The previous coalition has ended, a new one is beginning and it is becoming increasingly clear where the country is headed, what has been prevented, or rather, merely postponed. It seems we are moving toward a future where only the business interests of a select few are taken into account — interests that have a devastating impact on our living environment — while people and communities become secondary. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

The creation of two economy ministries

The groundwork for the planned environmental changes was laid after the last Riigikogu elections when then-Prime Minister Kaja Kallas (Reform) initiated the creation of a new mega-ministry. The former Ministry of the Environment was merged with numerous departments from other ministries, primarily the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The influx was so vast that environmental policy faded into the background and the ideology of economic growth from the Ministry of Economic Affairs took control — essentially, the fox was put in charge of the henhouse.

It didn't matter that this unwieldy creation was named the Ministry of Climate, suggesting a focus on the environment. The fact remains that Estonia no longer has an environment ministry; instead, it has gained a climate-economy ministry, which will be led by the minister of energy and environment. Estonia's environmental policy is increasingly becoming an illusion rather than a reality.

Man gives word, takes it back

At the beginning of his tenure as climate minister, Kristen Michal surprisingly used rhetoric that sounded reasonable from an environmental crisis perspective: "The economy must remain within nature's given limits." It is likely that he did not fully grasp the meaning of his own words. This slogan reflects the idea of sustainable "doughnut economics," which, if properly understood and implemented, offers a viable way to address the environmental crisis. The concept is simple: the economy must operate within a defined space — the "doughnut." It cannot grow at the expense of social needs represented by the inner circle, nor at the expense of the natural environment beyond the doughnut's outer boundary.

By now, that initial rhetoric has been replaced by the opposite — facilitating the simplification of nature conservation, as indicated by various statements. For example, the prime minister has said, "The incoming government coalition will focus on how to make greater use of natural resources for economic benefit and how to simplify nature conservation restrictions." In the same vein, Maria Jufereva-Skuratovski wrote in an opinion piece: "For example, the Reform Party believes that wood processing should continue even in protected areas and that protected forests should not exceed 30 percent of the total forested area."

In essence, this is about subordinating the living environment to economic interests, not about pursuing a sustainable economy. This attitude aligns with Kristina Kallas's assertion that the Environmental Board should be "torn apart."

It is evident that the new coalition's understanding of biodiversity is, at best, primitive and their approach to nature conservation does not extend beyond the classical 19th-century German concept, which saw preservation as serving purely aesthetic value. Unlike today, the existential importance of biodiversity was not recognized back then.

Such a narrow perspective leaves no room for the understanding that our entire way of life and economy must be reshaped in a sustainable manner — one that allows us to coexist with biodiversity rather than exploit it. If the economy is blindly worshipped as a separate, untouchable entity, detached from society and the environment, then people and local communities will be relegated to some dusty periphery, forgotten and overlooked.

What happened to environmental policy?

In the current situation, the question of our environmental policy is becoming increasingly important. More precisely, we need clarity on whether Estonia even has an environmental policy, and if so, what it consists of. I raised this question in the Riigikogu to the prime minister when he was presenting the implementation of Estonia's development strategy, Estonia 2035. No substantive answer followed.

The same question was posed to Climate Minister Yoko Alender (Reform), who responded in broad terms: "A clean economy and environmental protection can function together in a way that ensures both food on the table and a preserved living environment for future generations. That is Estonia's environmental policy." It sounds nice, but the concrete actions remain unclear.

Something very important has been overlooked. In 2021, the government approved the drafting of an environmental sector development plan until 2030 (abbreviated as KEVAD), which served as the foundation for creating a strategic development document aimed at forming a unified action plan and outlining the necessary steps for its implementation. In a manner fitting civil society, nearly all of Estonia's top experts from various fields participated in drafting the plan and taxpayer money was spent on the process.

By August 2023, amidst the initial chaos of the Ministry of Climate's formation, the final, fourth draft of the development plan was completed, along with its environmental impact assessment. However, at the "Ministry of Climate Economy," further development and implementation of this strategic plan came to a halt — as if it never existed.

It gives the impression that a long-term strategic plan, which would lay the groundwork for ensuring the sustainability of our living environment, is not considered important. In theory, a country should be governed strategically. But how is that possible without strategic foundation documents? Perhaps someone knows the answer.

Are we saying goodbye to civil society?

The shelving of KEVAD could perhaps be seen as just one misstep. However, it appears to be part of a broader pattern in which experts are sidelined from inclusive strategic governance.

This seems to be particularly true in environmental matters. A couple of examples illustrate this. Changes are being planned for the Forest Act, which would eliminate the forest development plan on the grounds that it contradicts the principles of drafting the country's strategic documents. This claim does not stand up to scrutiny. During the preparation of KEVAD, it was explicitly stated that forests were not covered because a separate forest development plan already existed. Now, even within the sidelined KEVAD framework, forests would be left without any strategic development plan.

Instead of a forest development plan, the government considers it necessary to update the forest policy, which was adopted in 1997. However, policy development is not as comprehensive a process as a development plan, which ensures representation from various stakeholders and considers the different ecological benefits of forests. This makes it easy to push public interests aside in favor of private economic interests.

Similarly, a proposed amendment to the Nature Conservation Act aimed to strip people and communities of their existing right to propose the creation of nature reserves, leaving this authority solely in the hands of the Environmental Board. Notably, the Environmental Board operates under the political control of the new-style "Ministry of Climate Economy," meaning that any proposals concerning environmental protection could effectively be blocked if they conflict with business interests.

Deepening confrontation during a security crisis

What happens when civil society is ignored? The result is further alienation from the state and deepening distrust in the government — eventually escalating into outright anger. This creates the perfect breeding ground for the rise of populism.

Years ago, when I participated in discussions on climate measures as part of KEVAD, I made a critical remark that the document's climate section was industry-centered — there was no mention of people or communities. Both then and later, I have emphasized that we will not be able to tackle the challenges ahead if we focus solely on the industrial sector rather than on people, as this will only deepen conflicts.

In the current security situation, this is an immeasurably more serious issue. We simply cannot handle the growing challenges if people and communities do not see a reason to stand behind the government — regardless of the sector. More importantly, decisions must not be made based on the interests of only a small segment of society, as such choices can be profoundly misguided. History has shown us what the consequences can be.

--

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