15.01.2024
Biologist and natural scientist and advisor to Climate Minister Kristen Michal, Aveliina Helm, Professor of Restoration Ecology at the University of Tartu says that despite Estonian skepticism, the importance of biodiversity has begun to be understood and discussed publicly. Just five years ago, biodiversity only crossed the news threshold in the gardening section.
How do our daily life choices affect biodiversity?
The next decade is of critical importance in addressing climate change and halting biodiversity loss. With current decisions, we are laying the foundation for whether future generations will have the same good living environment as we do. From a biodiversity perspective, one of the most important levers is nature conservation in its traditional way. It really works. In addition, everyone has the opportunity to make and demand decisions that protect nature everywhere. Nature is everywhere, including in the home garden, schoolyard, roadside, railway infrastructure, where we can make informed choices. Estonians' awareness has grown significantly, people have started to think about the importance of biodiversity, it has become part of the public debate. Just five years ago, biodiversity-related topics were relegated to the gardening category, now we are discussing choices and opportunities in a much broader circle. When the increase in awareness translates into action, both through traditional nature conservation and everyone's own nature conservation methods, we will be on the mountain.
Is Estonia an environmentally friendly or environmentally hostile country?
Still environmentally friendly. The question is how much of this is related to our sparse population and how much to meaningful activities. Sparse population, historical background and inspiring speakers for nature throughout the last century have favored the preservation of Estonian nature, now we need to share the wisdom to preserve it. The average Estonian thinks about nature more than a European. We go for walks in nature, fish, mushrooms and berries, we have many opportunities to move in nature. We are not afraid of nature, we are not afraid of naturalness. But we have areas of activity where the state and future of nature need more attention than before – agriculture, forestry, drainage, mining, general infrastructure planning.
Has the knowledge reached most Estonians by now that if nothing is changed immediately, our grandchildren will no longer have this planet to live on?
I think that has not been made clear enough. There is a strong sense of danger among scientists and in scientific literature regarding the climate crisis and biodiversity loss – the forecasts are very worrying and the situation is rather worse than the press tends to make it out to be. There is little sense of urgency in Estonia. Part of the reason for this is that Estonians are by nature quite expectant and rather skeptical. This is useful in many topics, but in this case it leaves us quite unprepared for the future.
Is the green revolution real or an illusion?
It is not an illusion, it is real. We have been waiting for a long time, but now we are already seeing and making choices that will help reduce the use of fossil fuels and emissions, create opportunities for the preservation and restoration of nature, and are turning to a better path in terms of land use. When it comes to green reform, it is important that this is not an abstract struggle with some hypothetical prospects, but a real and necessary action to preserve a safe and good living environment. The choice is whether we manage the processes ourselves or let external factors manage them. The necessary changes address things that are not worth crying over – polluting transport, environmental pollution related to oil shale, poorer health prospects for residents, energy-intensive housing, impoverished nature, polluted groundwater and surface water. A lot can be achieved by acting wisely – a cleaner and healthier living environment, safer and greener cities, housing with lower heating costs, energy security associated with distributed production, clean water, birds and insects.
Can a green revolution be achieved with Estonians who are cautious about everything?
Of course, in addition to the state's activities, preserving the climate and nature is also in the hands of every person and every company. We have a lot of low-hanging apples that are easy to pick. We don't have to think about climate change in a broader sense every time, but, for example, about the impact of nature and biodiversity, and do small and practical things that don't require large investments. Every company should proceed from its location, field of activity, and land use. Even this helps if you know how to recognize places of natural value around you so that you don't accidentally destroy them. There are also various guides for different target groups, from private garden owners to solar park and wind turbine builders. Even those people who don't have a company or their own piece of land can think beyond the usual tree-planting campaign, for example, by contributing to ecosystem restoration efforts and supporting organizations that have ecosystem improvement projects. A great example is the Alexela insect drive-in, which aims to support the promotion of biodiversity in communities.
What is greenwashing for you and is it a problem in Estonia?
Greenwashing exists, and there are examples globally of those causing major environmental damage trying to divert attention from their actual impact with minimal green steps. At the same time, the label of greenwashing is sometimes unjustifiably or too lightly applied to anyone who does something out of a desire to reduce their environmental footprint. It would be a shame if important steps – whether small or large – were to be missed as a result.
How do you assess the current transport system in Estonia? What changes are necessary?
I consider functioning public transport and safe streets for pedestrians and cyclists to be crucial. I wouldn't dare let my child ride on many of Tallinn's bike paths right now, and this could be a good standard for the future – whether a second-grade child can get to school safely and parents shouldn't just rely on good luck in that regard. People's travel routes and options should be much more diverse than today. Public transport must combine different solutions so that people can conveniently get from the train to the bus or tram. Smartness, efficiency and speed are still lacking, which are prerequisites for people to prefer public transport to cars in the city. An Estonian person is no different from a Dane or a Finn, who can appreciate public transport and who can also ride a bicycle. Of course, it must be subsidised and convenient. As long as the car is faster, more comfortable and cheaper, it will be difficult for anyone to find a reason to prefer public transport.
In Europe, the train is considered one of the most common modes of transport, but what about in Estonia?
We cannot be compared to the population density of Central Europe, but Estonian train traffic is also more to people's liking after the arrival of carrots. When talking about railways, the conversation tends to turn to how we pay for it and whether it is still worth it. When talking about roads, we do not make similar calculations - we consider creating opportunities for car travel and transport and the associated costs to be elementary.
Do you travel by train yourself and how often?
A lot, I work in both Tallinn and Tartu and I mostly travel between these two cities by train. Estonian trains are comfortable and I like train travel more than bus travel. I don't like driving on the road at all anymore, it seems dangerous, a lot of time is wasted, and I can't get any work done. If possible, I also travel by train in Europe, I appreciate the speed of the trains there and the density of the schedules, the connectivity of the big cities makes me jealous. Of course, everything is smaller here, but I feel that the advent of comfortable trains has made this mode of transportation popular.
If Estonia had a fast and convenient train connection to Europe, would you prefer the train to the plane and where would you travel?
A fast train connection to Europe could be essential. I believe there are many who would prefer a train to a plane – to work there, drink hot tea, look out the window, read books. I would definitely prefer it.
As a Tartu resident, I am already looking forward to the train connection between Tartu and Riga. If you can get from Tartu to Riga by train, then from there you can go to Europe via Rail Baltica. I would like to hope that a close train connection will keep Estonia at the center of Europe, not on the periphery. The more bridges we have to Europe – spiritual and physical, cultural and economic – the safer our future will be. Considering the hostility of the neighboring country, it is dangerous to remain on the periphery.
What would you say to those for whom Rail Baltica is not an environmentally friendly project, but on the contrary, an environmentally hostile one?
This is a project with a high environmental impact, requiring a significant amount of resources, including materials from the earth's crust, creating barriers to nature, and affecting water systems. Once we have decided to make this connection, it is crucial to look honestly at all the impacts and find the best ways to avoid and mitigate them.
Rail Baltica cannot be accused of doing little in this regard – there are no other projects in Estonia that have been so well thought out and researched. The construction or expansion of roads has not been approached with the same thoroughness, although the environmental impact is no less significant than that of railways.
In the case of Rail Baltica, there will be many mitigation measures that have not been used before in Estonia or have been used to a limited extent. All environmental aspects must be analyzed, nature conservation compensation measures must be found, habitats must be protected, and coherence must be ensured. If savings are sought in the project, they must not come at the expense of mitigation measures.
Of course, I would prefer that the route would go through denser residential areas rather than natural landscapes. For some reason, we tend to push many developments out of sight, away from settlements, whether they are railways, windmills, mines or other more unpleasant structures. The further away from settlements, the easier it is to conflict with nature conservation. It is fair to accommodate infrastructure or development made for our own needs close to us. We will have time to discuss how and what future landscapes to create. Land use must be smart – you don't have to fight against everything, but you don't have to praise everything either.
The article was first published in January 2024 in the Rail Baltica special issue Next Stop.
How did this story make you feel?
