There are developments in our environmental policy where reality is being replaced by illusion. By the time the haze clears, it may already be too late to change anything. I am referring to the planned fundamental changes to the Nature Conservation Act (LKS). The benefits will go to a few, while the harm will be spread among many.

Let me try to sketch out what is happening. There has long been a pressing need to amend the LKS. Numerous technical but substantively important legal changes were urgently required — ones that would make environmental management more reasonable and efficient and help resolve bottlenecks. These changes were planned by civil servants trying to do their jobs well. That's why they anxiously bit their nails when Prime Minister Kaja Kallas (Reform), for reasons unknown, did not include these changes on the government's agenda at the end of the previous Riigikogu's term. Everything came to a standstill.

The absurdity lies in the fact that the initial intent to draft the bill dates back to 2017. By now, officials have spent eight years working under legal provisions they themselves consider inappropriate. So much for the leading government party's proclaimed goal of containing red tape.

In the field of nature conservation, new winds began to blow after the last Riigikogu elections, when Kaja Kallas merged the Ministry of the Environment into the Ministry of Climate and nature conservation became a marginal nuisance in the new structure. The leadership of the "Ministry of Climate Economy" began fundamentally reshaping nature conservation based on that same ancient draft intent, which made no mention of any substantive legal changes. What's more, everything was done in secret to make sure that no one would interfere. Environmental experts and interest groups were kept at a distance.

Incomprehensible 30 percent

Then came whispers that the ministry's leadership was toying with the idea of including a provision in the law requiring that 30 percent of land and forest be placed under protection. Conservationists wore expressions of bewilderment: what was the point of this? The role of the state cannot be reduced to arbitrary numerical frameworks — what matters is preserving the environment and its values, not hitting a number.

The real objective became clear — it wasn't about raising the amount of protected areas to 30 percent, but rather about setting a cap at 30 percent, above which state protection could not go, even if it were necessary. In other words, then-Climate Minister Kristen Michal (Reform) — who hypocritically preached that the economy must remain within nature's limits — was in fact preparing to do the opposite.

The 30 percent idea certainly didn't come from conservation experts or scientists. So what prompted it? Whose interests might be behind it? A wall of silence.

Putting the pieces together, I suggest the following course of events. Lobbyists from the forestry industry have always sought to reduce or cap conservation restrictions in order to secure a larger flow of raw materials. The idea of limiting nature conservation found fertile ground in the ministry's leadership, which is far removed from ecological concerns, and a bill was quietly drafted — but then ran into a problem.

How to make this palatable to the Estonian public, many of whom are already traumatized by the effects of overlogging? The solution came in the form of international obligations. Under global and European Union biodiversity strategies, Estonia has agreed to protect at least 30 percent of its land and sea. Forget the word "at least" — 30 percent protected areas sounds respectable.

Unfortunately, that amount is far too much for industry. Currently, only about 1 percent of Estonia's land is protected as reserves, with another 20 percent under stricter protections. Meeting the 30 percent target would require the large-scale creation of new protected areas and a reduced flow of timber — an outcome the industry finds unacceptable.

Ingenious PR trick deployed

Nowhere is it written what the 30 percent of protected land must consist of. So anything that even faintly smells of restriction can be included — as long as the magic number is reached. Ministers and top officials would appear progressive and likely earn praise abroad for seemingly fulfilling an international obligation. Few are able to see through the charade.

Thus began an active brainstorming process. How could that 30 percent be filled? Eureka! The shoreline and bank protection zones offer substantial volume — never mind that these are not, by nature, actual protected areas and managing them as such would be a bureaucratic nightmare for officials. But as an added bonus, there are virtually no restrictions on logging within shoreline zones. Let's do it.

What else? Individual natural objects. Since these protect culturally significant features, the land area around them is modest — but it's something. In addition, there are efforts to include municipal-level protected areas in the 30 percent total, which would require them to be simultaneously municipal and state-owned. Yet another absurdity.

Another intriguing find is the idea of including compensation and mitigation areas, which opens the door to repurposing protected lands for economic use and replacing valuable natural areas with less valuable ones.

Why is the 30 percent goal unsuitable?

Preserving nature and our living environment is not about turning values into museum exhibits. The goal is to ensure the continuity of our environment and to conduct ourselves in a way that sustains us as a people and a culture. Environmental protection and nature conservation are inherently dynamic and directly dependent on the scale of human impact.

If human activity — especially economic activity — becomes more extensive, then inevitably, environmental protections must become increasingly restrictive. However, if economic activity, such as forestry, becomes environmentally sustainable, then restrictions lose their purpose. Unfortunately, under industrial pressure, our production forest reserves are dwindling.

Sustainability and nature conservation are essential to the very existence of our small nation — something that cannot be guaranteed by protected areas alone. The needs of the living environment must be taken into account everywhere: in commercial forests, urban spaces and agricultural fields alike. The 30 percent cap marks an enormous step away from sustainable living and squanders Estonia's natural advantages in facing the environmental crisis.

Further steps in the same direction will come easily — and that's exactly what the government is planning. Work is currently underway to draft language for the coalition agreement and the Forest Act, aiming to designate 70 percent of Estonia's forests as commercial forests, subject only to the Forest Act and its planned amendments. The likely goal is to prop up a forestry industry that is undermining itself, at the expense of shared values. Isolated protected areas cannot sustain Estonia's living environment and biodiversity. This must function hand-in-hand with sustainable practices outside protected zones, including in commercial forests. There is no other way.

The government's plans will bring irreversible changes to our environment. That is unacceptable. Otherwise, we must abandon the image of Estonia as a country rich in nature; forget green forests beyond the borders of protected areas and the green corridors that connect them. Let us prepare for life surrounded by clear-cut sapling fields, grow used to the diminishing sound of birdsong and accept that community forests are nothing more than a dream.

Our biodiversity will decline even further. There will be increasing pressure to reduce the populations of game animals, and large predators will no longer have space in Estonia.

To top it all off, taxpayers will have to pay significantly higher fines in the future, as our forests become even larger emitters of greenhouse gases. All of this simply to allow the forestry sector to operate without interference. What a glaring conflict between private interest and the public good! The haze is lifting, and clarity is emerging. Maybe — just maybe — it is still possible to stand up to these plans together, to support one another for the sake of our environment and to make a difference. There is always hope.

--

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