Recently, it came to light that black stork nesting sites, which have been uninhabited for ten or more years, are slated for archival and complete removal from protected status. This sets a new precedent and disregards the expert knowledge of those who prepared the species protection action plan.

Nature conservation in Estonia must be based on science and the best available expert knowledge. As a state agency, the Environmental Board should be setting an example for others. It is highly unlikely that Environmental Board officials — who must make dozens of nature protection decisions each year — would understand the black stork's behavior better than the experts who have devoted decades to studying the species.

However, if the Environmental Board somehow possesses more accurate knowledge about the biology and protection of the black stork than the experts at the Eagle Club, then a legitimate question arises about the accountability of the agency's leadership. Has public money been used to pay for work that, in the agency's own opinion, does not meet the necessary standards?

Unfortunately, the black stork case is not an isolated exception among recent nature protection decisions. The Ministry of Climate soon plans to apply the same approach to the Ural owl, removing an even larger share of key habitats from protection to feed the needs of a timber industry struggling with raw material shortages. Since these rare species are umbrella species for other specialized organisms, many other species are now at risk as well.

A large share of key habitats and threatened species could be effectively protected if the Environmental Board grounded its decision-making processes in the best expert knowledge available. Sadly, Estonia's nature conservation policy is increasingly being shaped by the short-term interests of the forestry industry rather than by science-based recommendations from conservation specialists.

A stark example is the government's plan to amend the Forest Act so that 70 percent of Estonian forests would be reclassified as commercial forests. At first glance, protecting 30 percent of forests may seem like sufficient care for natural values.

In reality, however, that 30 percent is protected only on paper. It includes many forests within limited management zones of protected areas or the permanent habitats of threatened species where shelterwood cuts and even clear-cutting have been taking place for years and on a broad scale.

The situation is so dire that the Ministry of Climate's nature conservation department should seriously consider upgrading the conservation status of the boreal owl and the three-toed woodpecker — both dependent on old spruce forests — to the highest level, Category I. Otherwise, these birds may face the same sad fate as the black stork in the coming decades.

The decline of Estonian nature conservation is also reflected in the ongoing Supreme Court dispute over the nesting peace period. In what is essentially a court case between the Environmental Board and logging companies, the state agency responsible for conservation appears to be aligning more and more with the wishes of industry.

According to the Environmental Board, halting logging would still require prior proof of bird nesting in the forest. Yet we already have sufficient science-based data showing that birds nest in all types of forests. Furthermore, a recent European Court of Justice ruling prohibits the deliberate killing of birds through forest logging. The same ruling also makes clear that this protection extends to all bird species, regardless of their conservation status or population levels.

I fully agree with University of Tartu restoration ecology professor Aveliina Helm, who has said that what is costly is not the preservation of nature, but its loss. At present, the protection of Estonia's natural assets is largely falling on the shoulders of NGOs and volunteers who must pursue lengthy and expensive legal battles to stop environmentally harmful decisions.

When taxpayer money is used to pay the salaries of public officials, a legitimate public expectation follows. In the case of the Environmental Board and the Ministry of Climate's nature conservation department, that expectation is the effective protection of Estonia's natural heritage. The leaders of the Environmental Board and the ministry's conservation department have failed to meet that expectation.

--

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