The new Forest Act would have established that 70 percent of forests would be designated for commercial use and 30 percent for protection. The share of commercial forests is already roughly the same today, meaning the law would have largely formalized the existing situation.

Conservation groups argue that the amendments therefore deal with pseudo-issues, and they have expressed their dissatisfaction through protests, open letters, and petitions.

Sutt pointed out that society has become so polarized on the issue that it was wiser to apply the brakes to the draft bill.

"When I took office, my goal was to seek greater common ground on forest-related issues and certainly not to increase conflict. Today, I do not feel that we have reached that point yet, which means we need to take more time," Sutt said.

Raul Rosenvald, a researcher in sustainable forestry at the University of Tartu, supports taking a pause.

"There was no strategic vision in this law; it consisted of various fragments from here and there. But the biggest problem — unsustainable forestry — was not addressed by the planned amendments at all. In Estonia, it has been estimated that the area of regeneration felling that would not reduce forest reserves is 22,000 hectares per year. Currently, the figure is more than a third higher," Rosenvald said.

By contrast, the Estonian Forest and Wood Industries Association believes that without a new law the sector lacks investment certainty, and that putting the brakes on the draft is a mistake.

"Through this law, an attempt is being made to create balance and clarity that would provide our sector with investment certainty, and through that, contribute to the overall well-being of Estonia. The state has done a lot of work trying to find that balance point and provide clarity for our sector, and it would be very sad if all that work were simply dropped," said Hardo Becker, head of forestry and climate policy at the association.

"The sector lacks investment certainty, and investments are simply being postponed or not made at all while waiting for a new and better investment environment. This is actually worse for the Estonian state as a whole. Looking at our neighboring countries, it is important for our sector to remain competitive there as well, and it is clear that our neighbors have a significantly smaller share of protected forests and fewer rules. Our operating environment is stricter," Becker added.

As for what comes next, minister Sutt said he cannot yet say. "I want to continue discussions and look for common ground, and then we can decide how to move forward," added Sutt.

--

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