TIIT MARAN ⟩ The coalition agreement spells disaster for our forest reserves and living environment

Tiit Maran Photo: Madis Veltman

• The coalition agreement serves the interests of large businesses.
• The reduction of forests is is hidden behind pretty words.
• The Ministry of Climate is above all a ministry for the economy.

The new coalition agreement is shifting away from civil society and toward a society shaped by the ultra-wealthy, a trend that is also evident in forestry and conservation, MP Tiit Maran (SDE) writes.

A member of the Reform Party once claimed that the previous coalition was the greenest government ever. But the leading party then disbanded it and formed a new coalition whose goal is to protect the interests of a small group of large businesses, with no concern for people, communities, or the living environment. Never before has Estonia had a government so dismissive of the environment and rural communities.

Naturally, this is hidden behind pretty words, both in daily rhetoric and in the new coalition agreement. I analyzed the sections on nature conservation and forestry. In summary, the aim is clearly to prolong the agony of an overfunded forestry sector starved of raw material, at the cost of our living environment. The flow of wood from commercial forests is dwindling, and the option of importing cheap, high-quality wood from Russia and Belarus is gone for good. The forestry sector faces two scenarios: either it shrinks to match the remaining wood supply, or it continues limping along by logging protected forests. The first option is long-term and sustainable – if the government were to support the people affected by the contraction of an oversized industry and launch a program to reform the sector sustainably. That would require statesmanship. The second option is unsustainable and ignorant. Unfortunately, the current government has chosen that path, planning to remove protections from valuable forests while also ensuring that in commercial forests, the forestry sector will face no restrictions beyond what the Forestry Act provides, not even from planning or local conservation designations.

All of this is hidden in pretty language, so that the real direction remains unclear on a surface read. It becomes easier to understand with knowledge of the broader context and changes in rhetoric. It is also important to remember that the Ministry of Climate is above all an economic ministry. So, contrary to the prime minister's former slogan, «The economy must remain within nature's limits», the new principle is «Economy and industry first, the living environment, people, and communities are secondary».

To clarify, let us go through some of the agreed points and see what they suggest between the lines.

136. We will preserve key natural values, provide certainty to landowners, and ensure predictability in planning and resource use. For this, we will set a 30 percent protection target for land and sea under the Nature Conservation Act. We will regularize voluntary private conservation. Deadline: the fourth quarter of 2025.

The rhetoric of dividing Estonia into protected and unprotected zones continues. This moves away from the simple truth that sustainability must apply everywhere and cannot be defined by percentages in law.

It is not landowners who need certainty, but rather the people and communities living in rural areas, who feel frighteningly alienated from the state. What is needed is a government that faces people and communities. Unfortunately, the agreement suggests a direction where rural people see no such certainty.

Note the emphasis on «key natural values», implying that there are also areas considered non-key. If that is the case, then their protection can simply be discontinued.

Also note: the earlier rhetoric promising 30 percent forest protection is gone. The reason is obvious – otherwise, forests could not be stripped of their protected status.

137. We will finalize the creation of planned protected areas, and existing restrictions on forest land will mainly only be expanded to remaining natural and old-growth forests on state lands. Deadline: the first quarter of 2027.

138. We will define criteria for natural and old-growth forests on state lands. Deadline: the first quarter of 2026.

These two points should be read together as follows: We will define the criteria for natural and old-growth forests in such a way that we can claim none exist in Estonia. Then there is no need for additional restrictions. More state forest can be logged. The state forest management company RMK escapes its hopeless situation of depleted commercial forests while the state still expects dividends. Meanwhile, the forestry sector's hunger for raw material also gets fed.

139. To support conservation in a fair and motivating way, we will regularize private nature protection and promote voluntary and contractual conservation. We will expand compensation options for small forest owners, develop a forest use rights purchase measure, and update forest subsidies. Deadline: the fourth quarter of 2026.

The plan is to adopt an «American system» promoted by the Private Forest Association, where taxpayers' money is paid to private conservationists as long as they agree to preserve values, mostly forests. But the owner can stop this «private conservation» at any time. A nice deal: get taxpayer money for «conservation», then cut down the forest anyway. There is also the possibility of blackmail – «Pay me more, or I'll log the forest». What is entirely missing is any mention of real compensation for rural people who have suffered injustice due to Natura assessments. Rural residents living in protected areas have become hostages to big forestry companies, which have bought up protected land hoping to profit from compensation schemes. To fix this, the law must distinguish between local residents and forestry companies in terms of rights in restricted zones. The agreement does not do this. Why?

On May 11, active logging was underway on a property owned by Tornator on the Sõrve Peninsula in Saaremaa; environmental inspectors halted the work. Photo: Mati Sepp

140. We will improve the quality of protected areas by focusing on habitat and species conservation, updating and diversifying monitoring methods, and emphasizing evidence-based management and cooperation. We will regularly assess species protection effectiveness and develop the Estonian Nature Information System. Deadline: the fourth quarter of 2026.

What does «quality of protected areas» mean? How can quality be increased? Strange, right? Actually, it is simple – only keep what is covered by EU obligations, and remove everything else from protection as «low-quality». References to improved monitoring and scientific basis just sound hollow. Funding for monitoring has been cut, and the Forestry Act and Nature Conservation Act have been shaped contrary to scientific logic and without involving civil society or researchers. Just empty words.

141. Spatial planning must support a high-quality living environment and natural benefits. To achieve this, we will revise local nature protection designation principles and compensation rules, and update green network regulations. Deadline: the fourth quarter of 2025.

The goal here is to reduce municipalities' ability to establish protected areas that could hinder the extraction of forest resources. The same goes for updating green network regulations so they do not interfere with the forestry sector's access to raw materials.

142. We will strengthen Estonia's natural capital by implementing an action plan for ecosystem restoration and creating a basis for increasing urban biodiversity. We will adopt a nature restoration plan. Deadline: the fourth quarter of 2026.

Odd. The ministry's KEVAD strategy for environmental development has been sitting in draft form for nearly two years without being sent to the government for approval. It is a broad document aimed at protecting the living environment. The honorable minister of energy and the environment stated in parliament that since there is a new ministry, there must also be a new action plan. But the environment has not changed. Still, there is no mention of a new action plan in the coalition agreement. An empty promise? Likely.

The minister promised to address the biodiversity conservation strategy through the restoration plan. So first, we destroy and log, then we restore. Restoration matters, of course, but even more important is preserving what we still have.

144. We will adopt the forestry development plan until 2035. Deadline: the fourth quarter of 2025.

145. We will define long-term forestry policy principles by updating the parliament's resolution «Approval of Estonian Forest Policy». Deadline: the fourth quarter of 2026.

On the surface, it is good that a forestry development plan is finally deemed necessary. But its completion by the end of this year suggests it will be drawn up behind closed doors, without involving the civil society. In that case, it will reflect only the interests of the forestry industry. A retreat from civil society? It appears so.

Even stranger is that the long-term forest policy will come one and a half years after the development plan. Normally, policy comes first. But in this Orwellian world, anything is possible.

146. We will ensure that 70 percent of Estonia's forest land is managed as commercial forest without additional restrictions under the Forestry Act, while considering forests' ecological, cultural, social, and economic functions. Deadline: the fourth quarter of 2025.

Currently, commercial forests account for 68.4 percent of all forest land, meaning more than 37,000 hectares are missing to reach 70 percent. The actual gap is larger, as new military training areas and the Rail Baltic project reduce commercial forest land, but this is not reflected in current statistics. Essentially, the goal is to gradually dismantle Estonia's conservation system, remove forest protections, and make that wood available to industry. Most other forestry and conservation points in the agreement serve this central aim.

Of course, this only temporarily eases the raw material shortage. Even what is proposed in the agreement will run out quickly. Another lifeline is removing the minimum felling age for forests. That would help prolong the agony. At some point, a bill to amend the Forestry Act will reach parliament. We will see then. Perhaps the gift to the forestry sector is already in the draft.

We are leaving the crossroads and heading toward a future of tree plantations. In fact, this plan reflects something even worse – the replacement of civil society with a society controlled by a super-wealthy elite. There is still time to turn back. But not for much longer.