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
Date: 2017-02-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU initiative, Estonia, application of EU law, environmental law, environmental protection, pollution control measures

EN 

   EN 

   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} {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  

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. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Estonia  3 

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 
 ................................................................................................................................................. 15 
Noise 
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 
Access to information, knowledge and evidence ................................................................................ 23 

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

Estonia  4 

About the Environmental Implementation Review 

launched 

reports  describing 

In  May  2016, 
the 
the  Commission 
Environmental  Implementation  Review  (EIR),  a  two-year 
cycle  of  analysis,  dialogue  and  collaboration  to  improve 
the  implementation  of  existing  EU  environmental  policy 
and  legislation1.  As  a  first  step,  the  Commission  drafted 
28 
the  main  challenges  and 
opportunities on environmental implementation for each 
Member  State.  These  reports  are  meant  to  stimulate  a 
positive debate both on shared environmental challenges 
for  the  EU,  as  well  as  on  the  most  effective  ways  to 
address the key implementation gaps. The reports rely on 
the detailed sectoral implementation reports collected or 
issued  by  the  Commission  under  specific  environmental 
legislation  as  well  as  the  2015  State  of  the  Environment 
Report  and  other  reports  by  the  European  Environment 
Agency.  These  reports  will  not  replace  the  specific 
instruments  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  EU  legal 
obligations.  

The  reports  will  broadly  follow  the  outline  of  the  7th 
Environmental Action Programme2 and refer to the 2030 
Agenda 
related 
for  Sustainable  development  and 
Sustainable Development  Goals  (SDGs)3  to  the  extent  to 
which  they  reflect  the  existing  obligations  and  policy 
objectives of EU environmental law4.  

The  main  challenges  have  been  selected  by  taking  into 
account factors such as the importance or the gravity of 
the  environmental  implementation  issue  in  the  light  of 
the  impact  on  the  quality  of  life  of  the  citizens,  the 
distance to target, and financial implications. 

The  reports  accompany  the  Communication  "The  EU 
Environmental  Implementation  Review  2016:  Common 
challenges  and  how  to  combine  efforts  to  deliver  better 
results", which identifies challenges that are common to 
several Member States, provides preliminary conclusions 
on  possible  root  causes  of  implementation  gaps  and 
proposes  joint  actions  to  deliver  better  results.  It  also 
groups in its Annex the actions proposed in each country 
report to improve implementation at national level. 

General profile 

Estonia  does  not  face  major  environmental  problems, 
and  environmental  awareness  has  risen  significantly  in 

1 Communication "Delivering the benefits of EU environmental policies 
Implementation  Review" 

regular  Environmental 

through  a 
(COM/2016/ 316 final). 

2 Decision No. 1386/2013/EU of 20 November 2013 on a General Union 
Environmental  Action  Programme  to  2020  "Living  well,  within  the 
limits of our planet". 

there 

the  last  decade.  Nature  conservation,  air  and  water 
quality  are  in  a  good  status.  There  is  access  to  good-
quality  drinking  water,  and  compliance  rates  with  the 
UWWTD  are  high.  However, 
for 
improvement especially on issues as resource and energy 
intensity, and waste management.  Great potential lies in 
eco-innovation 
finding  more  efficient  resource 
management solutions. Estonia is rich in biodiversity with 
a  high  level  of  habitat  assessments  with  favourable 
status.  Estonian  compliance  is  rather  good,  however, 
some cases of late transposition could be observed. 

room 

for 

is 

Main Challenges 

The two main challenges with regard to implementation 
of EU environmental policy and law in Estonia are: 

  Estonia  is  the  one  of  the  most  resource  intensive 
country  in  the  EU  and  needs  to  make  progress  on 
this in order to improve the resilience of its industry 
faced with increasing resource costs; 
Incineration  and  MBT  overcapacity  could  have  a 
negative impact on reaching the EU recycling targets. 

 

Main Opportunities 

Estonia  could  perform  better  on  topics  where  there  is 
already a good knowledge base and good practices. This 
applies in particular to: 

  Waste  management,  where  further  efforts  on 

recycling could deliver jobs and growth; 

  Vehicle  taxation  could  play  an 

important  role 
supporting  a  modal  shift  from  private  to  public 
transport,  as  well  as  an 
important  additional 
measures contributing to emissions reduction5.   

Points of Excellence 

Where  Estonia 
leader  on  environmental 
implementation,  innovative  approaches  could  be  shared 
more widely with other countries. Good examples are: 

is  a 

  The  strong  start-up  culture  in  the  country  has 
contributed  to  the  fast  development  of  the  eco-
in  Estonia,  with  support 
innovation  activities 
structures. 

  Estonia  has  provided  one  of  the  most  complete 
Prioritized  Action  Framework  (PAF)  which  has  been 
used  successfully  to  ensure  funding  to  Natura  2000 
sites from different EU funds. 

  Estonia  is  one  of  the  few  Member  States  having 
its  habitats  and  species 

than  50%  of 

more 
assessments reported as favourable. 

3 United Nations, 2015. The Sustainable Development Goals  
4 This EIR report does not cover climate change, chemicals and energy. 

5  According  to  the  EEA  report  "New  cars’  CO2  emissions  well  below 
Europe’s 2015 target" and they were least efficient in the EU in 2014.   

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

    
 
 
                                                            
                                                            
Estonia  5 

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 
resource efficiency 

Office of the Republic of Estonia, 2014).  
Figure 1: Resource productivity 2003-158 

The 2015 Circular Economy Package emphasizes the need 
to  move  towards  a  lifecycle-driven  ‘circular’  economy, 
with a cascading use of resources and residual waste that 
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 
stimulate 
sustainable  and  competitive.  This  will 
investments and bring both short and long-term benefits 
for the economy, environment and citizens alike6. 

costs, 

reduce 

facilitate 

There  is  untapped  potential  for  the  whole  economy,  as 
well  as  for  economic  sectors  and  individual  companies 
to benefit  from  the  shift  to  the  circular  economy,  which 
could 
and 
growth 
competitiveness,  as  well  as 
job  creation;  while  at 
the same time would address resource challenges.  
Resource productivity7 (how efficiently the economy uses 
material  resources  to  produce  wealth)  in  Estonia  has 
slightly increased in 2015 with 0.49 EUR/kg compared to 
the  EU  average  of  2  EUR/kg  (as  shown  in  Figure  1). 
Despite  a  slight  increase  of  resource  productivity  in 
Estonia  since  2013,  it  remains  among  the  lowest  in 
the EU together with Bulgaria and Romania. 

the 

fully  established  policy 
Estonia  does  not  have  a 
framework 
circular  economy.  However, 
for 
the adoption of the Circular Economy Package has led to 
widespread  discussion  on  the  subject  in  Estonia.  It  has 
also  published  its  position  in  terms  of  the  proposed 
directives, outlining that a large part of the package is in 
line with Estonia’s EU policy for 2015-2019 (Government 

The  most  recent  policy  initiatives  in  the  field,  notably 
the Estonian  National  Waste  Management  Plan  2014-
2020,  have  already  adopted  the  underlying  principles  of 
circular  economy  –  for  example,  aiming  to  reduce 
it  to 
the amount  of  waste  produced  and  recycling 
the maximum level.  

Also, 
in  the  context  of  the  Multiannual  Financial 
Framework  2014–2020,  Estonia  has  decided  to  support 
the  investments  for  more  resource-efficient  solutions 
mainly in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and 
mainly  in  manufacturing  industry  with  111  million  EUR. 
Activities include raising awareness of companies (events 
started  in  2016),  training  resource  specialists/auditors, 
supporting  resource  audits  and  investments  in  resource 
efficient  solutions.  Financial  support  schemes  are  under 
preparation and were scheduled in 2016. 

SMEs and resource efficiency 

In  the  Flash  Eurobarometer  426  "SMEs,  resource 
efficiency  and  green  markets"9  it  is  shown  that  49%  of 
Estonia's  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs) 
have invested  up to 5% of their annual turnover in their 
resource  efficiency  actions  (EU28  average  50%),  24%  of 
them are currently offering green products and services, 
30% took measures to save energy (EU28 average 59%), 
19% to minimise waste (EU28 average 60%), 15% to save 
water  (EU28  average  44%),  and  24%  to  save  materials 
(EU28  average  54%).  From  a  circular  economy 

6 European Commission, 2015. Proposed Circular Economy Package 
7 Resource productivity is defined as the ratio between gross domestic 

8 Eurostat, Resource productivity, accessed October 2016 
9 European Commission, 2015. Flash 426 Eurobarometer "SMEs, 

product (GDP) and domestic material consumption (DMC). 

resource efficiency and green markets" 

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
                                                            
perspective,  18%  took  measures  to  recycle  by  reusing 
material  or  waste  within  the  company,  9%  to  design 
products that are easier to maintain, repair or reuse and 
11%  were  able  to  sell  their  scrap  material  to  another 
company.  

According to the Flash Eurobarometer 426, the resource 
efficiency  actions  undertaken  allowed  the  reduction  of 
production costs in 55% of Estonian SMEs. 

information, 

The Flash Eurobarometer 426 "SMEs, resource efficiency 
and  green  markets"  defines  "green  job"  as  a  job  that 
directly  deals  with 
technologies,  or 
materials  that  preserves  or  restores  environmental 
quality. 14% of the SMEs in Estonia have one or more full 
time  employee  working  in  a  green  job  at  least  some  of 
the time.  Estonia has an average number of 0.4 full time 
green employees per SME.  

Eco-innovation 

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 
in 
Innovation  support  programme,  started 
cooperation  with  donor  partner  Innovation  Norway,  has 
successfully  supported  its  first  15  companies  and  is 
expected to continue in the future.  

in  2013 

Moreover, the strong start-up culture in the country has 
contributed  to  the  fast  development  of  the  eco-
innovation 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 
incubators  and  university-business  cooperation  centres, 
such  as  Tartu  Science  Park  having  led  the  way  in 
providing initial support for start-ups. 

The  strengthening  cooperation  between  universities, 
public  sector  and  businesses 
in  the  area  of  eco-
innovation initiatives has led to examples emerging in the 
areas  of  smart  cities  and  e-service,  such  as  the  bike 
parking system BIKEEP, an e-planner for public transport 
and  other  e-government  initiatives,  and  further  growth 

Estonia  6 

of Ülemiste Smart City. 

As  regards  good  practices  in  Estonia,  Ocean  Visuals 
developed  complementary  solutions  for  the  oil-spill 
detection  system  Ocean  Visuals,  based  on  information 
and  laser  remote-sensing  technology,  as  part  of  the 
Green Industry Innovation support scheme supported by 
European Economic Area (EEA) Grants.  

increased 
Estonian  eco-innovation  performance  has 
steadily  throughout  2013-2015,  but  out  of  28  countries 
analysed, Estonia is placed 19th. Estonia scores below EU 
average  overall,  due  to  resource-intensive 
industrial 
structure,  lack  of  seed  funding  opportunities  for  early-
stage start-ups and low level of media coverage on eco-
innovation subjects.  
Figure 2: Eco-Innovation Index 2015 (EU=100)10 

Drivers of eco-innovation 

-  Estonian companies are strongly dependent on their 
foreign  stakeholders.  Demand  and  standards  set  by 
foreign owners of companies are seen as one of the 
resource-efficiency 
main  drivers  of  enforcing 
standards among Estonian companies. Kunda Nordic 
Cement  and  ABB  are  examples  of  international 
companies  that  have  brought  around  initiatives  of 
their  Estonian  divisions 
resource  efficiency 

in 

10 Eco-innovation Observatory: Eco-Innovation scoreboard 2015 

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

 
 
                                                            
(Krusberg & Krustok, 2016). 

Barriers to eco-innovation 

- 

Low demand towards eco-innovation solutions from 
consumers as well as low level of knowledge. Lack of 
eco-innovation  awareness  is  also  an  issue  among 
public  sector  officials  and  businesses  (Recommend 
Reports,  2014).  The  lack  of  knowledge  transfer 
practices  among  companies  is  a  barrier  to  sharing 
best  practices  and  the  spread  of  more  efficient 
technologies (Krusberg & Krustok, 2016). 

-  Dependency  on  foreign  financing  mechanisms,  such 
as EU funds or Norway Grants for financing the RD&I 
initiatives  of  businesses.  This  creates  a  barrier  to 
entry for new and small companies with low project 
management capabilities. 
start-up 
Lack  of 
to  produce  eco-innovative 
companies  aiming 
solutions, which characterises the scene of start-ups 
in Estonia in general. 

financing  opportunities 

for 

- 

-  Management routines in Estonian companies do not 
long-term  strategies  and 
is  often  a  prerequisite  of  eco-

encourage  recognising 
trends,  which 
innovation.  

-  Capabilities  of  the  state  as  a  smart  consumer  in 
innovative  procurements  are 
environmental  and 
limited. The current procurement practices are seen 
as law-centred and rigid. 

Waste management  

Turning waste into a resource requires: 
 

implementation  of  Union  waste 

Full 
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 
recyclable  or 
recoverable waste. 

landfilling  of 

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 
operational 
level:  prevention,  (preparing  for)  reuse, 
recycling,  recovery  and,  as  the  least  preferred  option, 
disposal  (which 
incineration 
includes 
without energy recovery). 

landfilling  and 

The  progress  towards  reaching  recycling  targets  and 
the adoption of adequate WMP/WPP11 should be the key 
items  to  measure  the  performance  of  Member  States. 
This section focuses on management of municipal waste 

11  Waste Management Plans/Waste Prevention Programmes 

Estonia  7 

for which EU law sets mandatory recycling targets. 

As  shown  in  Figure  3,  the  amount  of  municipal  waste 
generated  in  Estonia  increased  for  the  second  year  in  a 
row from 280 kg per capita in 2012 and amounted to 357 
kg  per  capita  in  201412,  while  still  remaining,  below  the 
EU average of 475 kg.  

Figure  3  depicts  the  municipal  waste  by  treatment  in 
Estonia  in  terms  of  kg  per  capita,  which  shows  the shift 
form  landfilling  to  incineration.  However,  recycling  rate 
has  also  increased.  A  recent  study  assessing  separate 
collection in EU capitals rated Tallinn as the second best 
performing capital in the EU. 

Figure 3: Municipal waste by treatment in Estonia 2007-
1413 

The share of landfilled municipal waste in Estonia further 
decreased from 14% of the total waste in 2013 to 8% in 
2014.  While  construction  of  an  incineration  plant  and 
several MBT facilities has led to a significant reduction of 
landfilled municipal waste, at the same time incineration 
of municipal waste has increased dramatically from 16% 
in  2012  to  56%  in  2014,  becoming  the  main  municipal 
waste treatment option.  

Figure  4  depicts  the  recycling  rate  of  Estonia  over  time, 
which  shows  some  variation.  Estonia  has  significantly 
increased  recycling  from  18%  in  2013  to  31%  in  2014, 
while composting has remained at the same level of 6% 
in view of the 2020 target of 50% recycling14. 

12 This important increase as compared to previous years results from a 
correction of data to also include the relevant fraction of packaging 
waste. 

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 
ESTAT (and referred to in this report) to calculate their recycling rates 
and  track  compliance  with  the  2020  target  of  50%  recycling  of 
municipal waste. 

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

 
                                                            
 
                                                            
Figure 4: Recycling rate of municipal waste 2007-1415 

  Shift  reusable  and  recyclable  waste  away 
incineration by introducing incineration taxes. 

from 

Estonia  8 

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 
further  waste 
improvement,  particularly  for  separate 
management 
collection, 
recycling  and  composting,  as  well  as 
consideration  of  an  incineration  tax  to  make  recycling  a 
more  competitive  option.  In  order  to  help  bridging  the 
in  Estonia,  the Commission  has 
implementation  gap 
delivered a roadmap16 for compliance. 

for 

The  Government’s  new  waste  management  plan  for 
2014–2020  mainly  focuses  on  modern  product  design, 
clean  resource-saving  production  and  the  recycling  of 
already  produced  materials.  It  also  discusses  moving 
away  from  the  model  of  municipal  waste  management 
based on tendering towards a free-market approach. The 
plan 
Estonia's  Waste  Prevention 
also 
Programme. 

includes 

turnover  of 

Full  implementation  of  the  existing  legislation  could 
create more than 1.300 jobs in Estonia and increase the 
annual 
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 

the  waste 

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.  

15 Eurostat, Recycling rate of municipal waste, accessed October 2016 
16 European Commission, Roadmap for Estonia  
17 Bio Intelligence service, 2011. Implementing EU Waste legislation for 
Green Growth, study for European Commission. The breakdown per 
country on job creation was made by the consultant on Commission 
demand but was not included in the published document.   

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

 
 
                                                            
 
 
2. Protecting, conserving and enhancing natural capital 

Estonia  9 

covered  by  Natura  2000  (EU  average  18.1%),  with  Birds 
Directive  SPAs  covering  13,8%  (EU  average  12.3%)  and 
Habitats  Directive  SCIs  covering  17,2%  (EU  average 
13.8%).  There  are  altogether  568  Natura  2000  sites  in 
Estonia. 

The latest assessment of the Natura 2000 network shows 
that the SCI part of the Natura 2000 network in Estonia is 
almost complete in the Marine Baltic region and close to 
be complete in the Boreal region19 as shown in Figure 520. 

Figure  5:  Sufficiency  assessment  of  SCI  networks  in 
Estonia  based  on  the  situation  until  December  2013 
(%)21  

Nature and Biodiversity  

The  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  aims  to  halt  the  loss  of 
biodiversity  in  the  EU  by  2020,  restore  ecosystems  and 
their services in so far as feasible, and step up efforts to 
avert  global  biodiversity  loss.  The  EU  Birds  and  Habitats 
Directives  aim  at  achieving  favourable  conservation 
status of protected species and habitats.  

SDG  14  requires  countries  to  conserve  and  sustainably 
use the oceans, seas and marine resources, while SDG 15 
requires  countries  to  protect,  restore  and  promote  the 
sustainable  use  of  terrestrial  ecosystems,  sustainably 
manage  forests,  combat  desertification,  and  halt  and 
reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss. 

The  1992  EU  Habitats  Directive  and  the  1979  Birds 
Directive are the cornerstone of the European legislation 
aimed  at  the  conservation  of  the  EU's  wildlife.  Natura 
2000, the largest coordinated network of protected areas 
in  the  world,  is  the  key  instrument  to  achieve  and 
implement the Directives' objectives to ensure the  long-
term  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 
Ares  of  Conservation  (SAC)  under  the  Habitats  Directive 
and  as  Special  Protection  Areas  (SPA)  under  the  Birds 
Directive 
is  a  key  milestone  towards  meeting  the 
objectives  of  the  Directives.  The  results  of  Habitats 
Directive Article 17 and Birds Directive Article 12 reports 
and  the  progress  towards  adequate  Sites  of  Community 
Importance (SCI)-SPA and SAC designation18 both in land 
and  at  sea,  should  be  the  key  items  to  measure  the 
performance of Member States. 

By  early  2016,  17,9%  of  the  Estonia  national  territory  is 

18  Sites  of  Community  Importance  (SCIs)  are  designated  pursuant  to 
the Habitats Directive whereas Special Areas of Protection (SPAs) are 
designated  pursuant  to  the  Birds  Directive;  figures  of  coverage  do 
not add up due to the fact that some SCIs and SPAs overlap. Special 
Areas of Conservation (SACs) means a SCI designated by the Member 
States. 

Estonia  has  designated  the  large  majority  of  sites  as 
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 
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  semi-
natural  grasslands  in  protected  areas  due  to  lack  of 

threatened 

19  For  each  Member  State,  the  Commission  assesses  whether  the 
species  and  habitat  types  on  Annexes  I  and  II  of  the  Habitats 
Directive,  are  sufficiently  represented  by  the  sites  designated  to 
date.  This  is  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  species  and  habitats  for 
which further areas need to be designated in order to complete the 
network  in  that  country.  The  current  data,  which  were  assessed  in 
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 
habitat in a given biographical region with the Member State); if a 
habitat type or a species occurs in more than 1 Biogeographic region 
within a given Member State, there will be as many individual 
assessments as there are Biogeographic regions with an occurrence 
of that species or habitat in this Member State. 

21 European Commission internal assessment. 

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

 
 
                                                            
 
                                                            
Estonia  10 

The  results  from  the  Article  12  report  under  Birds 
Directive  show  that  short-term  trends  of  breeding  birds 
are  improving  for  17%  of  the  species  and  are  stable  for 
41%, however decreasing for 37% of species as depicted 
in Figure 7. The same categories for long-term trends are 
26%, 32% and 37%. Although data under Article 12 does 
not  provide  pressure  information  for  all  bird  species, 
pollution  (e.g.  oil  spills)  is  reported  by  Estonia  most 
frequently as a pressure of high impact. 

Estonia  has  provided  one  of  the  most  complete 
Prioritized Action Framework (PAF) which has been used 
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 

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  1722  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  623.  In  terms  of 
habitat  groups  only  some  forest  habitats  are  reported 
having  bad  conservation  status.  Concerning  species 
assessments  (other  than  birds)  54%  are  at  favourable 
status  (EU27:  23%),  28%  at  unfavourable-inadequate 
(EU27: 42%) and only 8% unfavourable-bad status (EU27: 
18%).  Agriculture,  forestry  (for  species)  and  changes  in 
natural  systems  are  reported  as  main  high 
impact 
pressures.  Estonia  is  one  of  the  four  Member  States 
having  more  than  50%  of  its  habitats  and  species 
assessments reported as favourable. 

Figure 6: Conservation status of habitats and species in 
Estonia in 2007/2013 (%)24 

About  25%  of  forests  in  Natura  2000  sites  are  on 
privately  owned 
in  Estonia 
concludes  that  connectivity  of  forest  protected  areas 
should be improved. 

land.  A  recent  study26 

Suggested action 

  Complete the SAC designation process and put in place 
clearly  defined  conservation  objectives  and 
the 
necessary  conservation  measures  for  the  sites  and 
provide  adequate  resources  for  their  implementation 
in  order  to  maintain/restore  species  and  habitats  of 
community interest to a favourable conservation status 
across their natural range.  

  Ensure that Natura 2000 management plans are being 

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 
improved 
data/monitoring methods. 

result 

from 

they 

effectively implemented. 
  Develop  and  promote 

smart  and 

streamlined 
implementation  approaches,  in  particular  as  regards 
site  and  species  permitting  procedures,  ensuring 
the necessary  knowledge  and  data  availability  and 
strengthen communication with stakeholders. 

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 
Directive reporting - national summary of Estonia 

25  Article  12  of  the  Birds  Directive  reporting  -  national  summary  of 

Estonia 

26  Alategevuse  LOORA  teadusaruanne,  Institute  of  Ecology  and  Earth 

Sciences, University of Tartu  

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

 
 
                                                            
 
                                                            
Estonia  11 

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  pattern 
and  landscape"  and  "preserving  the  good  condition  of 
the  natural  environment".  The  plan  emphasises  the 
importance of green infrastructure in the preparation of 
spatial measures. 

The basic legislation for this network is the Planning Act 
that  defines  the  green  network  and 
its  elements. 
Currently  these  thematic  spatial  plans  have  been 
established  for  all  counties  and  have  also  been  brought 
into  the  general  spatial  plans  at  the  municipal  level  in 
almost  all  municipalities  (as  the  county  thematic  plans 
are much more generalized than the land cadastre, they 
need  to  be  refined  at  the  municipal  level).  However, 
there  is  a  great  amount  of  confusion,  questions  and 
information  gaps  at  the  municipal  level  in  connection 
with  preservation  of  the  green  network32.  Therefore, 
although  Estonia  has  spatially  set  up  the  green  network 
at both national and local government level already more 
than  ten  years  ago  the  main  challenge  still  ahead  is  to 
analyse its effectiveness and based on that make spatial 
and functional corrections if needed. 

Soil protection 

The  EU  Soil  Thematic  Strategy  highlights  the  need  to 
ensure  a  sustainable  use  of  soils.  This  requires  the 
the 
prevention  of 
preservation of its functions, as well as the restoration of 
degraded  soils.  The  2011  Road  Map  for  Resource-

soil  degradation  and 

further 

31 National Spatial Plan "Estonia 2030+" 
32  Estonian  Nature  Conservation 

in  2011,  Estonian  Environment 

Information Centre, Tallinn 2012, pages 74-76.   

Estimating Natural Capital  

The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 calls on the Member 
States  to  map  and  asses  the  state  of  ecosystems  and 
their  services  in  their  national  territory  by  2014,  assess 
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. 

services27 

(provisioning, 

in  7  ecosystem  classes 

Estonian  long-term  climate  change  adaptation  strategy 
and action plan on biodiversity and bioeconomy defined 
regulating  and 
ecosystem 
cultural  services) 
(marine, 
freshwater,  forest,  wetland,  grassland,  soil  and  urban 
ecosystems).  Pollination  was  addressed  separately. 
Services were prioritised according to their relative socio-
economic 
importance  and  vulnerability  to  climate 
change.  Recent  knowledge  improvement  efforts  include 
notably the development of methods for the assessment 
and mapping of ecosystem services of marine and inland 
waters  (EMP)28,  completed  in  2016,  and  a  project  on 
„Developing  tools  for  the  assessment  and  prognosis  of 
biodiversity  status,  closely  linked  to  socio-economic  and 
climate  change  aspects,  as  well  as  for  the  improvement 
of  biodiversity  data  accessibility”  which  develop  among 
other  duties  also  a  roadmap  for  ecosystem  services 
mapping and assessment by 202329. 

Suggested action 

  Continue  support  to  the  mapping  and  assessment  of 
services,  valuation  and 

ecosystems  and 
development of natural capital accounting systems. 

their 

Green Infrastructure  
The  EU  strategy  on  green  infrastructure30  promotes  the 
incorporation  of  green  infrastructure  into  related  plans 
and  programmes  to  help  overcome  fragmentation  of 

27  Ecosystem  services  are  benefits  provided  by  nature  such  as  food, 

clean water and pollination on which human society depends. 

28  Development  methods  for  assessment  and  mapping  of  ecosystem 
services  of  marine  and  inland  waters,  2016,  Peipsi  Center  for 
Transboundary Cooperation 

29 Directive no 1136 of the Minister of Environment. 
30 European Union, Green Infrastructure — Enhancing Europe’s Natural 

Capital, COM/2013/0249 

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

 
 
                                                            
                                                            
 
Figure 8: Land Cover types in Estonia 201236 

Estonia  12 

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 
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.   

resource  and 

fragile 

Artificial  land  cover  is  used  for  settlements,  production 
systems and infrastructure. It may itself be split between 
built-up areas (buildings) and non-built-up areas (such as 
linear transport networks and associated areas).  

The  annual  land  take  rate  (growth  of  artificial  areas)  as 
provided  by  CORINE  Land  Cover  was  0.82%  in  Estonia 
over  the  period  2006-12,  well  above  the  EU  average 
(0.41%). It represented 789 hectares per year the most of 
it being realized through extension of mineral extraction 
intensity  compared  to 
sites,  with  highly 
previous  period33.  The  percentage  of  built  up  land  in 
2009 was 0.89%, well below the EU average (3.23%)34. 

increased 

The soil water erosion rate in 2010 was 0.21 tonnes per 
ha per year, well below EU-28 average (2.46 tonnes)35. 

There are still no EU-wide datasets enabling the provision 
of  benchmark  indicators  for  soil  organic  matter  decline, 
contaminated sites, pressures on soil biology and diffuse 
pollution.  An  updated  inventory  and  assessment  of  soil 
protection  policy  instruments  in  Estonia  and  other  EU 
Member  States  is  being  performed  by  the  EU  Expert 
Group on Soil Protection. 

Figure 8  shows  the  different  land  cover  types  in  Estonia 
in 2012. 

Marine protection 

The EU Coastal and Marine Policy and legislation require 
that by 2020 the impact of pressures on marine waters is 
reduced  to  achieve  or  maintain  good  environmental 
status and coastal zones are managed sustainably. 

SDG  14  requires  countries  to  conserve  and  sustainably 
for 
the  oceans,  seas  and  marine  resources 
use 
sustainable development.  
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)37 aims 
to  achieve  Good  Environmental  Status  (GES)  of  the  EU's 
marine  waters  by  2020  by  providing  an  ecosystem 
approach  to  the  management  of  human  activities  with 
impact  on  the  marine  environment.  The  Directive 
requires  Member  States  to  develop  and  implement 
a marine strategy for their marine waters, and cooperate 
with  Member  States  sharing  the  same  marine  region  or 
subregion. 

As part of their marine strategies, Member States had to 
make  an  initial  assessment  of  their  marine  waters, 
determine  GES38  and  establish  environmental  targets  by 
July  2012.  They  also  had  to  establish  monitoring 
programmes for the on-going assessment of their marine 

33 European Environment Agency Draft results of CORINE Land Cover 

country analysis [publication forthcoming] 

(CLC) inventory 2012; mean annual land take 2006-12 as a % of 2006 
artificial land. 

34  European  Environment  Agency,  2016. 

Imperviousness  and 

imperviousness change 

35 Eurostat, Soil water erosion rate, accessed June 2016  

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” 

36  European  Environment  Agency,  Land  cover  2012  and  changes 

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

 
 
                                                            
 
                                                            
Estonia  13 

through regional cooperation by using the work of the 
relevant Regional Sea Convention. 
  Identify and address knowledge gaps. 
  Further 

(and 
approaches 
quantifying) impacts from the main pressures in order 
to  lead  to  improved  and  more  conclusive  assessment 
results for 2018 reporting. 

assessing 

develop 

  Continue to integrate monitoring programmes already 
to 
existing  under 
implement joint monitoring programmes developed at 
(sub) regional level.  

legislation,  and 

relevant  EU 

  Enhance 

the  comparability  and  consistency  of 

monitoring methods within its marine region. 

  Urgently  report  and  implement  its  programme  of 

measures44. 

  Ensure that the monitoring programme is implemented 
without  delay,  and  is  appropriate  to  monitor  progress 
towards its GES. 

waters  by  July  2014.  The  next  element  of  their  marine 
strategy is to establish a Programme of Measures (2016). 
The  Commission  assesses  whether  these  elements 
constitute  an  appropriate  framework  to  meet  the 
requirements of the MSFD. 

Estonian  marine  waters  are  part  of  the  Baltic  Sea  and 
Estonia  is  party  to  the  Convention  on  the  Protection  of 
the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea39. In the Baltic 
Sea,  main  risks  for  biodiversity  relate  to  eutrophication, 
overfishing  and  bycatch,  pollution  by  contaminants  and 
oil, and introduction of non-indigenous species40. 

identified  the  main  pressures  on 

First  reporting  under  the  MSFD  in  Estonia  was  done  in 
2012.  The country  assessed  the  status  of  its  marine 
waters  against  specific  thresholds/reference  conditions 
and 
its  marine 
environment.  In  its  reporting,  the  country  considered 
existing  EU  standards  and  made  use  of  Regional  Sea 
Conventions assessments. Estonia also made an effort to 
quantify Good Environmental Status boundaries41. 

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. 

its 
Estonia  established  a  monitoring  programme  of 
marine  waters  in  2014.  However,  it  seems  that  its 
monitoring  sub-programmes  for  all  descriptors  apart 
from 
those  on  biodiversity,  eutrophication  and 
contaminants  in  seafood  need  further  refinement  and 
development to constitute an appropriate framework to 
monitor  progress  towards  environmental  targets  and 
Good  Environmental  Status,  especially 
the 
monitoring  programme  will  not  be  fully  in  place  before 
2018 for most descriptors.42 

since 

In  2012  Estonian  marine  protected  areas  covered 
6758.5km². More specifically, 2716.81 km² of the 0-1 nm 
zone, 4030.61km² of the 1-12 nm zone and 11.10 km² of 
the  12-  end  of  assessment  area  zone  were  covered  by 
MPAs43. 

Suggested action 

  Continue  work  to  improve  the  definitions  of  GES  in 
including 

for  biodiversity  descriptors, 

particular 

39 Helsinki Convention 
40 European Environment Agency, 2016. The Baltic Sea  
41  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  Accompanying 

the 
Commission  Report  on  "The  first  phase  of  implementation  of  the 
Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (2008/56/EC)  -  The  European 
Commission's assessment and guidance" (SWD(21014) 049 final and 
COM(2014)097 final)SWD(21014) 049 final and COM(2014)097 final) 
the 
Commission  Report 
States'  monitoring 
assessing  Member 
programmes  under  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive 
(COM(2017)3 and SWD(2017)1 final) 

42  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  Accompanying 

43  2012  Data  provided  by  the  European  Environmental  Agency  to  the 

44  As  of  7.10.2016,  Estonia  has  not  yet  reported  its  programme  of 

European Commission – Not published 

measures to the Commission 

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

 
                                                            
 
 
 
                                                            
Estonia  14 

3. Ensuring citizens' health and quality of life 

Air quality  

The  EU  Clean  Air  Policy  and  legislation  require  that  air 
quality  in  the  Union  is  significantly  improved,  moving 
closer  to  the  WHO  recommended  levels.  Air  pollution 
and its impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity should be 
further reduced with the long-term aim of not exceeding 
critical  loads  and  levels.  This  requires  strengthening 
efforts  to  reach  full  compliance  with  Union  air  quality 
legislation  and  defining  strategic  targets  and  actions 
beyond 2020. 

The  EU  has  developed  a  comprehensive  suite  of  air 
legislation45,  which  establishes  health-based 
quality 

52%) ensure air emissions for these pollutants are within 
the currently applicable national emission ceilings48.  

Air  quality  in  Estonia  is  reported  to  be  generally  good, 
with  exceptions.  Nevertheless,  for  the  year  2013, 
the European Environment Agency49 estimated that more 
than  690  premature  deaths  were  attributable  to  fine 
particulate  matter  concentrations50  and  30  to  ozone 
concentrations51. For 2014, no exceedances above the EU 
air  quality  standards  have  been  reported52.  Figure  9 
shows the attainment situation for PM10, NO2 and ozone 
in  201453.  Figure  9  shows  the  attainment  situation  for 
PM10, NO2 and O3 in Estonia in 2014. 

Figure 9: Attainment situation for PM10, NO2 and O3 in 2014 

that  up-to-date 

standards  and  objectives  for  a  number  of  air  pollutants. 
As  part  of  this,  Member  States  are  also  required  to 
ensure 
information  on  ambient 
concentrations  of  different  air  pollutants  is  routinely 
made  available  to  the  public.  In  addition,  the  National 
Emission  Ceilings  Directive  provides 
for  emission 
reductions  at  national  level  that  should  be  achieved  for 
main pollutants. 

The  emission  of  several  air  pollutants  has  decreased 
significantly  in  Estonia46.  Reductions  between  1990  and 
2014 for sulphur oxides (-85%), nitrogen oxides47 (-56%), 
volatile organic compounds (-66%), as well as ammonia (-

45 European Commission, 2016. Air Quality Standards 
46 See EIONET Central Data Repository and Air pollutant emissions data 

It is estimated that the health-related external costs from 
air pollution in Estonia are in the range of above EUR 414 

48 The current national emission ceilings apply since 2010 (Directive 
2001/81/EC); revised ceilings for 2020 and 2030 have been set by 
Directive (EU) 2016/2284 on the reduction of national emissions of 
certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC and 
repealing Directive 2001/81/EC. 

49  European  Environment  Agency,  2016.  Air  Quality  in  Europe  –  2016 
Report.  (Table  10.2,  please  see  details  in  this  report  as  regards  the 
underpinning    methodology) 

50  Particulate  matter  (PM)  is  a  mixture  of  aerosol  particles  (solid  and 
liquid)  covering  a  wide  range  of  sizes  and  chemical  compositions. 
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. 

51  Low  level  ozone  is  produced  by  photochemical  action  on  pollution 

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 
and  the  road  transport  sector.  NOx  is  a  group  of  gases  comprising 
nitrogen monoxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). 

Repository 

53 These figures are based on European Environment Agency, 2016. Air 

Quality in Europe – 2016 Report. (Figures 4.1, 5.1 and 6.1) 

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

 
 
                                                            
                                                            
 
Estonia  15 

million/year  (income  adjusted,  2010),  which  include  not 
only the intrinsic value of living a full health life but also 
direct costs to the economy. These direct economic costs 
relate  to  170  thousand  workdays  lost  each  year  due  to 
sickness related to air pollution, with associated costs for 
employers  of  EUR  14  million/year  (income  adjusted, 
2010),  for  healthcare  of  above  EUR  1  million/year 
(income adjusted, 2010), and for agriculture (crop losses) 
of EUR 7 million/year (2010)54. 

Suggested action 

  Maintain downward emissions trends of air pollutants, 
and reduce adverse air pollution impacts on health.  

Noise 

The  Environmental  Noise  Directive  provides  for  a 
common  approach  for  the  avoidance,  prevention  and 
reduction  of  harmful  effects  due  to  exposure  to 
environmental noise. 

Excessive  noise  is  one  of  the  main  causes  of  health 
issues55.  To alleviate  this,  the  EU  acquis  sets  out  several 
requirements, 
including  assessing  the  exposure  to 
environmental  noise  through  noise  mapping,  ensuring 
that information on environmental noise and its effects is 
made  available  to  the  public,  and  adopting  action  plans 
with  a  view  to  preventing  and  reducing  environmental 
noise  where  necessary  and  to  preserving  the  acoustic 
environment quality where it is good. 

Estonia's  authorities  have  fulfilled  all  their  obligations 
with  regards  to  the  Environmental  Noise  Directive56  for 
the current reporting period.  

Water quality and management 

(including  surface  and  ground  waters) 

The  EU  water  policy  and  legislation  require  that  the 
impact  of  pressures  on  transitional,  coastal  and  fresh 
is 
waters 
significantly  reduced  to  achieve,  maintain  or  enhance 
good  status  of  water  bodies,  as  defined  by  the  Water 
Framework Directive; that citizens throughout the Union 
benefit from high standards for safe drinking and bathing 
water;  and  that  the  nutrient  cycle  (nitrogen  and 
phosphorus)  is  managed  in  a  more  sustainable  and 
resource-efficient way. 

SDG  6  encourages  countries  to  ensure  availability  and 
sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. 

54 These figures are based on the Impact Assessment for the European 

Commission Integrated Clean Air Package (2013) 

55  WHO/JRC,  2011,  Burden  of  disease  from  environmental  noise, 
Fritschi, L., Brown, A.L., Kim, R., Schwela, D., Kephalopoulos, S. (eds), 
World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, 
Denmark 

56 The Noise Directive requires Member States to prepare and publish, 
every  5  years,  noise  maps  and  noise  management  action  plans  for 
agglomerations  with  more  than  100,000  inhabitants,  and  for  major 
roads, railways and airports 

The  main  overall  objective  of  EU  water  policy  and 
legislation  is  to  ensure  access  to  good  quality  water  in 
sufficient  quantity  for  all  Europeans.  The  EU  water 
acquis57  seeks  to  ensure  good  status  of  all  water  bodies 
across Europe by addressing pollution sources (from e.g. 
agriculture, urban areas and industrial activities), physical 
and  hydrological modifications  to  water  bodies)  and  the 
management of risks of flooding.  

(RBMPs)  are  a 
River  Basin  Management  Plans 
requirement  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  and  a 
means  of  achieving  the  protection,  improvement  and 
sustainable use of the water environment across Europe. 
This includes surface freshwaters such as lakes and rivers, 
groundwater,  estuaries  and  coastal  waters  up  to  one 
nautical mile. 

Estonia  has  provided  information  to  the  Commission 
from  its  second  generation  of  RBMPs.  However,  as  the 
Commission  has  not  yet  been  able  to  validate  this 
information  for  all  Member  States,  it  is  not  reported 
here. 

In 
its  first  generation  of  RRBMPs  Estonia  reported 
the status  of  645  rivers,  89  lakes,  16  coastal  and  39 
groundwater bodies58. According to information provided 
by Estonia, 62% of surface water bodies achieved a good 
or  high  ecological  status  or  potential  (in  2013)59,60. 
Chemical  status  is  reliably  assessed  only  for  7.8%  of 
surface  water  bodies  –  5.5%  of  those  are  in  good 
chemical status, 1.7% in bad status (mostly coastal water 
bodies  due  to  Hg  concentrations  in  biota)61.  80%  of  39 
groundwater  bodies  are 
in  good  qualitative  and 
quantitative  status.  This  will  be  verified  during  the 
assessment of the 2nd cycle RBMPs. 

Point  and  diffuse  sources  of  pollution,  flow  regulations 
and  morphological  alterations  contribute  to  pressures 
at similar  level  and  affect  13%,  14%  and  13%  of  surface 
water bodies respectively.  

The Estonian RBMP have significant weaknesses including 
methodological  deficiencies  related  to  the  analysis  of 

57  This  includes  the  Bathing  Waters  Directive  (2006/7/EC);  the  Urban 
Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive 
(91/271/EEC)  concerning 
discharges  of  municipal  and  some  industrial  waste  waters;  the 
Drinking  Water  Directive  (98/83/EC)  concerning  potable  water 
quality;  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (2000/60/EC)  concerning 
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 
requirement to monitor groundwater bodies. 

59 Good ecological status is defined in the Water Framework Directive 
referring to the quality of the biological community, the hydrological 
characteristics and the chemical characteristics. 

60 Many European river basins and waters have been altered by human 
activities,  such  as  land  drainage,  flood  protection,  and,  building  of 
dams to create reservoirs. 

61  Good  chemical  status  is  defined  in  the  Water  Framework  Directive 
referring to compliance with all the quality standards established for 
chemical substances at European level. 

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

 
                                                            
                                                            
of 

pressure,  monitoring  and  status  assessment  resulting  in 
uncertainties  about  the  status  of  water  bodies  and 
effectiveness 
of  Measures. 
The programmes  of  Measures  are  expected  to  result  in 
improvement  of  the  ecological  status  of  natural  surface 
water  bodies  by  9%  and  the  ecological  potential  of 
artificial and heavily modified bodies by 5%. 

Programmes 

As  regards  drinking  water,  Estonia  reaches  very  high 
for  microbiological, 
compliance 
chemical  and  indicator  parameters  laid  down  in  the 
Drinking Water Directive62. 

rates  of  99-100% 

As  shown  in  Figure  10,  in  2015,  in  Estonia  out  of  54 
bathing waters, 63.0% were of excellent quality, 20.4% of 
good quality, 11.1% of sufficient quality while it was not 
possible to assess remaining 3 bathing waters.  
Figure 10: Bathing water quality 2012 – 201563 

With  a  total  generated  load  of  1.6  million  population 
equivalents (p.e.), the final deadline to fully comply with 
the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) in 
Estonia  was  end  2010  for  all  the agglomerations  (59 
above 2000 p.e.). In 2012, 89.4% of the waste water load 
collected  was  subject  to  more  stringent  treatment  in 
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 
the  agglomerations  whose  size  is  above  10000  p.e. 
Estonia  demonstrates,  in  general,  high  compliance  rates 
with  the  UWWTD  (with  compliance  rates  of  94.3%  and 
97.1%  for  collection  (Article 3)  and  secondary  treatment 
(Article 4), respectively).64 

62  Commission's  Synthesis  Report  on  the  Quality  of  Drinking  Water  in 
the  Union  examining  Member  States'  reports  for  the  2011-2013 
period, 
foreseen  under  Article  13(5)  of  Directive  98/83/EC; 
COM(2016)666 

63 uropean Environment Agency 2016, European bathing water quality 

in 2015 

64  Eighth  Report  on  the  Implementation  Status  and  the  Programmes 
for  Implementation  (as  required  by  Article  17)  of  Council  Directive 
(COM 
91/271/EEC  concerning  urban  waste  water  treatment 

Estonia  16 

(reported  under 
investment  needs 
The  estimated 
Article 17  of  the  UWWTD)  to  reach  full  compliance  with 
the Directive in Estonia are of EUR 88 million.65 

According  to  the  last  report  on  the  implementation  of 
the Nitrates Directive, referring to the period 2008-2011, 
Estonian  groundwater  is  showing  an  increase  in  nitrates 
and the Baltic Sea eutrophication is also a concern.  

Suggested action 

  Improve  the  methods  for  analysis  of  pressures  and 
assessment  of  water  status  as  well  as  the  monitoring 
system  to  ensure  certainty  about  the  status  of  water 
bodies. 

  Further  prevent  and  reduce  nitrate  pollution  from 
the 

agricultural 
sources  by 
requirements of the Nitrates Directive. 

implementing 

fully 

Enhancing the sustainability of cities  

The  EU  Policy  on  the  urban  environment  encourages 
implement  policies  for  sustainable  urban 
cities  to 
planning and design, including innovative approaches for 
urban  public 
sustainable 
buildings,  energy  efficiency  and  urban  biodiversity 
conservation.  

transport  and  mobility, 

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 
the 
environment  and  human  health,  whilst  also  providing 
opportunities and efficiency gains in the use of resources.  

for 

The  Member  States,  European  institutions,  cities  and 
stakeholders have prepared a new Urban Agenda for the 
EU  (incorporating  the  Smart  Cities  initiative)  to  tackle 
these  issues  in  a  comprehensive  way,  including  their 
connections with social and economic challenges. At the 
heart  of  this  Urban  Agenda  will  be  the  development  of 
twelve  partnerships  on  the  identified  urban  challenges, 
including air quality and housing67.  

The  European  Commission  will 
benchmark system in 2017.68 

launch  a  new  EU 

(2016)105 
accompanying the report (SWD(2016)45 final). 

final)  and  Commission  Staff  Working  Document 

65  Eighth  Report  on  the  Implementation  Status  and  the  Programmes 
for  Implementation  (as  required  by  Article  17)  of  Council  Directive 
91/271/EEC  concerning  urban  waste  water  treatment 
(COM 
final)  and  Commission  Staff  Working  Document 
(2016)105 
accompanying the report (SWD(2016)45 final). 

66 European Environment Agency, Urban environment 
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 
the UBaM tool, and increasingly via e.g. EUROCITIES, ICLEI, CEMR, 
Committee of the Regions, Covenant of Mayors and others. 

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

 
 
                                                            
                                                                                                 
The  EU  stimulates  green  cities  through  awards  and 
funding,  such  as  the  EU  Green  Capital  Award  aimed  at 
cities  with  more  than  100,000  inhabitants  and  the  EU 
Green  Leaf  initiative  aimed  at  cities  and  towns,  with 
between 20,000 and 100,000 inhabitants. 

A  number  of  initiatives  are  covered  under  the  Union  of 
the  Baltic  Cities  Sustainable  Cities  Commission,  which  is 
a voluntary network of its member cities of the Baltic Sea 
Region  addressing  a  number  of 
including 
environmentally  sustainable  development.  This  includes 
such  initiatives  as  integrated  management  systems  and 
spatial  management,  urban  water  management, 
maritime activities and sustainable urban mobility.  

issues, 

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 
Member  States  to  sign,  ratify  and  effectively  implement 
all  relevant  multilateral  environmental  agreements 
(MEAs) in a timely manner. This will also be an important 
contribution  towards  the  achievement  of  the  SDGs, 
which Member States committed to in 2015 and include 
many  commitments  contained  already  in  legally  binding 
agreements. 

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 
in  related  negotiations  and 
the  Union’s  credibility 
the 
international  meetings  where 

supporting 

Estonia  17 

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 
(Gothenburg  Protocol)  and  establish  a  national  action 
programme  on  the  reduction  of  emissions,  which  would 
help  to  achieve  the  targets  set  by  the  Gothenburg 
Protocol for 2020. National procedures for ratification of 
the  Nagoya  Protocol69  were  planned  to  be  finalised  by 
the end on 2016. 

69 Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable 
Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on 
Biological Diversity. 

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Part II: Enabling Framework: Implementation Tools 
4. Market based instruments and investment  

Estonia  18 

scenario73, these taxes could generate an additional EUR 
0.2  billion  by  2018,  rising  to  EUR  0.38  billion  by  2030 
(both  in  real  2015  terms).  This  is  equivalent  to  an 
increase  by  0.89%  and  1.22%  of  GDP  in  2018  and  2030, 
respectively.  A  circulation  tax  differentiated  by  CO2 
emissions could be introduced to improve environmental 
performance  of  the  vehicles,  with  inclusion  of  company 
cars and private vehicles within the scheme. 

New  Government  of  Estonia  put  forward  a  proposal  for 
vehicle  registration  based  on  CO2  emission,  but  it  was 
removed from the agenda until the beginning of 2017.  

Figure  11:  Environmental  tax  revenues  as  a  share  of 
total  revenues  from  taxes  and  social  contributions  
(excluding imputed social contributions) in 201474 

Green taxation and environmentally harmful 
subsidies  
The Circular Economy Action Plan encourages the use of 
financial  incentives  and  economic  instruments,  such  as 
taxation  to  ensure  that  product  prices  better  reflect 
environmental costs. The phasing out of environmentally 
harmful  subsidies  is  monitored  in  the  context  of  the 
European  Semester  and  in  national  reform  programmes 
submitted by Member States. 

Taxing pollution and resource use can generate increased 
revenue  and  bring  important  social  and  environmental 
benefits. 

The share of environmental taxation in total tax revenue 
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  contributions70  (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  fuel-
efficient 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. 

is  considerable 
A  2016  study  suggests  that  there 
to 
potential 
labour 
environmental  taxes72.  Under  a  good  practice 

shifting 

taxes 

from 

for 

70 Eurostat, Environmental tax revenues, accessed June 2016 
71 European Environment Agency, 2016, New cars’ CO2 emissions well 

below Europe’s 2015 target 

72  Eunomia  Research  and  Consulting,  IEEP,  Aarhus  University,  ENT, 
2016. Study on Assessing the Environmental Fiscal Reform Potential for 
the  EU28.  N.B.  National  governments  are  responsible  for  setting  tax 
rates within the EU Single Market rules and this report is not suggesting 
concrete  changes  as  to  the  level  of  environmental  taxation.  It  merely 
presents  the  findings  of  the  2016  study  by  Eunomia  et  al  on  the 
potential benefits various environmental taxes could bring. It is then for 
the national authorities to assess this study and their concrete impacts 
in  the  national  context.  A  first  step  in  this  respect,  already  done  by  a 

number  of  Member  States,  is  to  set  up  expert  groups  to  assess  these 
and make specific proposals. 
73 The good practice scenario means benchmarking to a successful 
taxation practice in another Member State.  

74 Eurostat, Environmental tax revenues, accessed October 2016 

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
                                                                                                 
 
Estonia  19 

cohesion,  rural  development  and  maritime  policy,  and 
reinforce the capacity of implementing bodies to deliver 
cost-effective and sustainable investments in these areas. 

Making  good  use  of  the  European  Structural  and 
Investment  Funds  (ESIF)79  is  essential  to  achieve  the 
environmental goals and integrate these into other policy 
areas.  Other  instruments  such  as  the  Horizon  2020,  the 
LIFE  programme  and  the  EFSI80  may  also  support 
implementation  and  spread  of  best  practice.  Estonia, 
through  3  national  and  regional  programmes,  benefits 
from ESIF funding of EUR 4.4 billion over the period 2014-
202081 (see Figure 12).  

The  biggest  share  –  EUR  1.9  billion  (42%)  of  funding  is 
coming 
for  Regional 
the  European  Fund 
Development  (ERDF).  EUR 1.1 billion  (24.1%)  -  from 
the Cohesion Fund (CF). 

from 

EUR 823 million (18.5%) – from the European Agricultural 
Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). 

EUR 587 million (13.2%) - from the European Social Fund 
(ESF). 

EUR 101 million (2.3%) from the European Maritime and 
Fisheries Fund (EMFF). 

In  total,  EUR 420 million  a  dedicated  to  the  Thematic 
objective  (TO)6  Environment  Protection  and  Resource 
efficiency EUR 254 million through the CF EUR 141 million 
through the EAFRD programme,  EUR 25 million through 
the  EMFF.  In  addition,  EUR 318 million  is  foreseen  for 
TO4  Low  Carbon  Economy  (CF,  ERDF,  EAFRD  and  EMFF) 
and  EUR 197  million  for  TO5  Climate  Change  Adoption 
and Risk Prevention (EAFRD and CF).  

Figure  12:  EU  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  2014-
2020: Budget Estonia by theme, EUR billion82 

Green Public Procurement  
The  EU  green  public  procurement  policies  encourage 
Member States to take further steps to reach the target 
of applying green procurement criteria to at least 50% of 
public tenders. 
Green  Public  Procurement  (GPP)  is  a  process  whereby 
public  authorities  seek  to  procure  goods,  services  and 
works  with  a  reduced  environmental  impact  throughout 
their  life-cycle  when  compared  to  goods,  services  and 
works  with  the  same  primary  function  that  would 
otherwise be procured.  

this  money 

The  purchasing  power  of  public  procurement  in  the  EU 
equals to approximately 14% of GDP75. A substantial part 
of 
is  spent  on  sectors  with  high 
environmental impact such as construction or transport, 
so  GPP  can  help  to  significantly  lower  the  impact  of 
innovative 
public  spending  and 
businesses.  The  Commission  has  proposed  EU  GPP 
criteria76. 

foster  sustainable 

A  National  Action  Plan  (NAP)  or  a  National  Strategy  on 
GPP  is  currently  not  in  force  in  Estonia77.  However,  the 
Ministry of the Environment has set the targets of having 
15%  GPP  from  all  the  procurements  in  public  sector  by 
2018,  developing  an  e-procurement  platform 
in 
collaboration with  the  Ministry  of  Finance.  Trainings  are 
also  organised 
state 
authorities’  specialists,  explaining  the  concept  of  an 
environmentally  sound  procurement,  possibilities  for 
conducting this, etc. 

local  government  and 

for 

Mandatory  environmentally  friendly  requirements  are 
currently 
imposed  only  for  vehicles.  There  will  be 
mandatory  furniture,  cleaning  product  and  services, 
copying  and  graphic  paper  and  office  IT  equipment 
criteria by 2017. There was 10 850 public procurement in 
2015 
(5.6%)  was  green  public 
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 
group), and 11% of the contracts included all the relevant 
EU core green criteria78. 

from  which  605 

Investments: contribution of EU funds  

European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  Regulations 
provide  that  Member  States  promote  environment  and 
funding  strategies  and 
climate  objectives 
territorial 
programmes 

in  their 
for  economic, 

social  and 

75 European Commission, 2015. Public procurement 
76 In the Communication “Public procurement for a better 

environment” (COM /2008/400) the Commission recommended the 
creation of a process for setting common GPP criteria. The basic 
concept of GPP relies on having clear, verifiable, justifiable and 
ambitious environmental criteria for products and services, based 
on a life-cycle approach and scientific evidence base. 

79  ESIF  comprises  five  funds  –  the  European  Regional  Development 
Funds  (ERDF),  the  Cohesion  Fund  (CF),  the  European  Social  Fund 
(ESF),  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development 
(EAFRD), and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). The 
ERDF, the CF and the ESF together form the Cohesion Policy funds. 
80  European  Investment  Bank,  2016  European  Fund  for  Strategic 

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 

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

 
                                                            
 
                                                            
Estonia  20 

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 
its 
Estonia 
appropriate 
implementation of this. 

review 

could 

if 

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 spent83.  

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 
is 
agri-environment-climate  measures. 
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  RDP 

The  Direct  Payment  envelope  of  Estonia  for  the  period 
2015-2020  is  EUR  630  million84  30%  of  which  (EUR  189 

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 

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

 
 
                                                            
 
 
5. Effective governance and knowledge 

Estonia  21 

SDG  16  aims  at  providing  access  to  justice  and  building 
effective,  accountable  and  inclusive  institutions  at  all 
levels. SDG 17 aims at better implementation, improving 
policy  coordination  and  policy  coherence,  stimulating 
science, 
innovation,  establishing 
partnerships and developing measurements of progress. 

technology 

and 

Effective governance of EU environmental legislation and 
policies  requires  having  an  appropriate 
institutional 
framework,  policy  coherence  and  coordination,  applying 
legal  and  non-legal  instruments,  engaging  with  non-
governmental  stakeholders,  and  having  adequate  levels 
of  knowledge  and  skills.85  Successful  implementation 
depends, to a large extent, on central, regional and local 
government  fulfilling  key  legislative  and  administrative 
tasks,  notably  adoption  of 
implementing 
legislation,  co-ordinated  action  to  meet  environmental 
objectives 
like  clean  air  and  water  and  a  healthy 
biodiversity and correct decision-making on matters such 
as  industrial  permits.    Beyond  fulfilment  of  these  tasks, 
government  must 
to  ensure  day-to-day 
compliance  by  economic  operators,  utilities,  individuals 
and  others  ("compliance  assurance").  Civil  society  also 
has a role to play as does business. To underpin the roles 
of  all  actors,  it  is  crucial  to  collect  and  share  knowledge 
and  evidence  on  the  state  of  the  environment  and  on 
environmental pressures, drivers and impacts. 

intervene 

sound 

implemented  when 

Equally,  effective  governance  of  EU  environmental 
legislation  and  policies  benefits  from  a  dialogue  within 
Member  States  and  between  Member  States  and  the 
Commission  on  whether  the  current  EU  environmental 
legislation  is  fit  for  purpose.  Legislation  can  only  be 
properly 
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 
legislation  can  be 
structure  of  EU  environmental 
protection 
existing 
improved,  without 
standards. 

lowering 

it  takes 

Effective governance within central, regional 
and local government 

Those  involved  in  implementing  environment  legislation 
at  Union,  national,  regional  and  local  levels  need  to  be 
equipped  with  the  knowledge,  tools  and  capacity  to 
improve  the  delivery  of  benefits  from  that  legislation, 
and the governance of the enforcement process. 

Capacity to implement rules 

Estonia is sometimes late in  transposing EU law but this 
has  improved  very  much  in  recent  years  and  the  delays 
are  usually  only  couple  of  months.  Bigger  delays  are 
expected  once  non-conformities  have  been  detected. 
This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  amendments  to  existing 
laws take quite some time internally to be adopted. 

Estonia  has  very  small  amount  of  infringements.  The 
pressure  from  environmental  NGOs  and  complainants  is 
extremely low. 

Most  environmental 
issues  fall  within  the  area  of 
governance  of  the  Ministry  of  Environment  headed  by 
Minister of Environment that acts through a central body, 
and  number  of  agencies.  Local  municipalities  play  a  key 
role 
in  building  and  territorial  planning.  The  most 
important agencies within the area of governance of the 
Ministry  of  Environment  are 
the  Keskkonnaamet 
(Environmental  Board),  which  has  various  functions  in 
the field of nature protection, environmental protection, 
resource  use  and  radiation;  the  Keskkonnainspektsioon 
(Environmental 
is  the  primary 
Inspectorate),  which 
enforcement  agency;  and 
the  Keskkonnaagentuur 
implements 
(Estonian  Environment  Agency),  which 
national environmental monitoring programme, prepares 
reports and assesses the state of the environment. 

International  and  European  cooperation  is,  in  principle, 
the  task  of  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs.  This  includes 
representing the Estonian formal position in infringement 
proceedings. 

Estonian  sustainable  development  strategy  “Sustainable 
Estonia 21” was adopted in September 200586. 

The  Commission  encourages  the  streamlining  of  the 
environmental  assessments 
in 
environmental  assessments  and  accelerate  decision-
making,  without  compromising  the  quality  of  the 
environmental  assessment  procedure.  The  Commission 

to  avoid  overlaps 

85  The  Commission  has  work  ongoing  to  improve  the  country-specific 
knowledge  about  quality  and  functioning  of  the  administrative 
systems of Member States. 

86  Government  Office  of  the  Republic  of  Estonia,  Sustainable 

development 

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

 
 
                                                            
 
                                                            
Estonia  22 

Figure 13: Environmental compliance assurance 

has issued a guidance document in 201687 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 
secure  compliance  with  EU 
to 
environmental rules. 

in  place 

Public  authorities  help  ensure  accountability  of  duty-
holders by monitoring and promoting compliance and by 
taking credible follow-up action (i.e. enforcement) when 
breaches occur or liabilities arise. Compliance monitoring 
initiative  of  authorities 
can  be  done  both  on  the 
themselves  and  in  response to  citizen complaints. It  can 
involve  using  various  kinds  of  checks, 
including 
inspections  for  permitted  activities,  surveillance  for 
possible  illegal  activities,  investigations  for  crimes  and 
audits for systemic weaknesses. Similarly, there is a range 
of  means  to  promote  compliance,  including  awareness-
raising  campaigns  and  use  of  guidance  documents  and 
online  information  tools.  Follow-up  to  breaches  and 
liabilities  can 
(e.g. 
withdrawal of a permit), use of criminal law88 and action 
law  (e.g.  required  remediation  after 
under 
liability  rules)  and 
damage  from  an  accident  using 
contractual  law  (e.g.  measures  to  require  compliance 
with  nature  conservation  contracts).  Taken  together,  all 
of these interventions represent "compliance assurance" 
as shown in Figure 13.  

include  administrative  action 

liability 

Best  practice  has  moved  towards  a  risk-based  approach 
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, 
avoid  duplication  of  work  and  reduce  administrative 
burden. Active participation in established pan-European 
networks  of  inspectors,  police,  prosecutors  and  judges, 
such as IMPEL89, EUFJE90, ENPE91 and EnviCrimeNet92, is a 
valuable tool for sharing experience and good practices. 

87  European  Commission,  2016.  Commission  notice  —  Commission 
guidance  document  on  streamlining  environmental  assessments 
conducted  under  Article  2(3)  of 
Impact 
Assessment  Directive  (Directive  2011/92/EU  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU). 
88Directive 2008/99/EC of The European Parliament and of the Council 
of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through 
criminal law.  

the  Environmental 

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 
92 EnviCrimeNet 

Currently, there exist a number of sectoral obligations on 
inspections  and  the  EU  directive  on  environmental 
liability  (ELD)93  provides  a  means  of  ensuring  that 
the "polluter-pays  principle"  is  applied  when  there  are 
accidents  and  incidents  that  harm  the  environment. 
information  giving 
There 
insights  into  existing  strengths  and  weaknesses  in  each 
Member State.  

is  also  publically  available 

For  each  Member  State,  the  following  were  therefore 
reviewed:  use  of  risk-based  compliance  assurance; 
coordination  and  co-operation  between  authorities  and 
participation in pan-European networks; and key aspects 
of implementation of the ELD based on the Commission's 
recently  published  implementation  report  and  REFIT 
evaluation.94  

Estonia  has  taken  steps  towards  risk-based  compliance 
assurance,  in  particular  in  relation  to  inspections  of 
industrial  facilities.  Some  relevant  data  collection  and 
analysis  are  undertaken  and  risk  assessment  tools 
developed by IMPEL are used for planning and targeting 
of inspection work95. Efforts are being made to evaluate 
the effectiveness of compliance monitoring work96.  

Up-to-date  information  is  lacking  in  relation  to  the 
following: 

  data-collection  arrangements  to  track  the  use  and 
effectiveness  of  different  compliance  assurance 

93 Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  21  April  2004  on  environmental  liability  with  regard  to  the 
prevention  and  remedying  of  environmental  damage  (OJ  L  143, 
30.4.2004, p.56) 

94  COM(2016)  204  final  and  COM(2016)  121  final  of  14.4.2016.  This 
highlighted the need for better evidence on how the directive is used 
in practice; for tools to support its implementation, such as guidance, 
training and ELD registers; and for financial security to be available in 
case events or incidents generate remediation costs. 

95  See  for  details  Study  on  'Assessment  and  summary  of  the  Member 
States'  implementation  reports  for  the  IED,  IPPCD,  SED  and  WID. 
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 

Court of Auditors, see http://www.eurosaiwgea.org/audits. 

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

 
                                                            
 
                                                            
 

interventions; 
the extent to which risk-based methods are used to 
direct  compliance  assurance  at  the  strategic  level 
and 
in  relation  to  critical  activities  outside  of 
industrial  installations,  especially  specific  problem-
areas  highlighted  elsewhere  in  this  Country  Report, 
i.e.  the  threats  to  protected  habitat  types  and 
species,  and  the  pressures  on  water  quality  from 
diffuse sources of pollution.  

  how  the  Estonian  authorities  ensure  a  targeted  and 
proportionate  response  to  different  types  of  non-
compliant  behaviour,  in  particular  in  relation  to 
serious breaches detected.  

Estonia  does  not  actively  participate  in  the  activities  of 
the European networks of environmental professionals.  

For the period 2007 to 2013, Estonia reported four cases 
of  environmental  damage,  including  imminent  threat  of 
damage,  and  four  pending  cases  handled  according  to 
the Environmental Liability Directive. Estonia follows the 
Directive  closely  and  has  established  a  record  of 
level. 
environmental  damage 
However,  there  is  scope  for  additional  measures  to 
improve  implementation.  The  country  does  not  have 
mandatory  financial  security  (to  pay  for  remediation 
when  an  operator  cannot)  and  it  is  not  evident  that 
insurance is either sufficiently available or taken out.  

incidents  at  national 

Suggested action 

  Improve 

transparency  on 

the  organisation  and 
functioning  of  compliance  assurance  and  on  how 
significant risks are addressed, as outlined above. 

  Encourage 

greater  participation  of 

competent 

authorities in environmental compliance networks.  

  Step  up  efforts 

in  the 

implementation  of  the 
Environmental  Liability  Directive  (ELD)  with  proactive 
initiatives, in particular by drafting national guidance. It 
should  moreover  take  further  steps  to  ensure  an 
effective system of financial security for environmental 
liabilities  (so  that  operators  not  only  have  insurance 
cover available to them but actually take it out).  

Public participation and access to justice 

The  Aarhus  Convention,  related  EU  legislation  on  public 
participation and environmental impact assessment, and 
the case-law of the Court of Justice require  that citizens 
and  their  associations  should  be  able  to  participate  in 
decision-making  on  projects  and  plans  and  should  enjoy 
effective environmental access to justice. 

Citizens  can  more  effectively  protect  the  environment  if 
they can rely on the three "pillars" of the Convention on 
Access  to  Information,  Public  Participation  in  Decision-
making  and  Access  to  Justice  in  Environmental  Matters 
("the  Aarhus  Convention").  Public  participation  in  the 
administrative  decision  making  process  is  an  important 
element to ensure that the authority takes its decision on 

Estonia  23 

the  best  possible  basis.  The  Commission  intends  to 
examine compliance with mandatory public participation 
requirements more systematically at a later stage. 

Access  to  justice  in  environmental  matters  is  a  set  of 
guarantees  that  allows  citizens  and  their  associations  to 
challenge  acts  or  omissions  of  the  public  administration 
before  a  court. 
for  decentralised 
It 
implementation of EU environmental law. 

is  a 

tool 

For  each  Member  State,  two  crucial  elements  for 
effective  access  to  justice  have  been  systematically 
reviewed:  the  legal  standing  for  the  public,  including 
NGOs and the extent to which prohibitive costs represent 
a barrier. 

for 

the  public 

legal  standing 

The judicial review procedures in environmental cases in 
Estonia  appear  sufficiently  effective  and  provide  the 
take 
necessary 
environmental  cases  to  the  courts.  The  costs  of 
administrative  court  proceedings,  though,  may  cause  a 
problem.  The  established  loser-pays  principle  and  the 
lack  of  a  restricted  legal  aid  system  for  NGOs  may 
prevent  that  relevant  environmental  cases  are  taken  to 
the court by the public97. 

to 

Suggested action 

  Take the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  the  costs 
of legal challenges involving EU environmental law are 
not  prohibitively  expensive,  and 
line  with  the 
law  as  well  as  the  Aarhus 
requirements  of  EU 
Convention. 

in 

Access 
evidence 

to 

information,  knowledge  and 

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 
the environment, including on how Union environmental 
law is being implemented. 

authorities 

public 
the  public, 

It is of crucial importance to public authorities, the public 
and business that environmental information is shared in 
an  efficient  and  effective  way.  This  covers  reporting  by 
active 
and 
businesses 
dissemination 
through 
to 
electronic means. 
The  Aarhus  Convention98,  the  Access  to  Environmental 
Information  Directive99  and  the 
INSPIRE  Directive100 
together  create  a  legal  foundation  for  the  sharing  of 
environmental  information  between  public  authorities 
and with the public. They also represent the green part of 

and 
increasingly 

97  See  study  on  access  to  justice  in  environmental  matters  in 

2012/2013 

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 

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia 

 
                                                            
Estonia  24 

to  other  public  authorities  and  the  public  through  the 
digital services foreseen in the INSPIRE Directive. 

instruments 

create  obligations 

the  ongoing  EU  e-Government  Action  Plan101.  The  first 
two 
to  provide 
information  to  the  public,  both  on  request  and  actively. 
The  INSPIRE  Directive  is  a  pioneering  instrument  for 
electronic  data-sharing  between  public  authorities  who 
can  vary  in  their  data-sharing  policies,  e.g.  on  whether 
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.  

accessibility  of 
State, 
For  each  Member 
environmental data (based on what the INSPIRE Directive 
envisages)  as  well  as  data-sharing  policies  ('open  data') 
have been systematically reviewed102.  

the 

the 

lack  of 

identifies 

implementation  of 
Estonia's  performance  on 
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  report103  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 
specific 
competences  and  resources  as  main  raison  for  existing 
implementation  delays  impeding  the  access  to  spatial 
data.  
Assessments  of  monitoring  reports104  issued  by  Estonia 
and the spatial information that Estonia has published on 
the  INSPIRE  geoportal105  indicate  that  not  all  spatial 
information 
and 
for 
implementation of EU environmental law has been made 
available  or  is  accessible.  The  larger  part  of  this  missing 
spatial  information  consists  of  the  environmental  data 
required  to  be  made  available  under  the  existing 
reporting 
EU 
environmental law.  

and  monitoring 

regulations 

evaluation 

needed 

the 

of 

Suggested action 

  Critically  review  the  effectiveness  of  its  data  policies 
into 
taking 

'best  practices' 

them, 

and  amend 
consideration. 

  Identify and document all spatial data sets required for 
the  implementation  of  environmental  law,  and  make 
the  data  and  documentation  at  least  accessible  'as  is' 

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 

Environmental Implementation Report – Estonia