone waits a year, after which the long-term goals become clear regarding what we are doing with various aspects. At that point, permits can be submitted and processed with the future in mind, considering what lies ahead in 10 or 15 years," Taro explained.

Metsoja, on the other hand, argued that the process should begin with the climate law, which would establish clear positions. Additionally, he highlighted the need to resolve issues in the energy sector, particularly how to maintain balance in the power grid when increasing the share of renewable energy. This, he said, is not addressed even in the current energy network development plan.

"Mining reserves from the Earth is one aspect, but the state needs a very clear overall picture. Without it, making isolated decisions like this is even more puzzling," Metsoja stated. He expressed hope that the coalition would not pursue the bill further but speculated that cosmetic changes might be made to ensure its eventual enactment.

Ministry: Processing of mining permit applications has been halted before

Ene Jürjens, head of the mineral resources department at the Ministry of Climate, emphasized that the state's ability to impose restrictions on the use of mineral resources has not been called into question. She recalled that this is not the first time that the processing of oil shale mining permits has been halted.

"This was also done in 2006, when the submission and processing of applications were suspended until the oil shale development plan was completed," Jürjens said.

According to her, companies submitting applications can never be fully certain about whether and under what conditions their applications will receive approval. However, she acknowledged that the president is correct in stating that clearer guidelines are needed regarding the conditions for moving forward. Jürjens identified the climate act as a key element in this process.

"The president pointed out that the Climate-Resilient Economy Act has not yet been adopted and raised doubts about whether and when it will come into force. To this, I can respond that the timeline for the act is progressing and the corresponding draft, along with the proposed amendments to the Earth's Crust Act, has already been submitted to the government," Jürjens explained.

She added that the policy documents addressing the gaps identified in climate policy goals are already in progress.

Jürjens noted that the climate law is unique in that, for the first time in history, sectoral emission reduction targets will be explicitly set. This new aspect necessitates a revised approach to issuing mining permits.

"The legislative process for the Climate-Resilient Economy Act is advancing in that direction and it is also a fact that, since oil shale extraction has a relatively significant environmental impact and oil shale-based energy is expensive, exiting oil shale energy in the long term is inevitable for us," Jürjens stated.

Currently, legal discussions are underway to determine the appropriate steps and methods for proceeding. Jürjens confirmed that amendments to the Earth's Crust Act will move forward.

"The overarching direction of the Earth's Crust Act is that oil shale extraction must be based on new principles and these specific principles need to be defined so that progress can be made purposefully in this direction," the department head concluded.

--

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