Keit Kasemets: In an impasse, state secretary must quit before prime minister

Top official Keit Kasemets, in the process of transitioning away from the role of Climate Ministry Secretary General—the non-political counterpart to the climate minister—and towards State Secretary, the head of the government office, has said he is prepared to work with all prime ministers.
However, Kasemets, set to replace Taimar Peterkop, hedged his words by noting that if conflicts with the head of government do arise, it is the State Secretary who should step down.
State Secretary (Estonian: Riigisekretär) heads up the Government Office and so should not be conflated with the secretary of state role seen in some other major countries. The nature of the job forms a large part of the following.
Kasemets, whose new role came at the recommendation of current Prime Minister Kristen Michal (Reform), made his remarks in an interview given to the Vikerraadio show "Uudis+", which follows in its entirety.

Interviewer Mirko Ojakivi: I will kick off with a social media post from my colleague Arp Müller, which read: 'In my opinion, important ongoing issues at the Climate Ministry—the future of energy security, a climate law that provides certainty for entrepreneurs, and forestry legislation—should have been completed, not abandoned halfway.' To what extent do you agree with Arp Müller?
Kasemets: Naturally, I would have liked to stay at the Climate Ministry for longer. However, you can never choose the timing of a job change with great precision. This transition is primarily down to the fact that the current State Secretary decided to resign, meaning a new one was needed.
As for these specific issues, they are currently at the stage where ministry officials need to carry out a lot of work. We are primarily in the phase of political decision-making, and, at this point, I could contribute less as the ministry's Secretary General than I was able to during the earlier, preparatory phases.
All the same, no one is indispensable. Thousands of people graduate from the University of Tartu each year; among them are clearly some very bright and perspicacious individuals. Estonia would not have been left wanting for a State Secretary, had you not accepted the offer.
That is surely the case. At the same time, I have worked in various leadership positions at the Government Office for over 10 years. And while working for the OECD, I advised governments worldwide on how to improve governmental operations and how to implement policy. So, without a doubt, I do have the background and skills needed for this role.
What are the risks or likelihoods that the major projects you started at the Climate Ministry, with the current Prime Minister Kristen Michal, will go unfinished? You have expended a great deal of energy on them, and certain stakeholders have high expectations. Yet, at some point, things may not materialize, and all that energy might fizzle out, right?
I don't see any risk along those lines because the State Secretary's role is to support the government's work, both legally and in all other aspects. Particularly in terms of economic impacts, the State Secretary acts as the initiator and coordinator of major reforms. Thus, I will continue to be involved in all these topics, albeit in a slightly different role.
For example, there is currently significant political tug-of-war going on between government partners over the offshore wind parks, but we are further from making a decision than we were six months ago. How do you feel about that personally—would it have been more appropriate to address these issues at the Climate Ministry, or do you now have more opportunities to contribute as State Secretary?
That's a great example. I don't think we are further from the decision. What has transpired in the meantime is that a lot more calculations have emerged in the course of these discussions—about how this will affect electricity prices and costs. There is much more new information available; the officials' role is precisely to carry out all the analysis and background work. Now, both internal government discussions and broader political debates are taking place. And that's how things should be. Ultimately, only the politicians can make that decision. First, the government, and then the Riigikogu, given it's not a decision the government makes alone.
But if we look at the broader work of the Climate Ministry—right now, the nature conservation law and amendments to the forestry law are ongoing. These are big issues, large processes. In this field, you can't achieve anything in weeks, months, or sometimes even years. Interest groups are currently dissatisfied. They rely on the state to bring clarity and order. What would you say if someone claimed you are fleeing from problems?
No, certainly not. I would respond the same way as I did to the earlier question. In the end, these laws are also government priorities, and the role of the Government Office is to ensure that government priorities get implemented. I will certainly continue to be involved in these areas, albeit in a slightly different mode, and I am confident that these laws and the genuinely important amendments will reach the stage where they get approved by the government and sent off to the Riigikogu.

The central question is what will happen to the Climate-Resilient Economy Act going forward. Businessman Raul Kirjanen asked, in an opinion piece published on [Estonian daily] Eesti Päevaleht's website last Friday, the following: 'Snapping cables in the Gulf of Finland, introducing 100 percent renewable energy in comparison with consumption; the sudden allocation of €100 million for a natural gas-fired power station; state aid permits for massive offshore wind park subsidies; a desperate push for a hollow climate law; casting aside the position of the Riigikogu's European Affairs Committee on the EU's 2040 climate targets, and so on. Why are such decisions being made, how are they being made and by whom?' Help him out here, please: Who has been making these decisions, if not the Riigikogu?
Raul Kirjanen has, among his various suggestions, essentially proposed shuttering the Riigikogu, the Environmental Board (Keskkonnaamet), and possibly even the Climate Ministry itself. I hope I'm not being unfair to him; I don't think so.
In Estonia, parliamentary democracy surely continues to function, and all major decisions are ultimately made at the Riigikogu. The same goes for the offshore wind park case—the final decision will still be made by the Riigikogu. Even the draft of the Climate-Resilient Economy Act will eventually be approved by the Riigikogu.
Kirjanen's criticism or main issue is that we have become a bureaucratic state. Officials seem to be making decisions without a mandate to do so. Meanwhile, politicians who do have a mandate sit in the Riigikogu, but they don't engage in these affairs. At some point, some pre-prepared decisions get handed to them from somewhere, and they just have to press either the red or green button. Do you agree that the governance center of gravity in Estonia has tilted too much toward the executive branch?
There are perhaps two aspects to that question. If we take the specific example of Estonia's position on the EU's 2040 climate targets, there was a very intense Riigikogu debate at various committees, and the government's position was tweaked there. The Riigikogu was very active during that process. This was a significant change compared with the previous process, where the 2030 targets had been approved so quickly that the legislature had too little time to delve into them.
Regarding the broader role of officials, I definitely concur that Estonia's resilient public service has always been one of our great strengths, and it will remain so in the future.
However, on the other hand, it's clear that the public sector has somewhat expanded. There are many regulations, and new obligations are constantly being introduced. One of my goals as State Secretary will definitely be to ensure that processes are simpler, faster, and that we can reduce the requirements and regulations for businesses.
In turning to the issue of making things simpler and quicker: When you got the job offer from the Prime Minister, you mentioned that his vision was for more freedoms and fewer regulations in Estonia. You said that this resonated with you and that you were inclined to accept the offer precisely because of that. However, if we recall what business owners are saying, it's quite the reverse: We have more regulations and less freedom. [Former Chancellor of Justice] Allar Jõks also wrote in Postimees that the Climate-Resilient Economy Act is putting our very democracy to the test. So what do you and the Prime Minister mean by this talk of freedoms and regulations?
Rather comparable with what the business owners are saying: We are indeed reaching that stage where we have many issues regarding competitiveness. One way to boost competitiveness is certainly to cut the size of the public sector, to cut regulation, and to review requirements. This needs to be done in close cooperation with business.
Regarding bringing the Climate-Resilient Economy Act into this discourse—well, I don't agree with that. One of the main objectives of that act is to engender legal clarity. What the rules are, be it with oil shale mining, peat extraction, or another sector. Business needs to have clarity, and we should be able to reduce the number of environmental lawsuits, which are very common today. Did you notice that even the amendments to the Earth's Crust Act were not given presidential assent? The president pointed out that they contradict the Constitution, as they create additional uncertainty in a situation where issuing new permits is tied to a law that has not yet reached the Riigikogu, let alone is passed and in force. Isn't that a critique aimed at yourself?
Naturally, I noticed that. It is legislation being discussed and processed by both the government and the Riigikogu. In fact, the legal provisions were not directly linked to the enactment of the Climate-Resilient Economy Act. There was a specific deadline for how long oil shale mining permits would be suspended.
Naturally, it's not viable to tie any deadlines to a law that doesn't yet exist. The bill's explanatory memorandum merely mentioned that more precise rules would come with the Climate-Resilient Economy Act. This means it is up to the Riigikogu to clarify that regulation now, which they are indeed doing. As several MPs have said in recent weeks, it would be better to create that clarity comprehensively, with the Climate-Resilient Economy Act, rather than resolving individual issues separately.

But you do agree that practice is the benchmark of truth? You have been the Secretary General at the Climate Ministry for a year and a half. [Prime Minister] Michal was previously the Minister of Climate for more than a year. What have the two of you done in this field to bring more freedoms and fewer regulations in Estonia?
Of course, I agree with that statement. And perhaps with an emphasis on the time frame—one and a half years can be seen as both a long time and a short time period. A year and a half is not a very long time, in fact. However, during that time, many things have been accomplished at the Climate Ministry. However, if we focus on reducing regulations, that hasn't been widely grasped. We have significantly eased the rules for issuing permits from the Climate Ministry's side. We've reviewed places where the Environmental Board must give its approvals and where it does not.
We have enacted two major reforms, which are also among the current government's priorities. One is a complete review of the environmental impact assessment system, so that assessments can be conducted twice as quickly.
The second is reducing the number of environmental permits by a quarter. These initiatives will also yield results within the next year to year and a half, and I will continue to work on them in my new role.
For almost two years now, we've been living under a coalition agreement (two coalition agreements drawn up by the same three parties – ed.) which states: 'We will curb overregulation and cut down on bureaucracy.' An update nine months ago added: 'We will establish a rule that for every new administrative burden placed on businesses, one existing requirement must be discarded.' We've been operating under this principle for nine months now. What progress has been made at the Climate Ministry? If you have been adopting new regulations, which provisions have been repealed from existing laws?
We at the Climate Ministry have taken this promise very seriously, and just yesterday I signed a draft bill that eases various requirements related to water usage permits. We are also working to ease requirements in planning. This is a very important principle that should be applied more broadly.
There has been feedback coming from the public sector, suggesting that this requirement might create additional bureaucracy. There is no other way than for all leaders in the public sector to pay very close attention to this issue. We need to go even further and review essentially all existing requirements, something that can be well-coordinated by the Government Office.
Now that you are going to be the State Secretary, is Estonia essentially getting a prime minister's cabinet in the literal sense—meaning the Government Office has quietly acquired legislative drafting rights? In the past, the Government Office didn't draw up legislation itself, yet now it has that right. Will it become the central 'ministry,' which decides things in Estonia?
As State Secretary, I would try to maintain the position that the role of the Government Office is to support government reforms, facilitate government work, and bring together different interests, not to submit legislative proposals recklessly. That role should remain with ministers and ministries.
What is planned to be done more actively? Supporting ministers with various reforms that affect multiple ministerial areas. I believe that is where the role of the Government Office can be much clearer.
Let me give a concrete example in the context of boosting economic growth, such as promoting new investments. In that sphere, planners, environmental officials, and Ministry of Economic Affairs representatives must all contribute.
As of today, that cooperation has not worked out very well, perhaps because ministries are trying to handle things independently. In these cases, I certainly see a wider role for the Government Office in preparing those reforms and helping ministers present them to the government.
How might the role of State Secretary change, and what do you envision that position to be like compared with how Aino Lepik von Wirén, Heiki Loot, or Taimar Peterkop performed the role?
The role of State Secretary has already changed significantly. If we start with Aino Lepik von Wirén, at that time (around the turn of the Millennium – ed.), the Government Office essentially only dealt with preparing for government meetings. The EU policy aspect was starting to be added in, but the role of the Government Office was much narrower, and the State Secretary did not lead the Government Office as such.
Under Heiki Loot (in the position from 2003 to 2018 – ed.), these two roles were combined. During Taimar Peterkop's time, crisis management and crisis coordination were added to the responsibilities of the Government Office.
What is my main goal then? It is to expand the Government Office's active role in promoting economic growth, state reform, government efficiency, and streamlining processes.

Do you have a clear position on whether it should be called the Knights' House or the State Representation House (referring to the newly-refurbished building on Toompea – ed.)? There is an air of despair in some circles, with people saying that the current Government Office is on the wrong track and heading for disaster.
I wouldn't have had any objection to continuing to call the building the Knights' House (Rüütelkonna hoone).
Do you plan to reinstate that name on your first day in office?
I'm not going to make any such pledges. We will certainly discuss it with colleagues on my first day at work. Although the building is managed by the Government Office, it is also used by the President's Office, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and other institutions. We'll discuss whether we are on the right track with the current approach or if something needs to be changed.
You don't have a master's degree in law. Do you agree with Urmas Reinsalu, who said during the Riigikogu debate on the educational requirements for the State Secretary, that instead of changing the law, it would be easier to just give you a law degree?
I think the requirement for the State Secretary to have a legal education is quite rare, even unique, both in Europe and worldwide. There certainly aren't many countries with such a requirement. This requirement wasn't in place in Estonia during the early years of the 1930s, nor at the beginning of our re-independence.
As of today, the issues facing the government require a much broader context than just making legally correct decisions. For this reason, I believe removing this requirement is a very substantial, forward-looking decision, one which truly allows the State Secretary and the Government Office to support the government's work in a more meaningful manner. According to [leader of opposition party Isamaa, Urmas] Reinsalu, this case sets two unfortunate precedents. First, the Prime Minister's conduct politicizes the position of the State Secretary in Estonia. Second, [he said] we are back in that time when laws get amended just for one person. Reinsalu said he feels sorry for you, due to the situation the Prime Minister has put you in. What is your response to that?
I would certainly like to thank Urmas Reinsalu for his concern for me. I believe I'm doing just fine, though. I would reiterate that such a requirement (here Kasemets is referring to the fact that he does not have an academic background in law, previously a requirement for the post – ed.) is not present in other countries.
My previous experience—working with four different prime ministers, working at the Government Office, and working with many other governments and secretaries of state worldwide—certainly gives me a sufficient background.
I see myself clearly as a top civil servant only. I don't plan to join any political party, nor do I plan to run for political office.
You have caught the heat for being part of the Reform Party's delegation during the coalition negotiations, a coalition now led by Kristen Michal. But the central question in this story is what happens if the 2027 elections are won by someone like Reinsalu, as the current ratings would suggest, though nothing is set in stone. But were the next Prime Minister to say he or she doesn't want to continue working with you, will you make your departure easier for them, or will we see a situation we've witnessed in Estonia before, whereby a political leader tries to remove a top official and ends up metaphorically breaking their toes, nose, and everything else?
First of all, I'd like to put things straight regarding my participation in the coalition negotiations. I was invited to take part as a civil servant. I was involved in discussions regarding the budget and spending cuts. If you recall, things had stalled politically and between the ministries. There were some major disputes there, and a deadlock. My contribution was related to budget cuts and balancing the budget only. I didn't take part in discussions on other policies. That is clearly the role of a top official.
But I don't believe that two top leaders—a Prime Minister and an administrative leader—can work together if their cooperation completely fails. I am, of course, ready to work with all Prime Ministers, but it also depends primarily on the Prime Ministers' expectations. Speaking of Urmas Reinsalu, does he expect the State Secretary to have long-term international experience and a deep understanding of the public sector? Or does he have other expectations?
Naturally, if cooperation doesn't work out, it's the top administrator who must step down—not the politician who has been elected by the people.
Finally, there are rumors circulating around the Government Office that a new broom sweeps quite harshly. To borrow Margus Tsahkna's phrasing, do you have plans for any 'brutal cuts' and major personnel changes at the Government Office? Should people there be awaiting your arrival anxiously?
The rumors always get there ahead of the people actually taking up their posts. I think all my colleagues at the Climate Ministry can confirm that I'm not one for acting on impulse or emotion. I am already aware of many of the people working at the Government Office, from the past. As things stand, there are no plans for any sweeping personnel changes.
However, there are some new topics we need to focus on—boosting economic growth, pushing forward with state reforms, and making things run more smoothly among them. I definitely want to prioritize these things more than has been the case so far.
--
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Urmet Kook, Andrew Whyte
Source: Vikerraadio "Uudis+"