COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT The EU Environmental Implementation Review Country Report - ESTONIA Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions The EU Environmental Implementation Review: Common Challenges and how to combine efforts to deliver better results
Inhoudsopgave van deze pagina:
Council of the European Union
Brussels, 6 February 2017 (OR. en)
5967/17 ADD 9
ENV 103 ECOFIN 70 SOC 68 COMPET 74 POLGEN 9 CONSOM 37
COVER NOTE
From: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director
date of receipt: 6 February 2017
To: Mr Jeppe TRANHOLM-MIKKELSEN, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union
No. Cion doc.: SWD(2017) 40 final
Subject: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
The EU Environmental Implementation Review
Country Report - ESTONIA
Accompanying the document
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
The EU Environmental Implementation Review: Common Challenges and
how to combine efforts to deliver better results
Delegations will find attached document SWD(2017) 40 final.
Encl.: SWD(2017) 40 final
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 3.2.2017 SWD(2017) 40 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
The EU Environmental Implementation Review
Country Report - ESTONIA
Accompanying the document
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
The EU Environmental Implementation Review: Common Challenges and how to
combine efforts to deliver better results
{COM(2017) 63 final i} {SWD(2017) 33 - 39 final} {SWD(2017) 41 - 60 final}
Estonia 2
This report has been written by the staff of the Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission. Any comments are welcome to the following e-mail address: ENV-EIR@ec.europa.eu
Estonia 3
More information on the European Union is available on the internet ( http://europa.eu ).
Photographs: p.9 – ©Urmas83/iStock, p.11 – ©LIFE00 NAT/EE/007083/Voldemar Rannap, p.11 –
©Urmas83/iStock, p.17 – ©Leonardo Patrizi/iStock, p.21 – ©Konstik/iStock
For reproduction or use of these photos, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder.
©European Union, 2017
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 4
PART I: THEMATIC AREAS ............................................................................................................................... 5
-
1.TURNING THE EU INTO A CIRCULAR, RESOURCE-EFFICIENT, GREEN AND COMPETITIVE LOW-
CARBON ECONOMY ............................................................................................................................... 5
Developing a circular economy and improving resource efficiency ..................................................... 5
Waste management .............................................................................................................................. 7
-
2.PROTECTING, CONSERVING AND ENHANCING NATURAL CAPITAL ....................................................... 9
Nature and Biodiversity ......................................................................................................................... 9
Estimating Natural Capital................................................................................................................... 11
Green Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... 11
Soil protection ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Marine protection ............................................................................................................................... 12
-
3.ENSURING CITIZENS' HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE .......................................................................... 14
Air quality ............................................................................................................................................ 14
Noise ................................................................................................................................................. 15
Water quality and management ......................................................................................................... 15
Enhancing the sustainability of cities .................................................................................................. 16
International agreements ................................................................................................................... 17
PART II: ENABLING FRAMEWORK: IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS ..................................................................... 18
-
4.MARKET BASED INSTRUMENTS AND INVESTMENT ............................................................................ 18
Green taxation and environmentally harmful subsidies ..................................................................... 18
Green Public Procurement .................................................................................................................. 19
Investments: contribution of EU funds ............................................................................................... 19
-
5.EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE AND KNOWLEDGE ...................................................................................... 21
Effective governance within central, regional and local government ................................................. 21
Compliance assurance ......................................................................................................................... 22
Public participation and access to justice ........................................................................................... 23
Estonia 4
Access to information, knowledge and evidence ................................................................................ 23
Estonia 5
Executive summary
About the Environmental Implementation Review and environmental awareness has risen significantly in
In May 2016, the Commission launched the the last decade. Nature conservation, air and water Environmental Implementation Review (EIR), a two-year quality are in a good status. There is access to goodcycle of analysis, dialogue and collaboration to improve quality drinking water, and compliance rates with the the implementation of existing EU environmental policy UWWTD are high. However, there is room for and legislation 1 . As a first step, the Commission drafted improvement especially on issues as resource and energy 28 reports describing the main challenges and intensity, and waste management. Great potential lies in opportunities on environmental implementation for each eco-innovation for finding more efficient resource Member State. These reports are meant to stimulate a management solutions. Estonia is rich in biodiversity with positive debate both on shared environmental challenges a high level of habitat assessments with favourable for the EU, as well as on the most effective ways to status. Estonian compliance is rather good, however, address the key implementation gaps. The reports rely on some cases of late transposition could be observed.
the detailed sectoral implementation reports collected or Main Challenges
issued by the Commission under specific environmental
legislation as well as the 2015 State of the Environment The two main challenges with regard to implementation Report and other reports by the European Environment of EU environmental policy and law in Estonia are:
Agency. These reports will not replace the specific Estonia is the one of the most resource intensive instruments to ensure compliance with the EU legal country in the EU and needs to make progress on obligations. this in order to improve the resilience of its industry
The reports will broadly follow the outline of the 7th faced with increasing resource costs;
Environmental Action Programme 2 and refer to the 2030 Incineration and MBT overcapacity could have a Agenda for Sustainable development and related negative impact on reaching the EU recycling targets.
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 3 to the extent to
which they reflect the existing obligations and policy Main Opportunities
objectives of EU environmental law 4 . Estonia could perform better on topics where there is
The main challenges have been selected by taking into already a good knowledge base and good practices. This account factors such as the importance or the gravity of applies in particular to:
the environmental implementation issue in the light of Waste management, where further efforts on the impact on the quality of life of the citizens, the recycling could deliver jobs and growth; distance to target, and financial implications. Vehicle taxation could play an important role
The reports accompany the Communication "The EU supporting a modal shift from private to public Environmental Implementation Review 2016: Common transport, as well as an important additional challenges and how to combine efforts to deliver better measures contributing to emissions reduction
5 .
results", which identifies challenges that are common to
several Member States, provides preliminary conclusions Points of Excellence
on possible root causes of implementation gaps and
proposes joint actions to deliver better results. It also Where Estonia is a leader on environmental groups in its Annex the actions proposed in each country implementation, innovative approaches could be shared report to improve implementation at national level. more widely with other countries. Good examples are:
General profile The strong start-up culture in the country has contributed to the fast development of the eco
Estonia does not face major environmental problems, innovation activities in Estonia, with support structures.
Estonia has provided one of the most complete
1 Communication "Delivering the benefits of EU environmental policies
through a regular Environmental Implementation Review" Prioritized Action Framework (PAF) which has been
( COM/2016/ 316 final ). used successfully to ensure funding to Natura 2000
2 Decision No. 1386/2013/EU of 20 November 2013 on a General Union sites from different EU funds.
Environmental Action Programme to 2020 " Living well, within the limits of our planet ".
3 United Nations, 2015. The Sustainable Development Goals 5 According to the EEA report " New cars’ CO2 emissions well below 4 This EIR report does not cover climate change, chemicals and energy. Europe’s 2015 target " and they were least efficient in the EU in 2014.
Estonia 6
Estonia is one of the few Member States having assessments reported as favourable. more than 50% of its habitats and species
Part I: Thematic Areas
-
1.Turning the EU into a circular, resource-efficient, green and
competitive low-carbon economy
Developing a circular economy and improving widespread discussion on the subject in Estonia. It has also published its position in terms of the proposed
resource efficiency directives, outlining that a large part of the package is in
The 2015 Circular Economy Package emphasizes the need line with Estonia’s EU policy for 2015-2019 (Government to move towards a lifecycle-driven ‘circular’ economy, Office of the Republic of Estonia, 2014).
with a cascading use of resources and residual waste that Figure 1: Resource productivity 2003-15 8
is close to zero. This can be facilitated by the development of, and access to, innovative financial instruments and funding for eco-innovation.
SDG 8 invites countries to promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all. SDG 9 highlights the need to build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation. SDG 12 encourages countries to achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources by 2030.
Measures towards a circular economy
Transforming our economies from linear to circular offers
an opportunity to reinvent them and make them more The most recent policy initiatives in the field, notably sustainable and competitive. This will stimulate the Estonian National Waste Management Plan 2014- investments and bring both short and long-term benefits 2020, have already adopted the underlying principles of for the economy, environment and citizens alike 6 . circular economy – for example, aiming to reduce
the amount of waste produced and recycling it to
There is untapped potential for the whole economy, as the maximum level.
well as for economic sectors and individual companies
to benefit from the shift to the circular economy, which Also, in the context of the Multiannual Financial could reduce costs, facilitate growth and Framework 2014–2020, Estonia has decided to support competitiveness, as well as job creation; while at the investments for more resource-efficient solutions the same time would address resource challenges. mainly in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and
mainly in manufacturing industry with 111 million EUR.
Resource productivity 7 (how efficiently the economy uses Activities include raising awareness of companies (events
material resources to produce wealth) in Estonia has
slightly increased in 2015 with 0.49 EUR/kg compared to started in 2016), training resource specialists/auditors, supporting resource audits and investments in resource
the EU average of 2 EUR/kg (as shown in Figure 1). efficient solutions. Financial support schemes are under
Despite a slight increase of resource productivity in
Estonia since 2013, it remains among the lowest in preparation and were scheduled in 2016.
the EU together with Bulgaria and Romania. SMEs and resource efficiency
Estonia does not have a fully established policy
framework for the circular economy. However, In the Flash Eurobarometer 426 "SMEs, resource the adoption of the Circular Economy Package has led to efficiency and green markets"
9 it is shown that 49% of
Estonia's small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
6 European Commission, 2015. Proposed Circular Economy Package 8 Eurostat, Resource productivity , accessed October 2016
7 Resource productivity is defined as the ratio between gross domestic 9 European Commission, 2015. Flash 426 Eurobarometer "SMEs, product (GDP) and domestic material consumption (DMC). resource efficiency and green markets"
Estonia 6
have invested up to 5% of their annual turnover in their incubators and university-business cooperation centres, resource efficiency actions (EU28 average 50%), 24% of such as Tartu Science Park having led the way in them are currently offering green products and services, providing initial support for start-ups. 30% took measures to save energy (EU28 average 59%),
19% to minimise waste (EU28 average 60%), 15% to save The strengthening cooperation between universities, water (EU28 average 44%), and 24% to save materials public sector and businesses in the area of eco(EU28 average 54%). From a circular economy innovation initiatives has led to examples emerging in the perspective, 18% took measures to recycle by reusing areas of smart cities and e-service, such as the bike material or waste within the company, 9% to design parking system BIKEEP, an e-planner for public transport products that are easier to maintain, repair or reuse and and other e-government initiatives, and further growth 11% were able to sell their scrap material to another of Ülemiste Smart City. company.
As regards good practices in Estonia, Ocean Visuals According to the Flash Eurobarometer 426, the resource developed complementary solutions for the oil-spill efficiency actions undertaken allowed the reduction of detection system Ocean Visuals, based on information production costs in 55% of Estonian SMEs. and laser remote-sensing technology, as part of the
Green Industry Innovation support scheme supported by The Flash Eurobarometer 426 "SMEs, resource efficiency European Economic Area (EEA) Grants. and green markets" defines "green job" as a job that directly deals with information, technologies, or Estonian eco-innovation performance has increased materials that preserves or restores environmental steadily throughout 2013-2015, but out of 28 countries quality. 14% of the SMEs in Estonia have one or more full analysed, Estonia is placed 19th. Estonia scores below EU time employee working in a green job at least some of average overall, due to resource-intensive industrial the time. Estonia has an average number of 0.4 full time structure, lack of seed funding opportunities for earlygreen employees per SME. stage start-ups and low level of media coverage on ecoinnovation
subjects.
Eco-innovation Figure 2: Eco-Innovation Index 2015 (EU=100) 10
The biggest potential for eco-innovation initiatives within the smart specialisation framework arises in the areas of
ICT, as an enabler of eco-innovative ICT solutions, and the use of smart technologies for more efficient resource management in the building and energy sectors. The field has seen numerous eco-innovation solutions in the past few years, largely due to initiatives that have raised awareness and the financial support available for companies.
Furthermore, a more comprehensive support system for companies pursuing eco-innovation has emerged.
An Energy and Environmental Technology Development
Centre (RoheTAK) was established at the end of 2014, with an aim to support the growth of viable companies in the energy and environmental technology areas.
The companies participating have launched an initiative to become a cleantech cluster. The Green Industry
Innovation support programme, started in 2013 in cooperation with donor partner Innovation Norway, has successfully supported its first 15 companies and is expected to continue in the future.
Moreover, the strong start-up culture in the country has contributed to the fast development of the ecoinnovation activities in Estonia, with support structures – such as the Tehnopol business incubator, Mektory
(Innovation and Business Centre of Tallinn University of
Technology, founded in 2013) and other business 10 Eco-innovation Observatory : Eco-Innovation scoreboard 2015
Estonia 7
in Estonia in general.
-
-Management routines in Estonian companies do not
encourage recognising long-term strategies and trends, which is often a prerequisite of ecoinnovation.
-
-Capabilities of the state as a smart consumer in
environmental and innovative procurements are limited. The current procurement practices are seen as law-centred and rigid.
Waste management
Turning waste into a resource requires: − Full implementation of Union waste legislation, which includes the waste hierarchy; the need to ensure separate collection of waste; the landfill diversion targets etc. − Reducing per capita waste generation and waste generation in absolute terms. − Limiting energy recovery to non-recyclable materials and phasing out landfilling of recyclable or recoverable waste. SDG 12 invites countries to substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse, by 2030.
The EU's approach to waste management is based on the "waste hierarchy" which sets out an order of priority when shaping waste policy and managing waste at the
Drivers of eco-innovation operational level: prevention, (preparing for) reuse,
-
-Estonian companies are strongly dependent on their recycling, recovery and, as the least preferred option,
foreign stakeholders. Demand and standards set by disposal (which includes landfilling and incineration foreign owners of companies are seen as one of the without energy recovery).
main drivers of enforcing resource-efficiency
standards among Estonian companies. Kunda Nordic The progress towards reaching recycling targets and Cement and ABB are examples of international the adoption of adequate WMP/WPP
11 should be the key
companies that have brought around initiatives of items to measure the performance of Member States. resource efficiency in their Estonian divisions This section focuses on management of municipal waste (Krusberg & Krustok, 2016). for which EU law sets mandatory recycling targets.
Barriers to eco-innovation As shown in Figure 3, the amount of municipal waste
-
-Low demand towards eco-innovation solutions from generated in Estonia increased for the second year in a consumers as well as low level of knowledge. Lack of row from 280 kg per capita in 2012 and amounted to 357 eco-innovation awareness is also an issue among kg per capita in 2014
12 , while still remaining, below the
public sector officials and businesses (Recommend EU average of 475 kg.
Reports, 2014). The lack of knowledge transfer
practices among companies is a barrier to sharing Figure 3 depicts the municipal waste by treatment in best practices and the spread of more efficient Estonia in terms of kg per capita, which shows the shift technologies (Krusberg & Krustok, 2016). form landfilling to incineration. However, recycling rate - Dependency on foreign financing mechanisms, such has also increased. A recent study assessing separate
as EU funds or Norway Grants for financing the RD&I collection in EU capitals rated Tallinn as the second best initiatives of businesses. This creates a barrier to performing capital in the EU.
entry for new and small companies with low project Figure 3: Municipal waste by treatment in Estonia 2007-
management capabilities.
-
-Lack of financing opportunities for start-up 11 Waste Management Plans/Waste Prevention Programmes
companies aiming to produce eco-innovative 12 This important increase as compared to previous years results from a
solutions, which characterises the scene of start-ups correction of data to also include the relevant fraction of packaging
waste.
Estonia 8
14 13
The level of municipal waste incineration may potentially pose a risk to Estonia's attainment of the target. In this regard, a clear scope remains for further waste
The share of landfilled municipal waste in Estonia further management improvement, particularly for separate decreased from 14% of the total waste in 2013 to 8% in collection, recycling and composting, as well as 2014. While construction of an incineration plant and consideration of an incineration tax to make recycling a several MBT facilities has led to a significant reduction of more competitive option. In order to help bridging the landfilled municipal waste, at the same time incineration implementation gap in Estonia, the Commission has of municipal waste has increased dramatically from 16% delivered a roadmap 16 for compliance.
in 2012 to 56% in 2014, becoming the main municipal
waste treatment option. The Government’s new waste management plan for
2014–2020 mainly focuses on modern product design,
Figure 4 depicts the recycling rate of Estonia over time, clean resource-saving production and the recycling of which shows some variation. Estonia has significantly already produced materials . It also discusses moving increased recycling from 18% in 2013 to 31% in 2014, away from the model of municipal waste management while composting has remained at the same level of 6% based on tendering towards a free-market approach. The
in view of the 2020 target of 50% recycling 14 . plan also includes Estonia's Waste Prevention
Figure 4: Recycling rate of municipal waste 2007-14 15 Programme.
Full implementation of the existing legislation could create more than 1.300 jobs in Estonia and increase the annual turnover of the waste sector by over EUR 140 million. Moving towards the targets of the Roadmap on resource efficiency could create over 1.600 additional jobs and increase the annual turnover of
the waste sector by over EUR 174 million. 17
Suggested action
• Focus on improving the effectiveness of separate collection.
• Make more efficient use of the economic instruments (Extended Producer Responsibility schemes, PAYT) to further promote reuse and recycling.
13 Eurostat, Municipal waste and treatment, by type of treatment method, accessed October 2016
14 Member States may choose a different method than the one used by 16 European Commission, Roadmap for Estonia
ESTAT (and referred to in this report) to calculate their recycling rates 17 Bio Intelligence service, 2011. Implementing EU Waste legislation for and track compliance with the 2020 target of 50% recycling of Green Growth , study for European Commission. The breakdown per municipal waste. country on job creation was made by the consultant on Commission 15 Eurostat, Recycling rate of municipal waste , accessed October 2016 demand but was not included in the published document.
Estonia 9
• Shift reusable and recyclable waste away from incineration by introducing incineration taxes.
Estonia 10
-
2.Protecting, conserving and enhancing natural capital
Nature and Biodiversity and at sea, should be the key items to measure the performance of Member States.
The EU Biodiversity Strategy aims to halt the loss of
biodiversity in the EU by 2020, restore ecosystems and By early 2016, 17,9% of the Estonia national territory is their services in so far as feasible, and step up efforts to covered by Natura 2000 (EU average 18.1%), with Birds avert global biodiversity loss. The EU Birds and Habitats Directive SPAs covering 13,8% (EU average 12.3%) and Directives aim at achieving favourable conservation Habitats Directive SCIs covering 17,2% (EU average status of protected species and habitats. 13.8%). There are altogether 568 Natura 2000 sites in
SDG 14 requires countries to conserve and sustainably Estonia.
use the oceans, seas and marine resources, while SDG 15
requires countries to protect, restore and promote the The latest assessment of the Natura 2000 network shows sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably that the SCI part of the Natura 2000 network in Estonia is manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and almost complete in the Marine Baltic region and close to reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss. be complete in the Boreal region
19 as shown in Figure 5 20 .
The 1992 EU Habitats Directive and the 1979 Birds
Directive are the cornerstone of the European legislation Figure 5: Sufficiency assessment of SCI networks in aimed at the conservation of the EU's wildlife. Natura Estonia based on the situation until December 2013 2000, the largest coordinated network of protected areas (%)
21
in the world, is the key instrument to achieve and implement the Directives' objectives to ensure the longterm protection, conservation and survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats and the ecosystems they underpin.
The adequate designation of protected sites as Special Estonia has designated the large majority of sites as
Ares of Conservation (SAC) under the Habitats Directive
and as Special Protection Areas (SPA) under the Birds 19 For each Member State, the Commission assesses whether the
Directive is a key milestone towards meeting the species and habitat types on Annexes I and II of the Habitats
objectives of the Directives. The results of Habitats Directive, are sufficiently represented by the sites designated to
Directive Article 17 and Birds Directive Article 12 reports date. This is expressed as a percentage of species and habitats for which further areas need to be designated in order to complete the
and the progress towards adequate Sites of Community network in that country. The current data, which were assessed in
Importance (SCI)-SPA and SAC designation 18 both in land 2014-2015, reflect the situation up until December 2013.
20 The percentages in Figure 5 refer to percentages of the total
number of assessments (one assessment covering 1 species or 1 18 Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) are designated pursuant to habitat in a given biographical region with the Member State); if a
the Habitats Directive whereas Special Areas of Protection (SPAs) are habitat type or a species occurs in more than 1 Biogeographic region designated pursuant to the Birds Directive; figures of coverage do within a given Member State, there will be as many individual not add up due to the fact that some SCIs and SPAs overlap. Special assessments as there are Biogeographic regions with an occurrence Areas of Conservation (SACs) means a SCI designated by the Member of that species or habitat in this Member State. States. 21 European Commission internal assessment.
Estonia 11
Special Areas of Conservation. However, only 105 Natura
2000 sites have management plans in place. Further, action plans for semi-natural habitats, protected marshes and number of threatened species have been established. However, there appears to be gaps in the implementation of the plans. National Audit Office's report (2015) identifies problems in managing of seminatural grasslands in protected areas due to lack of interest of land owners linked to modest support rates, lack of inspection and also due to lack of clarity in responsibilities between the authorities.
The level of nature-related complaints is low compared to many other countries. They are mainly linked to public participation and assessment of infrastructure projects.
According to the Estonian report under Article 17 22 of
Habitats Directive more than 50% of habitat assessments show favourable status (for comparison, 16% at EU27- level). 45% are considered to be Unfavourable–
Inadequate (EU27: 47%) and only 3% are Unfavourable –
Bad (EU27 is 30%) as shown in Figure 6 23 . In terms of The results from the Article 12 report under Birds habitat groups only some forest habitats are reported Directive show that short-term trends of breeding birds having bad conservation status. Concerning species are improving for 17% of the species and are stable for assessments (other than birds) 54% are at favourable 41%, however decreasing for 37% of species as depicted status (EU27: 23%), 28% at unfavourable-inadequate in Figure 7. The same categories for long-term trends are (EU27: 42%) and only 8% unfavourable-bad status (EU27: 26%, 32% and 37%. Although data under Article 12 does 18%). Agriculture, forestry (for species) and changes in not provide pressure information for all bird species, natural systems are reported as main high impact pollution (e.g. oil spills) is reported by Estonia most pressures. Estonia is one of the four Member States frequently as a pressure of high impact.
having more than 50% of its habitats and species
assessments reported as favourable. Estonia has provided one of the most complete
Prioritized Action Framework (PAF) which has been used Figure 6: Conservation status of habitats and species in
Estonia in 2007/2013 (%) 24 successfully to ensure funding to Natura 2000 sites from different EU funds e.g. RDP. Estonia has been active in
applying for LIFE funding to manage its Natura 2000 sites.
Figure 7: Short-term population trend of breeding and
wintering bird species in Estonia in 2012 (%) 25
22 The core of the ‘Article 17’ report is the assessment of conservation status of the habitats and species targeted by the Habitats Directive.
23 Please note that a direct comparison between 2007 and 2013 data is complicated by the fact that Bulgaria and Romania were not covered by the 2007 reporting cycle, that the ‘unknown’ assessments have strongly diminished particularly for species, and that some reported
changes are not genuine as they result from improved About 25% of forests in Natura 2000 sites are on
data/monitoring methods.
24 These figures show the percentage of biogeographical assessments in each category of conservation status for habitats and species, respectively. The information is based on Article 17 of the Habitats 25 Article 12 of the Birds Directive reporting - national summary of Directive reporting - national summary of Estonia Estonia
Estonia 12
privately owned land. A recent study 26 in Estonia waters (EMP) 28 , completed in 2016, and a project on
concludes that connectivity of forest protected areas „Developing tools for the assessment and prognosis of should be improved. biodiversity status, closely linked to socio-economic and
Suggested action climate change aspects, as well as for the improvement of biodiversity data accessibility” which develop among
• Complete the SAC designation process and put in place other duties also a roadmap for ecosystem services
clearly defined conservation objectives and the mapping and assessment by 2023 29 .
necessary conservation measures for the sites and
provide adequate resources for their implementation Suggested action
in order to maintain/restore species and habitats of • Continue support to the mapping and assessment of
community interest to a favourable conservation status ecosystems and their services, valuation and
across their natural range. development of natural capital accounting systems.
• Ensure that Natura 2000 management plans are being
effectively implemented.
• Develop and promote smart and streamlined Green Infrastructure
implementation approaches, in particular as regards The EU strategy on green infrastructure 30 promotes the
site and species permitting procedures, ensuring incorporation of green infrastructure into related plans the necessary knowledge and data availability and and programmes to help overcome fragmentation of strengthen communication with stakeholders. habitats and preserve or restore ecological connectivity,
enhance ecosystem resilience and thereby ensure the continued provision of ecosystem services.
Green Infrastructure provides ecological, economic and social benefits through natural solutions. It helps to understand the value of the benefits that nature provides to human society and to mobilise investments to sustain and enhance them.
In Estonia, the establishment of the green network was launched back in 1999 in the form of a national spatial plan and county level thematic spatial plans. The
nationwide spatial plan "Estonia 2030+" 31 aims to
achieve a rational use of space in Estonia. The main principles include "preserving the qualities of settlement
Estimating Natural Capital pattern and landscape" and "preserving the good
The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 calls on the Member condition of the natural environment". The plan
States to map and asses the state of ecosystems and emphasises the importance of green infrastructure in the their services in their national territory by 2014, assess preparation of spatial measures.
the economic value of such services, and promote the integration of these values into accounting and reporting systems at EU and national level by 2020.
Estonian long-term climate change adaptation strategy and action plan on biodiversity and bioeconomy defined
ecosystem services 27 (provisioning, regulating and
cultural services) in 7 ecosystem classes (marine, freshwater, forest, wetland, grassland, soil and urban ecosystems). Pollination was addressed separately.
Services were prioritised according to their relative socioeconomic
importance and vulnerability to climate The basic legislation for this network is the Planning Act change. Recent knowledge improvement efforts include that defines the green network and its elements.
notably the development of methods for the assessment
and mapping of ecosystem services of marine and inland 28 Development methods for assessment and mapping of ecosystem
services of marine and inland waters , 2016, Peipsi Center for Transboundary Cooperation
26 Alategevuse LOORA teadusaruanne , Institute of Ecology and Earth 29 Directive no 1136 of the Minister of Environment.
Sciences, University of Tartu 30 European Union, Green Infrastructure — Enhancing Europe’s Natural
27 Ecosystem services are benefits provided by nature such as food, Capital, COM/2013/0249 clean water and pollination on which human society depends. 31 National Spatial Plan "Estonia 2030+"
Estonia 13
Currently these thematic spatial plans have been it being realized through extension of mineral extraction established for all counties and have also been brought sites, with highly increased intensity compared to
into the general spatial plans at the municipal level in previous period 33 . The percentage of built up land in almost all municipalities (as the county thematic plans 2009 was 0.89%, well below the EU average (3.23%) 34 .
are much more generalized than the land cadastre, they
need to be refined at the municipal level). However, The soil water erosion rate in 2010 was 0.21 tonnes per
there is a great amount of confusion, questions and ha per year, well below EU-28 average (2.46 tonnes) 35 .
information gaps at the municipal level in connection There are still no EU-wide datasets enabling the provision
with preservation of the green network 32 . Therefore, of benchmark indicators for soil organic matter decline,
although Estonia has spatially set up the green network contaminated sites, pressures on soil biology and diffuse at both national and local government level already more pollution. An updated inventory and assessment of soil than ten years ago the main challenge still ahead is to protection policy instruments in Estonia and other EU analyse its effectiveness and based on that make spatial Member States is being performed by the EU Expert and functional corrections if needed. Group on Soil Protection.
Soil protection Figure 8 shows the different land cover types in Estonia
The EU Soil Thematic Strategy highlights the need to in 2012.
ensure a sustainable use of soils. This requires the prevention of further soil degradation and the
preservation of its functions, as well as the restoration of Figure 8: Land Cover types in Estonia 2012
36
degraded soils. The 2011 Road Map for Resource
Efficient Europe, part of Europe 2020 Strategy provides that by 2020, EU policies take into account their direct and indirect impact on land use in the EU and globally, and the rate of land take is on track with an aim to achieve no net land take by 2050.
SDG 15 requires countries to combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land-degradation-neutral world by 2030.
Soil is an important resource for life and the economy. It provides key ecosystem services including the provision of food, fibre and biomass for renewable energy, carbon sequestration, water purification and flood regulation, the provision of raw and building material. Soil is a finite and extremely fragile resource and increasingly degrading in the EU. Land taken by urban development and infrastructure is highly unlikely to be reverted to its natural state; it consumes mostly agricultural land and increases fragmentation of habitats. Soil protection is indirectly addressed in existing EU policies in areas such as agriculture, water, waste, chemicals, and prevention of industrial pollution.
Artificial land cover is used for settlements, production Marine protection
systems and infrastructure. It may itself be split between
built-up areas (buildings) and non-built-up areas (such as The EU Coastal and Marine Policy and legislation require
linear transport networks and associated areas). that by 2020 the impact of pressures on marine waters is reduced to achieve or maintain good environmental
The annual land take rate (growth of artificial areas) as
provided by CORINE Land Cover was 0.82% in Estonia 33 European Environment Agency Draft results of CORINE Land Cover
over the period 2006-12, well above the EU average (CLC) inventory 2012; mean annual land take 2006-12 as a % of 2006
(0.41%). It represented 789 hectares per year the most of artificial land.
34 European Environment Agency, 2016. Imperviousness and imperviousness change
32 Estonian Nature Conservation in 2011 , Estonian Environment 35 Eurostat, Soil water erosion rate , accessed June 2016
Information Centre, Tallinn 2012, pages 74-76. 36 European Environment Agency, Land cover 2012 and changes country analysis [publication forthcoming]
Estonia 14
status and coastal zones are managed sustainably. Estonia established a monitoring programme of its
SDG 14 requires countries to conserve and sustainably marine waters in 2014. However, it seems that its use the oceans, seas and marine resources for monitoring sub-programmes for all descriptors apart sustainable development. from those on biodiversity, eutrophication and
contaminants in seafood need further refinement and
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) 37 aims development to constitute an appropriate framework to to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) of the EU's monitor progress towards environmental targets and marine waters by 2020 by providing an ecosystem Good Environmental Status, especially since the approach to the management of human activities with monitoring programme will not be fully in place before
impact on the marine environment. The Directive 2018 for most descriptors. 42
requires Member States to develop and implement a marine strategy for their marine waters, and cooperate In 2012 Estonian marine protected areas covered with Member States sharing the same marine region or 6758.5km². More specifically, 2716.81 km² of the 0-1 nm subregion. zone, 4030.61km² of the 1-12 nm zone and 11.10 km² of
As part of their marine strategies, Member States had to the 12- end of assessment area zone were covered by make an initial assessment of their marine waters, MPAs
43 .
determine GES 38 and establish environmental targets by
July 2012. They also had to establish monitoring Suggested action
programmes for the on-going assessment of their marine • Continue work to improve the definitions of GES in waters by July 2014. The next element of their marine particular for biodiversity descriptors, including strategy is to establish a Programme of Measures (2016). through regional cooperation by using the work of the The Commission assesses whether these elements relevant Regional Sea Convention.
constitute an appropriate framework to meet the • Identify and address knowledge gaps. requirements of the MSFD. • Further develop approaches assessing (and
quantifying) impacts from the main pressures in order
Estonian marine waters are part of the Baltic Sea and to lead to improved and more conclusive assessment
Estonia is party to the Convention on the Protection of results for 2018 reporting.
the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea 39 . In the Baltic • Continue to integrate monitoring programmes already
Sea, main risks for biodiversity relate to eutrophication, existing under relevant EU legislation, and to overfishing and bycatch, pollution by contaminants and implement joint monitoring programmes developed at
oil, and introduction of non-indigenous species 40 . (sub) regional level.
• Enhance the comparability and consistency of First reporting under the MSFD in Estonia was done in
2012. The country assessed the status of its marine monitoring methods within its marine region. waters against specific thresholds/reference conditions • Urgently report and implement its programme of and identified the main pressures on its marine measures
44 .
environment. In its reporting, the country considered • Ensure that the monitoring programme is implemented existing EU standards and made use of Regional Sea without delay, and is appropriate to monitor progress Conventions assessments. Estonia also made an effort to towards its GES.
quantify Good Environmental Status boundaries 41 .
It is however too early to say whether Estonian marine waters are in a good state or not, as weaknesses were identified in Estonia's definition of good environmental status.
37 European Union, Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC
38 The MSFD defines Good Environmental Status (GES) in Article 3 as:
“The environmental status of marine waters where these provide ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and productive” 42 Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the
39 Helsinki Convention Commission Report assessing Member States' monitoring
40 European Environment Agency, 2016. The Baltic Sea programmes under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
41 Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the (COM(2017)3 i and SWD(2017)1 final)
Commission Report on "The first phase of implementation of the 43 2012 Data provided by the European Environmental Agency to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) - The European European Commission – Not published Commission's assessment and guidance" ( SWD(21014) 049 final and 44 As of 7.10.2016, Estonia has not yet reported its programme of COM(2014)097 final ) SWD(21014) 049 final and COM(2014)097 final ) measures to the Commission
Estonia 15
-
3.Ensuring citizens' health and quality of life
Air quality 52%) ensure air emissions for these pollutants are within the currently applicable national emission ceilings 48 .
The EU Clean Air Policy and legislation require that air
quality in the Union is significantly improved, moving Air quality in Estonia is reported to be generally good, closer to the WHO recommended levels. Air pollution with exceptions. Nevertheless, for the year 2013,
and its impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity should be the European Environment Agency 49 estimated that
further reduced with the long-term aim of not exceeding more than 690 premature deaths were attributable to
critical loads and levels. This requires strengthening fine particulate matter concentrations 50 and 30 to ozone efforts to reach full compliance with Union air quality concentrations 51 . For 2014, no exceedances above the EU legislation and defining strategic targets and actions air quality standards have been reported 52 . Figure 9
beyond 2020. shows the attainment situation for PM 10 , NO 2 and ozone
in 2014 53 . Figure 9 shows the attainment situation for
The EU has developed a comprehensive suite of air
quality legislation 45 , which establishes health-based PM 10 , NO 2 and O 3 in Estonia in 2014.
Figure 9: Attainment situation for PM10, NO2 and O3 in 2014
standards and objectives for a number of air pollutants.
As part of this, Member States are also required to It is estimated that the health-related external costs from
ensure that up-to-date information on ambient
concentrations of different air pollutants is routinely 48 The current national emission ceilings apply since 2010 ( Directive
made available to the public. In addition, the National 2001/81/EC ); revised ceilings for 2020 and 2030 have been set by
Emission Ceilings Directive provides for emission Directive (EU) 2016/2284 on the reduction of national emissions of
reductions at national level that should be achieved for certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC i and
main pollutants. repealing Directive 2001/81/EC i. 49 European Environment Agency, 2016. Air Quality in Europe – 2016
The emission of several air pollutants has decreased Report . (Table 10.2, please see details in this report as regards the
significantly in Estonia 46 . Reductions between 1990 and underpinning methodology) 50 Particulate matter (PM) is a mixture of aerosol particles (solid and
2014 for sulphur oxides (-85%), nitrogen oxides 47 (-56%), liquid) covering a wide range of sizes and chemical compositions.
volatile organic compounds (-66%), as well as ammonia (- PM10 (PM2.5) refers to particles with a diameter of 10 (2.5)
micrometres or less. PM is emitted from many human sources, including combustion.
45 European Commission, 2016. Air Quality Standards 51 Low level ozone is produced by photochemical action on pollution
46 See EIONET Central Data Repository and Air pollutant emissions data and it is also a greenhouse gas viewer (NEC Directive) 52 See The EEA/Eionet Air Quality Portal and the related Central Data
47 NOx is emitted during fuel combustion e.g. from industrial facilities Repository and the road transport sector. NOx is a group of gases comprising 53 These figures are based on European Environment Agency, 2016. Air nitrogen monoxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Quality in Europe – 2016 Report . (Figures 4.1, 5.1 and 6.1)
Estonia 16
air pollution in Estonia are in the range of above EUR 414 resource-efficient way.
million/year (income adjusted, 2010), which include not SDG 6 encourages countries to ensure availability and only the intrinsic value of living a full health life but also sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.
direct costs to the economy. These direct economic costs
relate to 170 thousand workdays lost each year due to The main overall objective of EU water policy and sickness related to air pollution, with associated costs for legislation is to ensure access to good quality water in employers of EUR 14 million/year (income adjusted, sufficient quantity for all Europeans. The EU water 2010), for healthcare of above EUR 1 million/year acquis
57 seeks to ensure good status of all water bodies
(income adjusted, 2010), and for agriculture (crop losses) across Europe by addressing pollution sources (from e.g.
of EUR 7 million/year (2010) 54 . agriculture, urban areas and industrial activities), physical and hydrological modifications to water bodies) and the
management of risks of flooding.
Suggested action River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) are a
• Maintain downward emissions trends of air pollutants, requirement of the Water Framework Directive and a and reduce adverse air pollution impacts on health. means of achieving the protection, improvement and
sustainable use of the water environment across Europe.
Noise This includes surface freshwaters such as lakes and rivers, groundwater, estuaries and coastal waters up to one
The Environmental Noise Directive provides for a nautical mile.
common approach for the avoidance, prevention and Estonia has provided information to the Commission reduction of harmful effects due to exposure to from its second generation of RBMPs. However, as the environmental noise. Commission has not yet been able to validate this
Excessive noise is one of the main causes of health information for all Member States, it is not reported issues 55 . To alleviate this, the EU acquis sets out several here.
requirements, including assessing the exposure to environmental noise through noise mapping, ensuring In its first generation of RRBMPs Estonia reported that information on environmental noise and its effects is the status of 645 rivers, 89 lakes, 16 coastal and 39
made available to the public, and adopting action plans groundwater bodies 58 . According to information provided
with a view to preventing and reducing environmental by Estonia, 62% of surface water bodies achieved a good
noise where necessary and to preserving the acoustic or high ecological status or potential (in 2013) 59,60 . environment quality where it is good. Chemical status is reliably assessed only for 7.8% of
surface water bodies – 5.5% of those are in good Estonia's authorities have fulfilled all their obligations chemical status, 1.7% in bad status (mostly coastal water
with regards to the Environmental Noise Directive 56 for bodies due to Hg concentrations in biota) 61 . 80% of 39
the current reporting period. groundwater bodies are in good qualitative and quantitative status. This will be verified during the
Water quality and management assessment of the 2 nd cycle RBMPs.
The EU water policy and legislation require that the Point and diffuse sources of pollution, flow regulations impact of pressures on transitional, coastal and fresh and morphological alterations contribute to pressures
waters (including surface and ground waters) is significantly reduced to achieve, maintain or enhance
good status of water bodies, as defined by the Water 57 This includes the Bathing Waters Directive (2006/7/EC); the Urban
Framework Directive; that citizens throughout the Union Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) concerning discharges of municipal and some industrial waste waters; the
benefit from high standards for safe drinking and bathing Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC) concerning potable water water; and that the nutrient cycle (nitrogen and quality; the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) concerning
phosphorus) is managed in a more sustainable and water resources management; the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)
58 For groundwater, a precautionary approach has been taken that comprises a prohibition on direct discharges to groundwater, and a
54 These figures are based on the Impact Assessment for the European requirement to monitor groundwater bodies.
Commission Integrated Clean Air Package (2013) 59 Good ecological status is defined in the Water Framework Directive
55 WHO/JRC, 2011, Burden of disease from environmental noise, referring to the quality of the biological community, the hydrological
Fritschi, L., Brown, A.L., Kim, R., Schwela, D., Kephalopoulos, S. (eds), characteristics and the chemical characteristics.
World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe , Copenhagen, 60 Many European river basins and waters have been altered by human Denmark activities, such as land drainage, flood protection, and, building of
56 The Noise Directive requires Member States to prepare and publish, dams to create reservoirs. every 5 years, noise maps and noise management action plans for 61 Good chemical status is defined in the Water Framework Directive agglomerations with more than 100,000 inhabitants, and for major referring to compliance with all the quality standards established for roads, railways and airports chemical substances at European level.
Estonia 17
at similar level and affect 13%, 14% and 13% of surface with the UWWTD (with compliance rates of 94.3% and water bodies respectively. 97.1% for collection (Article 3) and secondary treatment
(Article 4), respectively). 64
The Estonian RBMP have significant weaknesses including methodological deficiencies related to the analysis of The estimated investment needs (reported under pressure, monitoring and status assessment resulting in Article 17 of the UWWTD) to reach full compliance with
uncertainties about the status of water bodies and the Directive in Estonia are of EUR 88 million. 65
effectiveness of Programmes of Measures.
The programmes of Measures are expected to result in According to the last report on the implementation of improvement of the ecological status of natural surface the Nitrates Directive, referring to the period 2008-2011, water bodies by 9% and the ecological potential of Estonian groundwater is showing an increase in nitrates artificial and heavily modified bodies by 5%. and the Baltic Sea eutrophication is also a concern.
As regards drinking water, Estonia reaches very high Suggested action
compliance rates of 99-100% for microbiological,
chemical and indicator parameters laid down in the • Improve the methods for analysis of pressures and
Drinking Water Directive 62 . assessment of water status as well as the monitoring system to ensure certainty about the status of water
As shown in Figure 10, in 2015, in Estonia out of 54 bodies. bathing waters, 63.0% were of excellent quality, 20.4% of • Further prevent and reduce nitrate pollution from good quality, 11.1% of sufficient quality while it was not agricultural sources by fully implementing the possible to assess remaining 3 bathing waters. requirements of the Nitrates Directive.
Figure 10: Bathing water quality 2012 – 2015 63 Enhancing the sustainability of cities
The EU Policy on the urban environment encourages cities to implement policies for sustainable urban planning and design, including innovative approaches for urban public transport and mobility, sustainable buildings, energy efficiency and urban biodiversity conservation.
SDG11 aims at making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.
Europe is a Union of cities and towns; around 75% of the
EU population are living in urban areas. 66 The urban
environment poses particular challenges for the environment and human health, whilst also providing opportunities and efficiency gains in the use of resources.
The Member States, European institutions, cities and
With a total generated load of 1.6 million population stakeholders have prepared a new Urban Agenda for the equivalents (p.e.), the final deadline to fully comply with EU (incorporating the Smart Cities initiative) to tackle the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) in these issues in a comprehensive way, including their Estonia was end 2010 for all the agglomerations (59 connections with social and economic challenges. At the above 2000 p.e.). In 2012, 89.4% of the waste water load heart of this Urban Agenda will be the development of collected was subject to more stringent treatment in twelve partnerships on the identified urban challenges,
accordance with Article 5 of the UWWTD. It should be noted that all the Estonian territory is considered as
sensitive, i.e. more stringent treatment is applicable in all 64 Eighth Report on the Implementation Status and the Programmes
the agglomerations whose size is above 10000 p.e. for Implementation (as required by Article 17) of Council Directive
Estonia demonstrates, in general, high compliance rates 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment (COM
(2016)105 final) and Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the report (SWD(2016)45 final).
62 Commission's Synthesis Report on the Quality of Drinking Water in 65 Eighth Report on the Implementation Status and the Programmes the Union examining Member States' reports for the 2011-2013 for Implementation (as required by Article 17) of Council Directive period, foreseen under Article 13(5) of Directive 98/83/EC i; 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment (COM COM(2016)666 i (2016)105 final) and Commission Staff Working Document
63 uropean Environment Agency 2016, European bathing water quality accompanying the report (SWD(2016)45 final). in 2015 66 European Environment Agency, Urban environment
Estonia 18
including air quality and housing 67 . Member States to sign, ratify and effectively implement
The European Commission will launch a new EU all relevant multilateral environmental agreements
benchmark system in 2017. 68 (MEAs) in a timely manner. This will also be an important contribution towards the achievement of the SDGs,
The EU stimulates green cities through awards and which Member States committed to in 2015 and include funding, such as the EU Green Capital Award aimed at many commitments contained already in legally binding cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants and the EU agreements.
Green Leaf initiative aimed at cities and towns, with
between 20,000 and 100,000 inhabitants. The fact that some Member States did not sign and/or ratify a number of MEAs compromises environmental
implementation, including within the Union, as well as the Union’s credibility in related negotiations and international meetings where supporting the participation of third countries to such agreements is an established EU policy objective. In agreements where voting takes place it has a direct impact on the number of votes to be cast by the EU.
Estonia has signed and ratified almost all MEAs. At the 8th Environment for Europe Ministers’ meeting in Batumi, Georgia, in June 2016, in the framework of the Batumi Action for Clean Air, Estonia took a voluntary commitment to ratify the CLRTAP-Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone
A number of initiatives are covered under the Union of (Gothenburg Protocol) and establish a national action the Baltic Cities Sustainable Cities Commission, which is programme on the reduction of emissions, which would a voluntary network of its member cities of the Baltic Sea help to achieve the targets set by the Gothenburg Region addressing a number of issues, including Protocol for 2020. National procedures for ratification of environmentally sustainable development. This includes the Nagoya Protocol
69 were planned to be finalised by
such initiatives as integrated management systems and the end on 2016.
spatial management, urban water management, maritime activities and sustainable urban mobility.
Furthermore, Tallinn Urban Planning Department is also amongst partners of the Baltic Urban Lab project, which aims at identifying and promoting best practices on brown field regeneration.
International agreements
The EU Treaties require that the Union policy on the environment promotes measures at the international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems.
Most environmental problems have a transboundary nature and often a global scope and they can only be addressed effectively through international co-operation.
International environmental agreements concluded by the Union are binding upon the institutions of the Union and on its Member States. This requires the EU and the
67 http://urbanagendaforthe.eu/
68 The Commission is developing an Urban Benchmarking and
Monitoring ('UBaM') tool to be launched in 2017. Best practices emerge and these will be better disseminated via the app featuring 69 Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable the UBaM tool, and increasingly via e.g. EUROCITIES, ICLEI, CEMR, Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Committee of the Regions, Covenant of Mayors and others. Biological Diversity.
Estonia 19
Part II: Enabling Framework: Implementation Tools
-
4.Market based instruments and investment
Green taxation and environmentally harmful scenario
73 , these taxes could generate an additional EUR
subsidies 0.2 billion by 2018, rising to EUR 0.38 billion by 2030 (both in real 2015 terms). This is equivalent to an
The Circular Economy Action Plan encourages the use of increase by 0.89% and 1.22% of GDP in 2018 and 2030, financial incentives and economic instruments, such as respectively. A circulation tax differentiated by CO2 taxation to ensure that product prices better reflect emissions could be introduced to improve environmental environmental costs. The phasing out of environmentally performance of the vehicles, with inclusion of company harmful subsidies is monitored in the context of the cars and private vehicles within the scheme.
European Semester and in national reform programmes
submitted by Member States. New Government of Estonia put forward a proposal for
vehicle registration based on CO2 emission, but it was
Taxing pollution and resource use can generate increased removed from the agenda until the beginning of 2017.
revenue and bring important social and environmental
benefits. Figure 11: Environmental tax revenues as a share of
total revenues from taxes and social contributions
The share of environmental taxation in total tax revenue (excluding imputed social contributions) in 2014
74
in Estonia is high (2.67% of GDP and 8.22% of total taxation in 2014). In the same year environmental tax revenues accounted for 8.28% of total revenues from
taxes and social-security contributions 70 (EU 28 average:
6.35%), as depicted in Figure 11. Environmental tax revenues have slightly increased since 2013. However, certain issues, such as the absence of vehicle taxation, which would promote the purchase and use of fuelefficient cars and thus contribute to the EU´s energy and climate objectives, still remain.
In Estonia, transport taxes (excluding fuel taxes) remain amongst the lowest in the EU or are not applied
(registration or circulation taxes for example). Heavy
Goods Vehicles are charged with a tax according to number of axles, weight, and suspension type, however, the tax is below the EU average and CO2 emissions are not taken into account. Furthermore, there is no charge applying to road use. In 2014, the least efficient cars were bought in Estonia (141 g CO2/km), followed by
Latvia (140 g CO2/km) and Bulgaria (136 g CO2/km) 71 .
Estonia remains also amongst the most energy and resource intensive countries in the EU.
A 2016 study suggests that there is considerable potential for shifting taxes from labour to
environmental taxes 72 . Under a good practice
70 Eurostat, Environmental tax revenues, accessed June 2016
71 European Environment Agency, 2016, New cars’ CO2 emissions well below Europe’s 2015 target the national authorities to assess this study and their concrete impacts
72 Eunomia Research and Consulting, IEEP, Aarhus University, ENT, in the national context. A first step in this respect, already done by a
2016. Study on Assessing the Environmental Fiscal Reform Potential for number of Member States, is to set up expert groups to assess these the EU28. N.B. National governments are responsible for setting tax and make specific proposals.
rates within the EU Single Market rules and this report is not suggesting 73 The good practice scenario means benchmarking to a successful
concrete changes as to the level of environmental taxation. It merely taxation practice in another Member State. presents the findings of the 2016 study by Eunomia et al on the potential benefits various environmental taxes could bring. It is then for 74 Eurostat, Environmental tax revenues , accessed October 2016
Estonia 20
provide that Member States promote environment and climate objectives in their funding strategies and
Green Public Procurement programmes for economic, social and territorial
The EU green public procurement policies encourage cohesion, rural development and maritime policy, and
Member States to take further steps to reach the target reinforce the capacity of implementing bodies to deliver of applying green procurement criteria to at least 50% of cost-effective and sustainable investments in these areas.
public tenders.
Green Public Procurement (GPP) is a process whereby Making good use of the European Structural and
public authorities seek to procure goods, services and Investment Funds (ESIF)
79
is essential to achieve the
works with a reduced environmental impact throughout environmental goals and integrate these into other policy their life-cycle when compared to goods, services and areas. Other instruments such as the Horizon 2020, the works with the same primary function that would LIFE programme and the EFSI80 may also support
otherwise be procured. implementation and spread of best practice. Estonia, through 3 national and regional programmes, benefits
The purchasing power of public procurement in the EU from ESIF funding of EUR 4.4 billion over the period 2014-
equals to approximately 14% of GDP 75 . A substantial part 2020 81 (see Figure 12).
of this money is spent on sectors with high environmental impact such as construction or transport, The biggest share – EUR 1.9 billion (42%) of funding is so GPP can help to significantly lower the impact of coming from the European Fund for Regional public spending and foster sustainable innovative Development (ERDF). EUR 1.1 billion (24.1%) - from businesses. The Commission has proposed EU GPP the Cohesion Fund (CF). criteria 76 .
A National Action Plan (NAP) or a National Strategy on EUR 823 million (18.5%) – from the European Agricultural
GPP is currently not in force in Estonia 77 . However, the Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).
Ministry of the Environment has set the targets of having
15% GPP from all the procurements in public sector by EUR 587 million (13.2%) - from the European Social Fund
2018, developing an e-procurement platform in (ESF).
collaboration with the Ministry of Finance. Trainings are
also organised for local government and state EUR 101 million (2.3%) from the European Maritime and authorities’ specialists, explaining the concept of an Fisheries Fund (EMFF).
environmentally sound procurement, possibilities for
conducting this, etc. In total, EUR 420 million a dedicated to the Thematic objective (TO)6 Environment Protection and Resource
Mandatory environmentally friendly requirements are efficiency EUR 254 million through the CF EUR 141 million currently imposed only for vehicles. There will be through the EAFRD programme, EUR 25 million through mandatory furniture, cleaning product and services, the EMFF. In addition, EUR 318 million is foreseen for copying and graphic paper and office IT equipment TO4 Low Carbon Economy (CF, ERDF, EAFRD and EMFF) criteria by 2017. There was 10 850 public procurement in and EUR 197 million for TO5 Climate Change Adoption 2015 from which 605 (5.6%) was green public and Risk Prevention (EAFRD and CF).
procurement. According to a 2011 survey, Estonian authorities included at least one of the EU core green
criteria in 40% of the contracts (regardless of the product Figure 12: EU Structural and Investment Funds 2014- group), and 11% of the contracts included all the relevant 2020: Budget Estonia by theme, EUR billion
82
EU core green criteria 78 .
Investments: contribution of EU funds
European Structural and Investment Funds Regulations
75 European Commission, 2015. Public procurement 79 ESIF comprises five funds – the European Regional Development
76 In the Communication “Public procurement for a better Funds (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Social Fund environment” (COM /2008/400) the Commission recommended the (ESF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development creation of a process for setting common GPP criteria. The basic (EAFRD), and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). The concept of GPP relies on having clear, verifiable, justifiable and ERDF, the CF and the ESF together form the Cohesion Policy funds.
ambitious environmental criteria for products and services, based 80 European Investment Bank, 2016 European Fund for Strategic on a life-cycle approach and scientific evidence base. Investments
77 European Commission(October 2015), Documentation on National 81 European Commission : European Structural and Investment Funds
GPP Action Plans Country Data for Estonia
78 CEPS 2012. Monitoring the Uptake of GPP in the EU27 82 European Structural and Investment Funds Country Data for Estonia
Estonia 21
2015-2020 is EUR 630 million 84 30% of which (EUR 189
million) being allocated to greening practices beneficial for the environment. An environmentally ambitious implementation of 1st pillar greening would clearly help to improve the environmental situation in areas not covered by rural development, including intensive area, and if appropriate Estonia could review its implementation of this.
It is too early to draw conclusions as regards the use and results of ESIF for the period 2014-2020, as the relevant programmes are still in an early stage of their implementation. Current data suggest that the EU funds
for the 2007-2013 period were almost fully spent 83 .
With regard to the integration of environmental concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the two key areas for Estonia (as for all Member States) are, first, using Rural Development funds to pay for environmental land management and other environmental measures, while avoiding financing measures which could damage the environment; and secondly, ensuring an effective implementation of the first pillar of the CAP with regard to cross compliance and 1st pillar 'greening'.
The approved National Rural Development Program
(EARDF) amounts overall to EUR 857 million. The planned spending on the ecosystem priority is EUR 287 million, which represents 33.5% of the total budget, and
EUR 194 million, 22.7% of the total budget is dedicated to agri-environment-climate measures. The RDP is underpinned by a reasonable description and diagnosis of the environmental and climate conditions for biodiversity and ecosystems including the prioritized action framework as referenced in the strategy, soil, water and forestry.
The Direct Payment envelope of Estonia for the period
83 Final data for the period 2007-2013 will only be available at the end of 2017 84 Commission delegated regulation (EU) No 994/2014 of 13 May 2014
Estonia 22
-
5.Effective governance and knowledge
SDG 16 aims at providing access to justice and building and the governance of the enforcement process. effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all
levels. SDG 17 aims at better implementation, improving Capacity to implement rules
policy coordination and policy coherence, stimulating science, technology and innovation, establishing Estonia is sometimes late in transposing EU law but this partnerships and developing measurements of progress. has improved very much in recent years and the delays
Effective governance of EU environmental legislation and are usually only couple of months. Bigger delays are policies requires having an appropriate institutional expected once non-conformities have been detected. framework, policy coherence and coordination, applying This is due to the fact that amendments to existing legal and non-legal instruments, engaging with nonlaws take quite some time internally to be adopted.
governmental stakeholders, and having adequate levels
of knowledge and skills. 85 Successful implementation Estonia has very small amount of infringements. The pressure from environmental NGOs and complainants is
depends, to a large extent, on central, regional and local extremely low.
government fulfilling key legislative and administrative
tasks, notably adoption of sound implementing Most environmental issues fall within the area of legislation, co-ordinated action to meet environmental governance of the Ministry of Environment headed by objectives like clean air and water and a healthy Minister of Environment that acts through a central body, biodiversity and correct decision-making on matters such and number of agencies. Local municipalities play a key as industrial permits. Beyond fulfilment of these tasks, role in building and territorial planning. The most government must intervene to ensure day-to-day important agencies within the area of governance of the compliance by economic operators, utilities, individuals Ministry of Environment are the Keskkonnaamet and others ("compliance assurance"). Civil society also (Environmental Board), which has various functions in has a role to play as does business. To underpin the roles the field of nature protection, environmental protection, of all actors, it is crucial to collect and share knowledge resource use and radiation; the Keskkonnainspektsioon and evidence on the state of the environment and on (Environmental Inspectorate), which is the primary environmental pressures, drivers and impacts. enforcement agency; and the Keskkonnaagentuur
Equally, effective governance of EU environmental (Estonian Environment Agency), which implements legislation and policies benefits from a dialogue within national environmental monitoring programme, prepares Member States and between Member States and the reports and assesses the state of the environment.
Commission on whether the current EU environmental legislation is fit for purpose. Legislation can only be properly implemented when it takes into account experiences at Member State level with putting EU commitments into effect. The Make it Work initiative, a
Member State driven project, established in 2014, organizes a discussion on how the clarity, coherence and structure of EU environmental legislation can be improved, without lowering existing protection standards.
Effective governance within central, regional and local government
Those involved in implementing environment legislation
at Union, national, regional and local levels need to be International and European cooperation is, in principle, equipped with the knowledge, tools and capacity to the task of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This includes improve the delivery of benefits from that legislation, representing the Estonian formal position in infringement
proceedings.
85 The Commission has work ongoing to improve the country-specific
knowledge about quality and functioning of the administrative Estonian sustainable development strategy “Sustainable
systems of Member States.
Estonia 23
Estonia 21” was adopted in September 2005 86 . avoid duplication of work and reduce administrative
burden. Active participation in established pan-European The Commission encourages the streamlining of the networks of inspectors, police, prosecutors and judges,
environmental assessments to avoid overlaps in such as IMPEL 89 , EUFJE 90 , ENPE 91 and EnviCrimeNet 92 , is a
environmental assessments and accelerate decisionvaluable tool for sharing experience and good practices. making, without compromising the quality of the
environmental assessment procedure. The Commission Figure 13: Environmental compliance assurance
has issued a guidance document in 2016 87 regarding the
setting up of coordinated and/or joint procedures that are simultaneously subject to assessments under the EIA
Directive, Habitats Directive, Water Framework Directive, and the Industrial Emissions Directive.
Compliance assurance
EU law generally and specific provisions on inspections, other checks, penalties and environmental liability help lay the basis for the systems Member States need to have in place to secure compliance with EU environmental rules.
Public authorities help ensure accountability of dutyholders
by monitoring and promoting compliance and by Currently, there exist a number of sectoral obligations on taking credible follow-up action (i.e. enforcement) when inspections and the EU directive on environmental breaches occur or liabilities arise. Compliance monitoring liability (ELD) 93 provides a means of ensuring that can be done both on the initiative of authorities the "polluter-pays principle" is applied when there are themselves and in response to citizen complaints. It can accidents and incidents that harm the environment. involve using various kinds of checks, including There is also publically available information giving inspections for permitted activities, surveillance for insights into existing strengths and weaknesses in each possible illegal activities, investigations for crimes and Member State.
audits for systemic weaknesses. Similarly, there is a range
of means to promote compliance, including awareness For each Member State, the following were therefore raising campaigns and use of guidance documents and reviewed: use of risk-based compliance assurance; online information tools. Follow-up to breaches and coordination and co-operation between authorities and liabilities can include administrative action (e.g. participation in pan-European networks; and key aspects withdrawal of a permit), use of criminal law 88 and action of implementation of the ELD based on the Commission's under liability law (e.g. required remediation after recently published implementation report and REFIT damage from an accident using liability rules) and evaluation.
94
contractual law (e.g. measures to require compliance
with nature conservation contracts). Taken together, all Estonia has taken steps towards risk-based compliance of these interventions represent "compliance assurance" assurance, in particular in relation to inspections of
as shown in Figure 13. industrial facilities. Some relevant data collection and analysis are undertaken and risk assessment tools
Best practice has moved towards a risk-based approach developed by IMPEL are used for planning and targeting
at strategic and operational levels in which the best mix of compliance monitoring, promotion and enforcement is directed at the most serious problems. Best practice also recognises the need for coordination and cooperation
between different authorities to ensure consistency, 89 European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law
90 European Union Forum of judges for the environment 91 The European Network of Prosecutors for the Environment
86 Government Office of the Republic of Estonia, Sustainable 92 EnviCrimeNet development 93 Directive 2004/35 i/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council
87 European Commission, 2016. Commission notice — Commission of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the guidance document on streamlining environmental assessments prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ L 143, conducted under Article 2(3) of the Environmental Impact 30.4.2004, p.56)
Assessment Directive (D irective 2011/92/EU of the European 94 COM(2016) 204 final i and COM(2016) 121 final of 14.4.2016. This Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Directive 2014/52 i/EU). highlighted the need for better evidence on how the directive is used
88Directive 2008/99/EC i of The European Parliament and of the Council in practice; for tools to support its implementation, such as guidance, of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through training and ELD registers; and for financial security to be available in criminal law. case events or incidents generate remediation costs.
Estonia 24
of inspection work 95 . Efforts are being made to evaluate Public participation and access to justice
the effectiveness of compliance monitoring work 96 .
The Aarhus Convention, related EU legislation on public
Up-to-date information is lacking in relation to the participation and environmental impact assessment, and following: the case-law of the Court of Justice require that citizens
and their associations should be able to participate in
− data-collection arrangements to track the use and decision-making on projects and plans and should enjoy effectiveness of different compliance assurance effective environmental access to justice.
interventions;
− the extent to which risk-based methods are used to Citizens can more effectively protect the environment if direct compliance assurance at the strategic level they can rely on the three "pillars" of the Convention on and in relation to critical activities outside of Access to Information, Public Participation in Decisionindustrial installations, especially specific problemmaking and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters areas highlighted elsewhere in this Country Report, ("the Aarhus Convention"). Public participation in the i.e. the threats to protected habitat types and administrative decision making process is an important species, and the pressures on water quality from element to ensure that the authority takes its decision on diffuse sources of pollution. the best possible basis. The Commission intends to − how the Estonian authorities ensure a targeted and examine compliance with mandatory public participation
proportionate response to different types of nonrequirements more systematically at a later stage.
compliant behaviour, in particular in relation to Access to justice in environmental matters is a set of
serious breaches detected. guarantees that allows citizens and their associations to
Estonia does not actively participate in the activities of challenge acts or omissions of the public administration
the European networks of environmental professionals. before a court. It is a tool for decentralised implementation of EU environmental law.
For the period 2007 to 2013, Estonia reported four cases For each Member State, two crucial elements for of environmental damage, including imminent threat of effective access to justice have been systematically damage, and four pending cases handled according to reviewed: the legal standing for the public, including the Environmental Liability Directive. Estonia follows the NGOs and the extent to which prohibitive costs represent Directive closely and has established a record of a barrier.
environmental damage incidents at national level.
However, there is scope for additional measures to The judicial review procedures in environmental cases in improve implementation. The country does not have Estonia appear sufficiently effective and provide the mandatory financial security (to pay for remediation necessary legal standing for the public to take when an operator cannot) and it is not evident that environmental cases to the courts. The costs of
insurance is either sufficiently available or taken out. administrative court proceedings, though, may cause a problem. The established loser-pays principle and the
Suggested action lack of a restricted legal aid system for NGOs may prevent that relevant environmental cases are taken to
• Improve transparency on the organisation and the court by the public 97 .
functioning of compliance assurance and on how
significant risks are addressed, as outlined above. Suggested action
• Encourage greater participation of competent
authorities in environmental compliance networks. • Take the necessary measures to ensure that the costs
• Step up efforts in the implementation of the of legal challenges involving EU environmental law are
Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) with proactive not prohibitively expensive, and in line with the initiatives, in particular by drafting national guidance. It requirements of EU law as well as the Aarhus should moreover take further steps to ensure an Convention.
effective system of financial security for environmental Access to information, knowledge and
liabilities (so that operators not only have insurance
cover available to them but actually take it out). evidence
The Aarhus Convention and related EU legislation on access to information and the sharing of spatial data require that the public has access to clear information on
95 See for details Study on 'Assessment and summary of the Member
States' implementation reports for the IED, IPPCD, SED and WID. the environment, including on how Union environmental
Industrial Emissions Directive, 2016, Amec Foster Wheeler Environment&Infrastructure UK Ltd in collaboration with Milieu Ltd.
96 Remarkable in this respect are the relevant reports of the Estonian 97 See study on access to justice in environmental matters in
Court of Auditors, see http://www.eurosaiwgea.org/audits. 2012/2013
Estonia 25
law is being implemented. the INSPIRE geoportal 105 indicate that not all spatial
It is of crucial importance to public authorities, the public information needed for the evaluation and and business that environmental information is shared in implementation of EU environmental law has been made an efficient and effective way. This covers reporting by available or is accessible. The larger part of this missing businesses and public authorities and active spatial information consists of the environmental data dissemination to the public, increasingly through required to be made available under the existing
electronic means. reporting and monitoring regulations of EU environmental law.
The Aarhus Convention 98 , the Access to Environmental
Information Directive 99 and the INSPIRE Directive 100 Suggested action
together create a legal foundation for the sharing of
environmental information between public authorities • Critically review the effectiveness of its data policies and with the public. They also represent the green part of and amend them, taking 'best practices' into the ongoing EU e-Government Action Plan 101 . The first consideration. two instruments create obligations to provide • Identify and document all spatial data sets required for information to the public, both on request and actively. the implementation of environmental law, and make The INSPIRE Directive is a pioneering instrument for the data and documentation at least accessible 'as is' electronic data-sharing between public authorities who to other public authorities and the public through the can vary in their data-sharing policies, e.g. on whether digital services foreseen in the INSPIRE Directive.
access to data is for free. The INSPIRE Directive sets up a geoportal which indicates the level of shared spatial data in each Member State – i.e. data related to specific locations, such as air quality monitoring data. Amongst other benefits it facilitates the public authorities' reporting obligations.
For each Member State, the accessibility of environmental data (based on what the INSPIRE Directive envisages) as well as data-sharing policies ('open data')
have been systematically reviewed 102 .
Estonia's performance on the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive as enabling framework to actively disseminate environmental information to the public leaves room for improvement. Estonia has indicated in
the 3-yearly INSPIRE implementation report 103 that the
necessary data-sharing policies allowing access and use of spatial data by national administrations, other
Member States' administrations and EU institutions without procedural obstacles are available but not fully implemented. Estonia identifies lack of specific competences and resources as main raison for existing implementation delays impeding the access to spatial data.
Assessments of monitoring reports 104 issued by Estonia
and the spatial information that Estonia has published on
98 European Commission, The Aarhus Convention
99 European Union, Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information
100 European Commission, 2016. INSPIRE Directive
101 European Union, EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020 -
Accelerating the digital transformation of government COM(2016) 179 final
102 Upon request by the Commission, most Member States provided an INSPIRE Action Plan addressing implementation issues. These plans are currently being assessed by the Commission.
103 Inspire Resources Summary Report
104 Inspire indicator trends 105 Inspire Resources Summary Report