Tõnis Mölder: Dangerous economic activity at sea needs to be taxed

Mr. Mölder, why did you accept the portfolio in a situation where it was clear things could get ugly?

It was not an easy decision to make and I took a fair bit of time to think it over. I realize there are a lot of fires in the administrative area that need to be put out. Looking at the coalition agreement, the area is among the most ambitious. EU subsidies will allow us to really get something done in this field in the coming years.

In what condition was the ministry handed over to you?

It is too early to say after a week and a half in office. I have scratched the surface at best. I do not yet know what lies beneath. I dare presume and hope that everyone in this building has made decisions based on the interests of the environment. At the same time, we need to admit that different parties have sported different political approaches.

You were recently given startling news that large quantities of hazardous oil products are being transferred from ship to ship near the island of Pakri and a nature preserve. You reacted swiftly and asked for these activities to be ceased until environmental safety can be ensured. What needs to be ensured in a situation where we could just put an end to the practice for good? There have been proposals to only allow STS transfer of hazardous materials in ports.

First of all, we need a clear overview of what has been done over the past 12-18 months and what has perhaps been left undone. What I want to know is how we should amend regulations or legislation to allow these activities on certain conditions or if we decide not to allow them on the open sea, how to regulate them in ports. It seems that a balance between tax policy and the environment has not been sought.

Could this activity have followed someone’s personal and potentially financial interests?

I have no facts to suggest anything at this time. My role is to take another look at the situation and make sure we are not sending out a signal that people can benefit off the Estonian environment and economy. That is not sustainable in the long run.

And yet, a dangerous situation was allowed to develop in Estonian waters for which the ministry’s Deputy Secretary General Harry Liiv is responsible, even though he does not see it that way. He hasn’t even issued an apology and finds that things are just peachy. Should Harry Liiv resign?

It is very difficult for me to assess matters pertaining to a single person today. We need to determine whether it was a result of miscommunication or conscious activity. A political party has asked law enforcement to assess the situation. Let us wait for that assessment, which is when we will be able to provide more accurate explanations.

What could be the grounds for Mr. Liiv to remain in office – damage to reputation has already been done?

Of course. The situation is far from positive. Again, the natural environment needs to be safeguarded. I understand that these STS (ship-to-ship) areas need to be maintained to some extent, while it is clear that it is not good if they overlap with Natura areas. That said, we also need to determine whether ports are a good place to do it.

Are companies prohibited from transferring hazardous cargo for the duration of the investigation?

I have asked for these activities to be ceased from next week for as long as we can sort out the legal framework. There have been ten such activities between 2019 and 2021 and there will be another in the near future. No amendment is made overnight as hurrying could result in new mistakes that we do not want.

Are we talking about charging hefty environmental fees?

Companies that wish to engage in such activity could and should compensate the state for expenses and potential environmental damage. There hasn’t been an accident yet, while we should also not wait for one to happen. We need to minimize the risk and allow STS transfers only if there is sufficient reason.

On what level is supervision of our economic waters and what are the potential risks?

Supervision is handled by the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) and the Environmental Authority. I believe there is room for improvement when it comes to this cooperation. I believe the PPA has been a great partner for us and that cooperation needs to be taken to the next level.

Another area where you likely anticipated problems is forestry. We find another ministry deputy secretary general – Marku Lamp – whose resignation has been sought by various environmental organizations at the heart of this issue. Marku Lamp failed to perform the task of completing Estonia’s new forestry development plan. He also allowed a lie to be included in the previous plan according to which cutting 12-15 million solid cubic meters annually is sustainable. Is Lamp really suited to continue serving as deputy secretary general of the Ministry of the Environment?

This is the second time I have been asked about the ministry’s human resources policy. As I said, it is too soon to gauge any employee’s suitability for office. I am going to the ministry a clean slate, believing that it employs the best practicians, professionals who care about what they do and base it on officials’ ethics, Estonian laws and the aim of protecting nature.

As concerns forestry and the development plan, no rapid solutions exist. We need to get a better picture of where to take the process in the coalition first.

The coalition agreement says that we need to curb logging pressure on state forests. What does that mean?

It means that political expectations for dividends from the State Forest Management Center (RMK) have perhaps not always been proportional to environmental goals. A slight conflict between taking care of and cutting down forests has been built into the RMK from the first. We need to find a balance between those two goals. It is a major challenge and I trust scientists and experts more than politicians in this matter.

I am very glad that Marek Metslaid has decided to join my team. He is the director of the Forestry Institute of the Estonian University of Life Sciences, one of the top scientists in this field and his input will play an instrumental role for me.

You can cut logging volumes with a regulation. Would you do it?

I will wait for more input in this matter. The decision is not up to me and requires greater consensus in the coalition, while the coalition agreement indeed makes mention of lowering logging pressure on state forests, including by dialing back felling volumes – these are the initial goals.

Should the practice of classifying forestry data be ended and base data shared with all Estonian scientists?

There has been controversy and the Data Protection Inspectorate has brought it to the ministry’s attention. I know that a relevant bill is in Riigikogu proceedings. We will see where this political process is headed. Publishing forestry data for scientific purposes is justified.

What will be your next steps for achieving a logging agreement?

In the coming weeks, I would like to get an overview of activities pursued over the last few years. How to move forward with the development plan. Questions like the pace at which we will move forward, whether and how to involve the management group or create a new one should get a clear framework in the coming months.