Although both the Environmental Board and the State Forest Management Center (RMK) knew which forests and their buffer areas were intended to replace the habitats of the endangered wood grouse (Tetrao urgoallus) that would be destroyed by the construction of Rail Baltica, the Environmental Board granted RMK logging permits which resulted in the felling of 17 hectares of the most valuable forest planned as a habitat for wood grouse, in addition to other forests, the National Audit Office (NAO) said in a press release Friday.

In all, the Environmental Board had issued logging permits to RMK and private forest owners for 1,183 hectares, including 1,108 hectares for RMK specifically. Most of this, however, had not yet been felled.

"It seems that both the Environmental Board and RMK ended up in a situation where the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing, and nature, forest management and the railway project all suffered as a result," said Auditor General Janar Holm.

"As 17 hectares of forest was logged, an additional 443 hectares of forest had to be allocated to compensate for the damage caused to habitats," he added.

The Environmental Board authorized logging in the Reiu area within the Rail Baltica compensation area and its buffer zone in late 2023 and early 2024 — areas that had been selected to compensate for damage caused by the construction of the new railway. The fact that this logging had been carried out within the compensation area was revealed by chance on January 28, 2024.

The logging done by RMK jeopardized the development of a project of overriding public interest, and the adoption of the county plan for southern Pärnu County was delayed by around seven months, as new areas suitable for wood grouse had to be identified in managed forests to replace the logged areas.

As a result of the Environmental Board and RMK's actions, natural areas were damaged which had been intended to compensate for the damage caused to Natura 2000 sites. The logging of these sites also reduced the chances that habitats destroyed by the construction of Rail Baltica would be compensated in a way that would actually meet the needs of the wood grouse and improve the condition of the population there.

The suitability of the newly planned 443 hectares of compensation areas cannot be determined for several years. Should the measures of this compensation scheme fail, i.e. the wood grouse population not recover to the necessary extent, this compensation scheme will have to be revisited in the future, which may in turn mean further restrictions on managed forests.

Environmental Board, RMK point different fingers

Both the Environmental Board and RMK believe logging permit issuance decisions for compensation areas related to the construction of Rail Baltica and their buffer zones were made appropriately.

However, the NAO found that in processing these logging permits, the board did not comply with the principles of the Administrative Procedure Act or Supreme Court case law, as significant discretionary errors were made and the board did not duly apply the precautionary principle.

The Environmental Board justified the situation by stating that the necessary information had not been included on the relevant map layer, and that the official who issued the logging permits was unaware of the natural assets and proposed restrictions in the area.

RMK stated that, although they were involved in the process of selecting the compensation areas and signed off on the plan, they did not understand the content of the restrictions. As the plan together with the restrictions set out in the compensation scheme had not yet been adopted, at that point, there were no legal restrictions on logging the area.

After the Rail Baltica case came to light, however, it also turned out that there had been no real obstacles that would have prevented the Environmental Board from acting swiftly and imposing restrictions on the proposed compensation areas. The newly selected areas were subsequently restricted within the board's map system within just a few days' time.

Conservative approach recommended

The NAO emphasized the fact that, under case law, a logging permit is an ordinary administrative act, due to which the Environmental Board should take all information relevant to making the decision into account when issuing a logging permit; this decision cannot be based solely on whether or not the information is available on a map layer within the Estonian Nature Information System (EELIS).

It also noted that both the Environmental Board and the RMK should take the precautionary principle of environmental law into account in their activities. This means that when planning and implementing its activities, the institution should take a conservative approach, meaning that if an activity has a potentially adverse effect on protected or soon-to-be-protected natural assets, in that case, it would be better to avoid such activity. The Environmental Board must also be prepared to promptly initiate the formal process of placing a site under protection if warranted by available information.

The audit office further pointed out that, as indicated by organizational changes made within the board in 2024, nothing had prevented the Environmental Board from entering Rail Baltica's compensatory and buffer zones into EELIS.

The NAO had recommended in a 2023 audit that the Environmental Board should ensure that the impact of logging on natural assets is assessed prior to the issuance of logging permits. The NAO had also advised against allowing logging in areas that should be protected.

Authorizing logging in Rail Baltica compensation areas demonstrates that the Environmental Board has failed to implement these recommendations, and that the board is still inadequately managed, which may result in harm to the environment.

The audit office reiterated its recommendation to the Environmental Board to assess the impact of logging on the natural assets of a forest site and its surrounding areas prior to issuing a logging permit.

It also noted that the internal flow of information and cooperation between departments should be improved — and that, above all, it should be ensured that information is passed between the Forest Department and the Nature Conservation Department, to prevent cases where high-value forests are authorized to be logged before they can be designated as protected.

Background

The goal of this audit was to assess whether and how the Environmental Board ensures that the impact of logging on natural assets is assessed prior to the issuance of a permit for logging in a protected forest, as well as whether the information in environmental registers is up-to-date and enables the avoidance of environmentally harmful decisions.

Also assessed in the audit was the implementation of the recommendations the NAO made in its 2023 audit "Protection of natural assets and logging in protected forests."

Click here (link in Estonian) to access the National Audit Office report in full.

--

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