Vox Populi

Erki Savisaar

former minister of the environment (Center Party)

I cannot agree with the assumptions presented in the question. Firstly, it is not clear whether this fine will actually be imposed. Secondly, the negative balance in the LULUCF sector does not result solely from overlogging, but mainly from two factors. Firstly, the rapid and extensive expansion of military training grounds, and secondly, one must agree, poor forest management.

The age structure of our forests is such that there is too much old and dead wood. In other words, it is not possible to significantly increase carbon storage in living trees, meaning that the "carbon storage" is already full. Secondly, old trees begin to die and become carbon emitters. If we were to remove dead trees from the forest, the balance would improve by four million tons and we would have fulfilled our goal.

Kalju Tamme

member of the governing board of the Estonian Nationalists and Conservatives (ERK)

Firstly: who is being held accountable? Unfortunately, it is the Estonian taxpayer, who gains no benefit from overlogging. The fine is imposed on the state, but the state's money comes from taxpayers. As a result, teachers' salaries remain the same, schools are closed, roads remain unbuilt – and taxes are rising instead. With hundreds of millions, the state could actually do a lot of good. Yet fines are growing because new cuts are planned for wind energy development. But I'm sure we'll manage.

Of course, it would be completely wrong to hold responsible the officials and politicians who allowed the overlogging, or the forestry companies that benefited directly from it. Our party does not support this approach. The second and more important question is: why do we even have to take responsibility? Estonia is a member of the European Union – an institution whose regulations fine us for using our own resources and destroy our energy sector. As a result, our economy suffers from high and uncompetitive prices. At the same time, we must endure increasing Eurobureaucracy, which stifles entrepreneurship and administrative capacity. But I'm sure we'll manage.

We think it is completely wrong to believe our politicians and officials should defend our national interests more forcefully, or even ask whether EU membership is still beneficial under these conditions. Our party does not support this approach.

Tiit Maran

member of the environment committee of the Riigikogu (Social Democratic Party)

The "carbon fine" is largely a result of unsustainable forest management. Estonian forests have unexpectedly become carbon emitters. The reason is simple – changes to the Forest Act allow unsustainable forestry, which is reflected in overlogging. For example, the felling age for different tree species has been lowered, diameter-based felling has been allowed, and the area of clear-cutting sites has increased.

The most significant changes took effect in early 2018 and have led to a decrease in both forest stock and timber reserves in less than ten years. It is precisely because of these decisions that we are now facing the threat of "carbon fines" as a nation. These changes primarily served the short-term interest of boosting timber supply but worked against the sustainability of the environment and forestry. Those responsible are found among those who influenced the changes to the forest law – they include politicians, but attention should also be given to lobbying by forestry research and the timber industry. What's more important than finding the culprits, however, is solving the situation and steering forestry toward sustainable development. It is extremely important to consider the planned amendments to the Forest Act, as their direction seems to take us even further from sustainability. We must be vigilant in understanding who is behind the proposed decisions. If we fail to make Estonian forestry sustainable, the fines currently looming will not be the last; they will increase. Sustainable management is in the interest of absolutely everyone, including the forestry sector.

Hanah Lahe

member of the Riigikogu (Reform Party)

We’re not paying the "carbon fine" because someone in Brussels maliciously ordered it; we are paying because our country has not taken climate policy seriously enough. Wrong decisions in energy policy (such as the approval of the shale oil plant during the government of EKRE, Isamaa and the Center Party) have brought us to this point. A similar situation exists in other sectors, such as waste and the failure to meet recycling targets – waste policy has been neglected for a long time. Fortunately, this year, a waste reform bill is heading to parliament, which will finally look at the sector in a new light.

In short, the fine is a consequence of political decisions. That's why we need sensible climate policy that reduces emissions, invests in clean energy, and helps businesses adapt to the green transition. Reducing emissions is not ideological; it is economically responsible and ensures the country remains competitive. Denying climate change and neglecting climate policy is ultimately more costly than taking responsibility.

Siim Kiisler

deputy chairman of The Right

Estonia remains one of the most forest-rich countries in the European Union, and Estonian forestry is in good condition. We are also at the top of the EU for air purity and biodiversity indicators, and we have reduced our greenhouse gas emissions faster than most EU countries.

Forest management is vital for Estonia's societal wealth. It generates income for landowners and creates profitable jobs, especially in regions where incomes are lower than in other parts of Estonia. Therefore, the primary task of Estonian politicians should be to ensure that forestry can operate and benefit society.

However, in recent years, an unacceptable situation has emerged – Estonian public sector's carbon sequestration accounting methodology differs significantly from that used by our neighbors, the Latvians, whose forests are comparable to Estonia's. This difference in methodology works against Estonia and no convincing explanation has been provided for why this change was made.

Our politicians and officials must stand up to ensure that unfair accounting methodologies do not harm us. These methodologies must be reassessed and changed. If defending our freedom to do business and manage our forests requires disputes with EU institutions or defending our rights in the European Court of Justice, then we must do so. The benefits of sensible forest management will absolutely outweigh any disputes or losses in court.

Heiki Hepner

former member of the Riigikogu (Isamaa)

The origin of the potential environmental fines lies in the same place as another hot topic from the past week – the mandatory cabling of all Estonian parking lots with at least 20 spaces – the FIT 55 package. This was pushed through under the leadership of the Reform Party, although both Urmas Reinsalu and I voted against it in the European Union affairs committee. The blame for this specific forestry problem lies with former minister of rural affairs Urmas Kruuse, who voted in favor of it as Estonia's representative in the Council of the European Union.

Estonia's forest management is similar in nature to that of Latvia and Finland. Logically, we should be treated the same. Yet, our neighbors face significantly lower expectations from the EU. The reason for this disparity is that under the Reform Party's leadership, Estonia failed to protect its interests. In other words, the old story -- Estonia's desire to appear as a valedictorian in Europe led it to accept commitments that were already unrealistic from the start, and now we face terrifyingly expensive consequences.

Evelyn Sepp

Estonian Greens

The justification that we need to pay a fine because of overlogging is nonsense! It obfuscates the true cause of the fine, the beneficiaries, accomplices, and those responsible. Greed and corrupt interests are at the heart of it, where business intertwines with officials, politicians, and personal gain. The process has advanced to an alarming degree and, unfortunately, continues.

The real question is why the prosecutor's office hasn't brought to court those directing and participating in this "forest policy", those who commissioned this policy and have profited for years from the schemes that led to the fine and distorted competition, from pellets to the massive export of paperwood and burning it for electricity. This has never been part of green policy, it's just pure greenwashing!

Let me be clear: in wasting our national wealth in this way, these activities have never been legal or sustainable. They have not been in line with EU directives, directly applicable regulations, or our own national environmental law.

It's hard to understand why the next batch of officials in charge has no intention of understanding any of this, either; instead, they just quietly plod along in the same tired old slippers.

The entire currently planned package of nature conservation, sustainability policies, and associated legal frameworks deepens the already tangible damage, not to mention legitimizing growing corruption, as the abuse of power and influence threatens the democratic order in Estonia.

The growing fines are just the surface; the real threat lies in the rotten system that endangers the state.

This chain must be broken here and now, and the fine must be turned directly against those who have profited from it, the money recovered from the sector, and the opportunities and scale for abusing forest logging and other land use regulations must be shut down immediately!