/nginx/o/2020/03/09/12998982t1hec12.jpg)
:format(webp)/nginx/o/2025/04/07/16760898t1h2240.jpg)
- The real reason behind the CO₂ emissions leading to a fine is the opposite.
- The myth that led to the looming massive fine and timber shortage began in 2010.
- Current officials claim they know nothing of what their predecessors did.
The public is left wondering why the Estonian people are expected to pay a so-called «carbon fine» of tens or even hundreds of millions of euros a year from their own pockets. The answer is practically staring us in the face, but the public is being deliberately misled while ministers are being set up to take the fall, journalist Ülle Harju writes.
The «fine» would come in the form of a forced purchase of emission allowances in the land use sector (LULUCF), which includes forestry, agriculture, peat production, etc.
A carefully composed myth has been created to deceive the public — that Brussels has imposed an unfair carbon reduction system on Estonia and that «spineless» ministers foolishly bowed before the EU and took on overly ambitious commitments. To save what can still be saved, we are told, logging must be rapidly increased because Estonian forests are supposedly too old due to «historical baggage» and incapable of absorbing carbon.
The actual cause of the CO₂ emissions leading to a fine is the opposite: rampant overlogging, which has resulted in Estonian forests being on average younger than ever before. We will have to pay not only for the increased carbon emissions caused by overlogging, but, absurdly, also for covering up the problem.
Cutting even more would be like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. When it comes to the fine, there is still a chance that Brussels may change its policy and we might (partially) avoid paying. But the other consequence is far worse — and inevitable.
A large part of future income from forests has been taken out all at once, instead of gradually over time. As shown by a graph on the state forest management company RMK's website, logging volumes will drop by half due to this premature harvesting.
This means many forestry workers will lose their jobs, businesses that overinvested in the industry based on misleading information will have to write off their investments, and many will go bankrupt. Those with inside knowledge of the real situation are investing the millions earned during the short-term «wood boom» elsewhere — for example, in foreign real estate.
We will have to pay not only for the increased carbon emissions caused by overlogging, but, absurdly, also for covering up the problem.
Although data on the scale of the failure is publicly available on the websites of RMK and the Ministry of Climate, analyzing it is beyond most people's abilities. The absurd myth sticks in the public consciousness like a Red Riding Hood fairy tale.
Even Ahti Asmann, head of Viru Keemia Grupp (VKG), which recently signed a major timber deal with RMK, repeated the fairy tale in his own words during an interview on Vikerraadio's program on Friday (April 4, 2025) and seemed unaware of the dark clouds hanging over VKG's plan to pour 1.3 billion euros into a new wood-consuming pulp plant.
Ministers were blindsided
The fairy tale conveniently directs blame at former environment ministers who were in office when Estonia took on carbon reduction commitments. But ministers with no background in forestry may not have understood that they were being set up.
On March 28, Erki Savisaar (Center Party) blamed the Reform Party in an ERR interview, claiming that Estonia's vote for EU climate goals was part of Reform's policy. He pointed at Urmas Kruuse (Reform Party), who had served as environment minister for just 1.5 months when the more ambitious targets were agreed on. Kruuse replied that there had been no green button to vote with, and that he had in fact argued for more flexible obligations.
In 2017, when the EU agreed on the rules for setting carbon reduction targets, Siim-Valmar Kiisler (The Right, formerly Isamaa) served as the environment minister.
Once in office, he allowed for younger forests to be cut — something forest companies quickly capitalized on. Logging volumes jumped by one-fifth.
Now Kiisler throws up his hands: «It was generally accepted that Estonian forests absorb carbon,» and «I was assured by everyone that Estonia could manage without significantly changing logging volumes.» («LULUCF: Ministers say they acted as well as time and knowledge permitted,» ERR, March 28, 2025)
The forest was made to grow twice as fast — on paper
Back then, Kiisler simply denied the overlogging, mocking scientists who raised concerns. «I claim that forested area has increased. The numbers used to be one thing, now they are another,» he said. «People who throw around random numbers are being irresponsible.» («Environment Minister Kiisler: Forests have increased and we should proceed with the pulp plant's designated spatial plan!» Lõunaleht, November 8, 2018)
Kiisler’s view came from a myth according to which forests were growing twice as fast as in reality, absorbing massive amounts of carbon, and there was allegedly a vast surplus of mature forests each year. All of this, of course, only existed on paper. («Graph: Estonia's forest abundance is at a century high,» Postimees, June 9, 2017; and «More forest still growing than being logged» TPM, April 5, 2017)
To convince Kiisler, other politicians, and much of the public to believe this nonsense that defies natural laws, certain well-informed individuals composed a fairytale-like scheme. Though they claimed to always have been working for the public good or environmental protection, the scheme worked like a charm — to the benefit of certain timber industry players.
Michal is a rookie in comparison — this is the real «numbers magic»!
The fairytale that led to the looming fine and timber shortage began in 2010, when Estonia and the world were just starting to recover from the economic crisis. Demand for wood in Europe increased, including through greenwashing, such as subsidies for wood-fueled electricity.
To ensure a stable timber supply in the future, overlogging was not allowed under Estonian or EU rules. Since Estonia had more forest at official logging age than younger forests, the Environment Ministry at the time should have kept logging volumes steady and spread out harvesting over time. In state forests, this can be done with a ministerial regulation.
But in the minds of certain industrialists and top ministry officials, the opposite plan was born — to log everything at once while keeping the public unaware of the overlogging and its consequences.
When the state's most authoritative document says Estonia can sustainably log twice as much as before, who would dare question it?!
The framework of the fairytale was created by then-deputy secretary general at the Environment Ministry Andres Talijärv and forestry department head Marku Lamp, who oversaw the drafting of Estonia's ten-year forestry development plan.
The Environment Agency, which is subordinate to the ministry, was commissioned to produce projections showing very high logging volumes, which were then labeled «sustainable». («Premature logging will soon put both men and machines out of work,» Postimees, October 30, 2020)
Despite a warning from the National Audit Office that the document promoting overlogging and leading Estonia into a timber shortage should be rejected, politicians were so thoroughly taken in by the fairytale that the Riigikogu approved the forestry development plan (Postimees, February 16, 2011).
Borrowing a phrase from Prime Minister Kristen Michal, it was true «numbers magic». When the state's most authoritative document says Estonia can sustainably log twice as much as before, who would dare question it?!
Hocus-pocus covered the bluff
Sustainable means that more forest grows than is harvested. The mere assertions of Aigar Kallas, the then-head of RMK who was well informed and aligned with the officials, were not enough (Äripäev, March 17, 2014).
To make the bluff work, they had to make the forest grow faster on paper.
In 2016, Allan Sims was appointed head of forest statistics at the Environment Agency; he holds a doctorate in this field from the Estonian University of Life Sciences. Sims developed new forest growth models that showed exactly what was needed. The fact that the large-scale bluff had been approved at the highest level was also evident from the way other forest statistics specialists only dared to criticize the biologically impossible figures anonymously (Postimees, December 21, 2016).
Using Sims' bluff as a basis, the Environment Agency calculated numbers for presentation to Europe — figures that suggested Estonia's forests were binding carbon efficiently, which then formed the basis for calculating the country's carbon emission reduction obligation (Postimees, November 13, 2020).
In reality, due to overlogging, forest land emitted more carbon than it absorbed. If the correct numbers had been reported at the time, Estonia could have received a significantly smaller obligation — but would have faced major trouble for flagrantly violating the international sustainable forestry agreement.
Not a single person going after those who caused this colossal mess
Government agencies have since published figures showing that over the course of ten years, Estonia has logged as much forest as would normally be cut in twelve years, and the land use sector (LULUCF) became a net emitter of carbon already in 2017 — not in 2020, as the Environment Agency previously claimed (Postimees, September 24, 2024).
Lamp and Sims have found «refuge» at the Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kallas has been replaced by Mikk Marran, and Talijärv has retired.
Yet current officials, politicians in power, and law enforcement authorities show no interest in investigating why these officials bluffed with forest data in a way that anticipated EU fines, risked their positions, and deliberately undermined the sustainability of Estonian forestry — all so that certain industrialists could earn tens of millions in illegal profits over the course of a decade through RMK's secret sweetheart deals.
Current officials claim to know nothing about the actions of their predecessors and eagerly promote a new fairytale from the Estonian University of Life Sciences: that since younger forests absorb more carbon, the remaining older forest should be logged as quickly as possible. And, of course, that «the economy must be kickstarted». Once the timber shortage crash hits hard, these same officials will likely have found shelter under the protective wing of the University of Life Sciences, which belongs to the Estonian Forest and Wood Industries Association.