On Wednesday, the Riigikogu will hold the first reading of a bill that proposes strict protection for forest habitats in Natura 2000 areas, including a ban on commercial logging.

The ban is tied to infringement proceedings launched by the European Commission in 2022, which accuse Estonia of failing to adequately assess the negative impact of economic activities — such as logging — on the natural values of Natura 2000 sites.

Antti Tooming, deputy secretary general for biodiversity and environmental protection at the Ministry of Climate, told ERR that according to the proceedings, issuing logging permits in Natura 2000 areas without a prior Natura assessment constitutes a violation.

"There's no direct requirement to make protection rules stricter to cover forest habitats in limited-conservation zones and areas of conservation interest because of the infringement proceeding. However, in practice, a Natura assessment in these areas would still conclude that logging cannot take place," Tooming said.

The aim of the bill is to reduce bureaucracy and administrative burden while simplifying environmental impact assessments. Forest habitat protection would become stricter, banning commercial logging. However, an exception would be made for collecting firewood in forest habitats located within the limited-conservation zone of a protected area or permanent habitat area.

Andres Metsoja (Isamaa), deputy chair of the Riigikogu Environment Committee, told ERR that the committee last discussed the draft amendments to the Nature Conservation Act and related legislation last week, but no consensus was reached.

"For nearly three years, logging activities — meaning the processing of forest notifications — have been suspended. The Nature Conservation Act is now expected to include a provision that effectively ends all forest management in Natura areas, meaning forest notifications for these areas will no longer be issued," Metsoja explained.

Landowners would retain the right to cut up to five cubic meters of firewood per hectare without needing a forest notification. Under the current legal framework, the limit for firewood cutting without notification is 20 cubic meters.

"It's now been narrowed down more precisely, with a decision to further restrict it. How exactly the number of stumps per hectare will be monitored is a separate challenge," Metsoja noted.

Infringement proceedings documentation not shared

The Estonian Private Forest Association is dissatisfied with several proposed changes in the draft Nature Conservation Act and recommends removing the logging ban provision entirely. According to the association, there is no clear evidence that the European Commission's infringement proceedings require such a ban.

"The explanatory memorandum of the bill states that the infringement proceedings concern the assessment of logging's impact on Natura values, not the imposition of restrictions on forest management. Therefore, provisions related to logging restrictions should be removed from the draft. Creating such regulations is not in line with the rationale behind the bill," said Jaanus Aun, executive director of the Private Forest Association.

According to the Ministry of Climate's deputy secretary general, the new protection regime would provide greater legal clarity regarding forest habitats. At the same time, landowners would continue to be eligible for increased private forest subsidies of €160 per hectare per year for these areas, compared to the current rate of €60 per hectare per year for limited-conservation zones and areas of conservation interest.

"As a result of the legislative change, these lands would also be exempt from land tax. For comparison, limited-conservation zones and conservation areas currently receive a 50 percent land tax discount," Tooming noted.

Metsoja pointed out that when the Natura areas were established in 2004, the understanding was that economic activity and nature conservation could coexist there — that these were semi-natural habitats where certain activities were actually needed to preserve environmental values. Now, however, the narrative has shifted due to the infringement proceedings launched by the European Commission.

"In fact, the infringement proceeding document has been classified as restricted and none of the committee members have been allowed to review it," Metsoja said.

The Private Forest Association has also not been granted access to the documents. Its executive director urged members of the Riigikogu to review the materials before voting on any restrictions that would impact private property rights.

The deputy secretary general of the Ministry of Climate confirmed that all documents related to the European Commission's infringement proceedings are intended for official use only, as the process is still ongoing.

"Since some members of the Riigikogu have expressed interest in reviewing the documents, we have forwarded them to the Office of the Riigikogu, where MPs can access them," Tooming added.

Metsoja: State laying down real estate market prices unprecedented

According to Metsoja, the proposed legislative amendments raise constitutional concerns. Initially, the message was simply that logging would be prohibited. But under the draft legislation amending the Nature Conservation Act, the Hunting Act and the State Assets Act, the state could be obligated to repurchase land if the protection regime has become stricter over time — while also setting a valuation for the property.

"In other words, the law would establish a market value for conservation-designated land," Metsoja said. "The state is legislating that this value is half of the actual market value, if the owner wants to sell the land to the state."

Metsoja called this an unprecedented situation.

Tooming responded that the state has no constitutional obligation to compensate for restrictions that were already in place when a person purchased a property.

"The Supreme Court has also explained that the state is not required to compensate for restrictions that a person could have reasonably taken into account when making decisions," the deputy secretary general added. "The exception is when the protection regime becomes more stringent over time. However, even in such cases, it is not justified to offer full compensation, since the individual knowingly acquired land that already came with conservation restrictions."

The draft legislation also includes some relaxations of existing rules. For example, it reduces the extent of the construction buffer zone in flood-prone coastal and shoreline areas. It would also allow roads, utility networks or structures to be built in strictly protected zones — something currently permitted only for national defense or conservation infrastructure.

"This is the government's proposed trade-off: if we take something away in one place, we give something back somewhere else," Metsoja commented.

The Private Forest Association submitted a legal analysis to the Environment Committee by sworn attorney Allar Jõks from the law firm Sorainen, which concludes that the amendments to the Nature Conservation Act violate the constitutional principles of legal certainty and the fundamental right to property.

Jõks also pointed out that while the explanatory memorandum cites several Supreme Court decisions in support of the legislative changes, a closer look reveals that these rulings do not, in fact, justify the proposed regulations.

Private forest owners want compensation to accompany restrictions

If the paragraph banning logging remains in the bill, the Estonian Private Forest Association says it is essential that compensation measures be introduced immediately once the new restrictions are enacted, to offset losses for landowners. The association wants the state budget to cover both the damages incurred and the income lost.

"Paying fair compensation helps balance the goals of nature conservation with property rights. Imposing restrictions without appropriate compensation measures has increased landowners' resistance to all nature conservation efforts. Clearly, Estonian nature would benefit if landowners were personally motivated to participate in conservation," Aun explained.

The association also argues that the requirement for an expert assessment when placing a natural object under protection should not be removed from the law. Without it, objects may be designated for protection too lightly or superficially, potentially resulting in unreasonable restrictions for forest owners.

The Private Forest Association also objects to the proposed provision that if a landowner wishes to transfer a property with increased protection status to the state, the state would pay only half its value. According to the association, landowners have no control over changes in protection status, and it is therefore unfair to deny them full compensation.

The association has proposed that compensation for conservation-related restrictions could be funded from the net profit of the State Forest Management Center (RMK), which is paid into the state budget.

The bill will have its first reading in the Riigikogu on Wednesday, but what the parliamentary factions will ultimately decide remains unclear, according to Environment Committee Deputy Chair Andres Metsoja. In his view, the proposed changes raise the question of whether property rights are still protected under the Constitution.

"No one disputes the need to protect nature, but like national defense, nature conservation is a shared interest and benefit for all of us. The question is how far we should go in restructuring daily life. We're already in a situation where stricter regimes have been imposed on all protected sites, and landowners are being saddled with greater obligations," said Metsoja.

--

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