Ecology, Energy, Estonia, EU – Baltic States, Gas, Legislation, Transport

Estonian Fund for Nature and other environmental organisations involved in the case are currently analysing the court’s ruling and will then decide whether to submit a new complaint to the Supreme Court of Finland.

The environmental activists were stunned that the Vaasa Administrative Court in Finland justified its ruling with the argument that the gas pipe would bring Nord Stream AG 500 million euros of revenue per year. “We hope that the risks involved with the establishment of Nord Stream to the Baltic Sea environment and individuals’ health will not be realised,” said the CEO of the Estonian Fund for Nature Jüri-Ott Salm. “This will be determined in the course of further environmental screening,” he added.

Salm emphasised that underestimating such risks may become very painful lessons. For example, the likelihood of an oil spillage in the Gulf of Mexico was estimated to be zero.

Shortcomings in assessing Nord Stream’s environmental impact have also been pointed out by the Estonian Ministry of Environment. Several Estonia’s proposals on the necessity of extra research were not taken into account by the Finnish authorities, however.

The organisations that had turned to the Vaasa Administrative Court with the challenge against the permits were: the Uusimaa department of the Finnish Natural Protection Society, the Estonian Fund for Nature, the Estonian Naturalists’ Society, the Estonian Green Movement, the Estonian Students’ Environmental Protection Association Sorex, and others.

Estonian Fund for Nature together with the Estonian Green Movement also turned to the European Commission on January 6, 2010 with the official request to investigate whether the issuing of the Baltic Sea gas pipe was in compliance with the EU environmental directives. The request is currently being processed.