Eesti ökoloogilise maksureformi realiseerumine

This report by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) evaluates the implementation of Estonia's Ecological Tax Reform (ÖMR), established in 2005. The analysis finds that while some fiscal goals were met—particularly regarding energy and electricity excise duties—the reform largely failed to reverse negative environmental trends or change consumer and producer behavior by 2018.

• The Ecological Tax Reform (ÖMR) has seen limited success in reversing negative environmental trends between 2005 and 2017. Key indicators such as direct material input (DMI), energy intensity, and the number of passenger cars continued to rise, with Estonia remaining among the worst performers in the European Union for several of these metrics.
• Energy product and electricity taxes were the most successfully implemented part of the reform. Excise duties for motor fuels, heating fuels, and electricity were all increased compared to 2005 levels. However, the goal of achieving a 20% share of electricity from combined heat and power (CHP) plants by 2020 is unlikely to be met, as the share only rose from approximately 14% in 2005 to 15% in 2016.
• Transport tax proposals were largely ignored, with very few goals realized. While employer-provided car benefits were restricted and a road use fee for heavy goods vehicles was introduced, proposals for a general vehicle tax, congestion charges, or taxes based on emission levels for trucks were not implemented.
• Pollution and natural resource charges saw mixed results. Fees for water and waste pollution were significantly increased to encourage water conservation and proper waste disposal. However, CO2 pollution charges remained low (2 euros per ton), and goals to increase fees for peat reserves and oil shale waste (fly ash and bottom ash) were not met.
• The report concludes that the Estonian government prioritized the fiscal benefits of environmental taxes over their behavioral or ecological goals. Changes were primarily implemented where they provided a broad tax base for state revenue rather than where they specifically targeted the reduction of environmental burdens or the promotion of sustainability.
• Despite the tax reforms, the role of oil shale in electricity production remained dominant. While the percentage of electricity from oil shale decreased from 93% in 2005 to 84% in 2016, the absolute volume of oil shale used for electricity actually increased from 9,518 GWh to 10,204 GWh over the same period.

APA

Poltimäe, H., & Peterson, K. (2018). Eesti ökoloogilise maksureformi realiseerumine. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/eesti-okoloogilise-maksureformi-realiseerumine-23.01.2019.pdf

Chicago

Poltimäe, Helen, and Kaja Peterson. Eesti ökoloogilise maksureformi realiseerumine. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2018. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/eesti-okoloogilise-maksureformi-realiseerumine-23.01.2019.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Poltimäe |first1=Helen |last2=Peterson |first2=Kaja |title=Eesti ökoloogilise maksureformi realiseerumine |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=December 2018 |url=https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/eesti-okoloogilise-maksureformi-realiseerumine-23.01.2019.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{poltime2018eesti, author = {Poltimäe, Helen and Peterson, Kaja}, title = {{Eesti ökoloogilise maksureformi realiseerumine}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2018}, month = dec, url = {https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/eesti-okoloogilise-maksureformi-realiseerumine-23.01.2019.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }