BirdLife Estonia vs. Environmental Board

In 2020, BirdLife Estonia (Estonian Ornithological Society) filed a claim to the Tallinn Administrative Court, seeking to annul a 30-year permit for extracting peat that the Environmental Board had recently issued to OÜ Hiiu Turvas. The extraction site (Elbu V) is a habitat for the European golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria) and dunlin (Calidris alpina schinzii), both of whom are endangered species, and destroying the raised bog would also harm other species. According to the EU bird directive (2009/147/EC), the state must employ special measures for the protection of these two species. Furthermore, the site includes a priority habitat as defined by the EU nature directive (92/43/EEC) whose condition in Estonia is unfavourable. Before issuing the permit, the Environmental Board did not assess the extent to which peat extraction would damage this habitat nor its impact on the status of this type of habitat in Estonia. The Tallinn Administrative Court and Tallinn Circuit Court did not satisfy the claim nor the appeal. In March 2024, the Supreme Court of Estonia satisfied the claim and annulled the peat extraction permit. The Court ruled that by destroying a raised bog – that is a natural habitat and the most important type of land carbon sink – and causing carbon emissions, peat extraction causes notable environmental nuisances. Avoiding these impacts was to be considered a national interest in the meaning of the Earth’s Crust Act. These nuisances could only be allowed in case they are proportional to the benefit received from peat extraction. The Court emphasised that when issuing a permit, the Board must take into account the targets set out in strategic development documents. In this case, the Court found that the Board should have assessed the impact of peat extraction on targets to increase carbon storage in bogs that are to be achieved primarily by restoring degraded wetlands and avoiding further draining bogs. The Board had also ignored targets to improve the status of raised bogs as habitats and to ensure the protection of all naturally occurring species in Estonia. These targets are an expression of the principles of sustainable use of natural resources and sustainable development that are stipulated in paragraphs 5 and 53 of the Estonian Constitution. Furthermore, the Court explained the grounds for refusal of the permit set out in § 52 (1) (7) of the Environmental Code Act, according to which the Board must refuse the permit if in the course of the proposed activity, natural resources would clearly be used impractically. The Court stated that in the assessment of the practicality of the use of natural resources, the Board must not only consider whether the extracted resource has some kind of practical purpose (e.g. extracted peat can be used in agriculture), but whether the use of the resource as a whole, including the degradation of a natural ecosystem that provides many ecosystem services (including carbon capture and storage), is not wasteful. The Court also ruled that the destruction of such a raised bog that is not under protection and where no protected species or habitats are found can still be considered a significant environmental nuisance that must be avoided according to the General Part of the Environmental Code Act. The Board had not determined whether destroying the habitat by peat extraction constitutes a significant environmental nuisance that must be avoided.