EU Member State experience in
implementing the Espoo Convention
ESTONIA
21 September 2007, Moscow
Basic documents and legal acts




The law on ratification of the Espoo
Convention (2000)
The Environmental Impact Assessment and
Environmental Management System Act
(2005)
Agreement between Estonia and Latvia on
EIA in a Transboundary Context (1997)
Agreement between Estonia and Finland on
EIA in a Transboundary Context (2002)
The joint commissions on EIA


The Estonian-Latvian and the EstonianFinnish joint commissions are established.
The tasks of the commissions are:
–
to oversee and review the implementation of the
Agreements
to establish, where appropriate ad hoc working
groups for overseeing and following up
transboundary EIA’s in individual cases
to develop further the mandatory information to be
included in the notification
to discuss practical matters how to carry out EIAs in
a transboundary context
etc
The materials/information from
Estonia

To Latvia:
SEA of Valga comprehensive plan
SEA of Pedele River Recreation plan

To Finland, Sweden and Russia:
EIA of renovation of the power units in Estonian
and Baltic Power Plants (to Finland and Russia)
EIA of construction of five offshore windfarms near
to Hiiumaa (to Finland and Sweden)
EIA and SEA of an energy complex development
project in Narva (to Finland and Russia)
The notifications/materials sent to
Estonia (1)

From Latvia:
–

EIA of a sand quarry in the rural territory of Ainaži
(2006)
EIA of the dolomite mining site „Ape“ (2006)
EIA of the dolostone mining project in Aluksnes
(2007)
From Sweden:
–
EIA for the Encapsulation plant and the Final
repository for spent nuclear fuel (2006)
The notifications/materials sent to
Estonia (2)

From Luxembourg:
–

SEA Screening Report of Draft ESPON 2013
Operation Programme (2006)
From Finland:
–
SEA of the forthcoming Central Baltic cross-border
development programme 2007-2013 (2006)
EIA for the Extension of the Olkiluoto nuclear
power plant (2007)
EIA for supplementing the Loviisa nuclear power
plant (2007)
The notifications/materials sent to
Estonia (3)

From Lithuania:
EIA of construction of the nuclear power plant in
Lithuania (2007)

From 5 states:
EIA of the Nord Stream pipeline (2006)
The experience of one transboundary
EIA case
The proposed activities:


renovation of the power unit No 8 in
Estonian Power Plant
renovation of the power unit No 11 in
Baltic Power Plant
The proposed activities
During the planned activities:
 to replace pulverised oil shale boilers with
the new more effective and
environmentally sound circulating
fluidised bed boilers

to replace old worn boilers with new
effective electrostatic precipitators
The necessity of the proposed activities




relation with international agreements
national policies
repowering and modernisation contract
of Narva Power Plants
Ida-Viru County Development Plan
Roles in EIA



Developer – Estonian Energy Ltd (Narva
Power Plants Ltd)
Decision-maker/supervisor – the Ministry
of the Environment (MoE)
EIA expert - Tallinn Pedagogical
University, Institute of Ecology and expert
group
The transboundary EIA procedure (1)

Narva Power Plants Ltd submitted
environmental memorandums to MoE

MoE initiated the transboundary EIA

Preparation of the EIA programme

The notification to Finland and Russia
The transboundary EIA procedure (2)


Public hearing of the programme
Finland confirmed of its participation in
the EIA and sent comments on the
programme

Amendments to the EIA programme

Adoption of the programme by the MoE
The transboundary EIA procedure (3)


Preparation of the EIA report
Report in Estonian, summary also in
English and Russian

Draft EIA report sent to Finland

Comments on the report from Finland

Public hearing of the report
The transboundary EIA procedure (4)


Amendments to the EIA report
Approval of the EIA report and
environmental requirements by MoE

Final decision and environmental permits

Amended EIA report to Finland
Good experiences

Early notification

The EIA programme in English



Comments sent to the draft EIA report
before public hearing in Estonia
Informal contacts by e-mail
Amended EIA report was sent to Finland
afterwards
Main difficulties



Very tight time schedule
Not enough time was given to Finland for
public hearings – only one month
Only the Summary of the EIA report was
translated into English
Lessons learned



The notification should be sent as early as
possible
More time is needed to get comments
from the Affected Party – at least two
months
All the EIA documentation should be
translated