Keskkonnainfo kättesaadavusest ja otsustamises osalemise võimalustest Eestis

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The report evaluates Estonia's implementation of the Aarhus Convention's three pillars: access to information, public participation, and access to justice. It finds that while legal frameworks are generally in place and information quality is high, practical implementation varies. Access to information is stronger than public participation, which often occurs too late in the decision-making process to be substantive. Access to justice is recognized by courts, allowing environmental NGOs to challenge decisions. The report recommends clearer procedures for emergency notifications, better accessibility of corporate pollution data, and more inclusive, early-stage public consultations.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Environmental information accessibility in Estonia is generally better than public participation in decision-making. High-quality and up-to-date information is regularly produced, particularly regarding national environmental status reports and air quality monitoring.
  • Access to corporate pollution data is significantly restricted. Government officials often treat such data as business secrets, making it difficult to obtain from state agencies, although it can often be obtained directly from the companies themselves.
  • There is a lack of targeted efforts to include ethnic minorities, specifically Russian speakers, in environmental decision-making. No separate consultations were held for these groups in the analyzed cases, and working documents were not translated into Russian.
  • Estonian courts recognize the right of environmental organizations to seek judicial redress. This was demonstrated in cases involving the restructuring of shale oil energy and the Jämejala park detailed plan, where the Supreme Court acknowledged the right to appeal.
  • Legal requirements for notifying the public during and after environmental emergencies are insufficient. While immediate notification often occurs via media, there is no statutory obligation to conduct or publish long-term health and environmental impact studies following an accident.

Cite the original document

APA
Poltimäe, H., Kuldna, P., Merisaar, M., & Kolk, T. (2004). Keskkonnainfo kättesaadavusest ja otsustamises osalemise võimalustest Eestis. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/4374.pdf
Chicago
Poltimäe, Helen, Piret Kuldna, Maret Merisaar, and Tim Kolk. Keskkonnainfo kättesaadavusest ja otsustamises osalemise võimalustest Eestis. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2004. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/4374.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Poltimäe |first1=Helen |last2=Kuldna |first2=Piret |last3=Merisaar |first3=Maret |last4=Kolk |first4=Tim |title=Keskkonnainfo kättesaadavusest ja otsustamises osalemise võimalustest Eestis |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=2004 |url=https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/4374.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{poltime2004keskkonnainfo, author = {Poltimäe, Helen and Kuldna, Piret and Merisaar, Maret and Kolk, Tim}, title = {{Keskkonnainfo kättesaadavusest ja otsustamises osalemise võimalustest Eestis}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2004}, url = {https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/4374.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated