Estonian tech leaders oppose planned forestry reforms
Technology sector entrepreneurs have submitted a public appeal to the government calling for the legislative process to amend forestry and nature conservation laws to be suspended. The appeal highlights that in recent years more forest has been logged than has grown back, and according to the state's own forecasts, the growing stock of managed forests will not recover even by 2064.
More than 30 entrepreneurs from Estonia's technology sector sent a letter to the government to express their deep concern over the proposed amendments to forestry and nature conservation legislation.
According to the entrepreneurs, the draft legislation — prepared in haste, without sufficient impact analysis, and with limited stakeholder involvement — poses a threat to the long-term sustainability of Estonia's forest resources. It would continue to channel the lion's share of profits to foreign capital, while environmental damage and potential fines would be borne by Estonian society.
"We are no longer using only the annual growth of economic forests, but are consuming core assets — that is, living at the expense of future generations," the letter states. The entrepreneurs warn that maintaining current logging volumes will become impossible by the 2040s–2050s, demonstrating the unsustainability of the current model even from the perspective of the forestry industry itself.
According to various surveys, 80 percent of people in Estonia want logging volumes to be reduced.
The public letter highlights the ownership structure of Estonia's timber sector: an estimated 70–75 percent of the highest‑revenue wood-processing companies are owned by foreign interests.
"Profits generated from intensive logging flow out of the country, while nature damage, habitat fragmentation, and potential European Union LULUCF penalties remain the responsibility of Estonian society," the IT entrepreneurs note.
The situation is further exacerbated by the disappearance of raw materials from Russia and Belarus from the market, which has created pressure within the industry to replace volumes previously imported before the start of the war in Ukraine with Estonia's local forests — thus exceeding nature's limits of tolerance.
The technology sector sharply criticizes the new 70/30 logic embedded in the draft legislation, which ties the proportion of economic forest and nature conservation areas to an economic quota.
"The definition of protected areas is unclear, and they could in turn be reduced in order to preserve the share of economic forest. If nature conservation becomes political and temporary, the long-term perspective and science-based approach will disappear," the signatories warn.
Those who joined the appeal include Martin Villig, Kristjan Lepik, Kaarel Kotkas, Sten Tamkivi, Taavet Hinrikus, Markus Villig, Ahti Heinla, Tõnu Runnel, Kadri Tuisk, Triin Hertmann, Ragnar Sass, Martin Sokk, Rain Rannu, Andrus Purde, Kaspar Korjus, Anna‑Liisa Palatu, Kaidi Ruusalepp, Rainer Sternfeld, Oliver Leisalu, Martin Rand, Hedi Mardisoo, Kair Käsper, Jüri Kaljundi, Katrin Liivat, Taavi Tamkivi, Märt Kelder, Kristjan Lind, Marek Kiisa, Kelly Lilles, Lars Trunin, Kristjan Maruste, and Martin Tajur.
--
Editor: Urmet Kook, Argo Ideon
