Earlier this week, Estonian government approved and submitted to parliament a draft law on a climate-resilient economy, which sets general interim emissions-reduction targets for 2030, 2035, and 2040.

Former Chancellor of Justice Jõks, who has advised peat and forestry companies on the climate law, noted that the draft does not clarify what is expected from companies in different sectors and undermines investment certainty. The so-called roadmaps created for sectoral targets, he added, have no legal force.

"To open a factory, say, 15 years from now, you already need to make certain decisions today. But if you don't know whether that activity will be permitted, or whether mining permits will be terminated early, then you simply can't proceed. Roadmaps provide no answer here either, because they have no legal significance. So the shortcoming of this draft is that it offers no clarity for either businesses or the public," Jõks said.

In his view, a climate law is necessary precisely to ensure certainty for both businesses and the public, and to ensure that the green transition aligns with the Constitution. He expressed hope that parliament will improve the current general draft and emphasized the importance of clearly defining targets, as Estonia's business competitiveness depends on them.

"These targets should be achievable, realistic, and science-based — not ideology-driven. We must also monitor developments in the European Union. There is no point in harming our own economy compared to other member states that do not have such ambitious targets — we do not need to be the most climate-friendly country at the expense of our people's well-being," Jõks said.

Targets are also important because, once the draft becomes law, anyone could go to court based on the emissions-reduction goals set in the legislation.

"First, on the grounds that the state is failing to meet those targets. Second, those figures could be used to challenge all kinds of building permits and environmental permits, arguing that the construction or operation of a particular facility does not help achieve the targets. This could create endless disputes and tensions. That is why the targets must be extremely precise, and it must be very clear what is expected from each sector," Jõks explained.

He added that either in this law or in sector-specific legislation — such as the Mining Act, Water Act, or Peat Act — it should be clearly defined what can and cannot be done in the coming years, when environmental permits expire, and how companies will be compensated if permits are terminated early.

The current plan to include more specific targets in roadmaps, however, does not hold up to scrutiny, Jõks argued, because they lack legal standing and differ widely across sectors.

"These are essentially documents with no legal significance. You and I could draw up a roadmap right now, and it would carry no legal weight. They vary greatly in their level of detail — if you compare the forestry sector with the peat sector, you cannot tell what is expected, how it will be done, or what it will cost. In the end, the key question is how much the green transition will cost and how it will affect our daily lives — and that is not addressed anywhere," he said.

--

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