Alpine bluegrass is a grass species that has survived in Estonia since the Ice Age, growing mainly on alvars and in limestone crevices. Reaching heights of 10 to 30 centimeters, it is a Category II protected species in Estonia. Despite its unassuming appearance, the plant has sparked a major dispute, cast a shadow over one of Estonia's largest private residential developments and even prompted a criminal investigation.
At the center of the controversy is Merko's Lahekalda development in Tallinn where conservationists accuse the construction company of damaging protected Alpine bluegrass plants during construction work.
Conservationist Indrek Hein said large areas containing the protected plant had been stripped of vegetation. Indrek Tarto, head of Merko's real estate business, confirmed that the investigation concerns soil deposited within a protected habitat, allegedly causing environmental damage.
According to Rocco Ots, head of the Environmental Board's investigation department, the damage was discovered by a botanist who had previously surveyed the area and subsequently alerted the authorities.
The Lahekalda development is remarkable in several respects, starting with its location. In the early 2000s, Merko and what is now Nordecon acquired 17 hectares of land just a 15-minute drive from downtown Tallinn on the border between Maarjamäe and Lasnamäe, directly atop a limestone escarpment.
The companies envisioned a large residential neighborhood in the highly valuable area, for which the City of Tallinn had approved a detailed spatial plan.
Meelis Uustal, head of the environmental protection department at Tallinn's Urban Environment and Public Works Department, pointed out that the detailed spatial plan dates back approximately 30 years to a time when environmental impact assessments were not yet part of Estonia's planning practices.
Tarto stressed that the site was not a protected area when the development was initially planned.
Although the project had an approved detailed spatial plan and a building permit, construction was delayed by the original developer's financial difficulties.
In 2006, another obstacle emerged when alpine mouse-ear, a flowering plant belonging to Estonia's highest protection category, Category I, was discovered on the limestone escarpment. The area was placed under nature protection, bringing the billion-euro development to a halt.
The state appeared to face an obligation to purchase the property, but negotiations with Merko dragged on. In 2015, however, authorities unexpectedly concluded that the protected plant's habitat would not prevent construction.
"The area was under nature protection until 2015 when then-Environment Minister Mati Raidma removed its protected status by regulation just two weeks before leaving office. To this day, environmental organizations remain baffled as to how something like that could have happened," Hein said.
Tarto offered a different interpretation, saying the state had ultimately concluded that development could proceed without compromising the protected habitat, leading to the removal of the area's protected status.
Hein, who grew up in Maarjamäe, has closely followed the Lahekalda project from the beginning. He has opposed both the development and plans to build Tallinn Hospital nearby.
When Merko began construction in 2019, several local residents and conservationists objected. ETV's environmental program "Osoon" reported at the time that protected plants were being damaged by people walking over them and that construction was approaching the boundary of a protected habitat.
The first apartment buildings on Paekalda tänav were completed in 2020, which was also when residents began moving in.
To date, 12 buildings containing approximately 500 homes have been completed, representing about half the planned development. Under the detailed spatial plan approved nearly 30 years ago, Merko can build up to 25 apartment buildings containing more than 1,000 residential and commercial units.
Enters Alpine bluegrass
In 2021, as Merko was preparing to construct the seventh and eighth buildings, a botanist discovered another protected species in the area: Alpine bluegrass.
The botanist reported the discovery to environmental officials who recorded it on a map showing environmental restrictions. Merko maintains that the map was not publicly accessible and that the company was therefore unaware of the discovery at the time.
"At the time we deposited the soil there, we didn't know. We actually learned at a meeting in early 2022 that there were or had been some protected plants on that property," Tarto said.
Ots disputed that account, saying the Environmental Board had sent Merko a letter in 2021 notifying the company of the plants and proposing mitigation measures, including transplanting the Alpine bluegrass.
"So the claim that they didn't know is certainly not true," Ots said.
Hein was also aware of the plant's presence. When Merko began preparing the site for its ninth apartment building, at Paekalda tänav 15, it removed topsoil and deposited it on a neighboring plot containing Alpine bluegrass.
Hein reported the incident to the Environmental Board in 2022, prompting the agency to refer the case to prosecutors.
The resulting criminal investigation has dragged on, raising concerns about the statute of limitations.
"The case has now been with the Prosecutor's Office for more than four years, meaning it will soon be five years. Five years is significant in this case because crimes of this kind become time-barred after five years," Hein said.
Ots, however, considers the alleged violation relatively minor. Although he acknowledged a degree of disregard for environmental requirements, he suggested the problem could have been avoided had Merko clearly informed its subcontractors about the protected habitat's boundaries.
The financial stakes are relatively modest, but the case raises a broader question of principle.
According to Ots, Merko or one of its employees could face a fine of up to €9,000 if convicted. Tarto emphasized that nobody wants a criminal conviction, particularly when the company maintains it was unaware of the protected plants.
The case could also set a precedent as it would reportedly be the first time a real estate developer in Estonia has faced criminal charges for violating nature conservation regulations.
Veteran real estate expert Peep Sooman said conflicts between developers and conservationists are common, but most are resolved through negotiations before reaching the courts.
"There's absolutely nothing wrong with someone speaking up for nature, as long as it takes the form of a dialogue. One side speaks the language of concrete, the other speaks the language of nature," Sooman said.
Estonia has seen several high-profile disputes in which residents and environmental groups have opposed development projects because of concerns about protected species or habitats.
In Tartu, a proposed development in Ihaste's Hipodroomi Forest has been stalled for decades because of protected orchids. Plans for a pulp mill near Tartu were abandoned amid concerns about the condition of the Emajõgi River.
In Viimsi, the controversial Tammelaane development was halted following a Supreme Court ruling that found the project would cause excessive damage to wildlife corridors.
However, according to Sooman and an investigation by ETV's "Pealtnägija," Lahekalda appears to be the first major real estate development in a decade to face the prospect of criminal charges over nature conservation violations.
"When we're talking about development projects outside Tallinn, or outside cities in general, I'd venture to say that between a third and half of developers encounter nature conservation issues. They simply don't make it into the public eye because the issues are resolved in cooperation with local governments," Sooman said.
While criminal penalties have been imposed for illegal logging and poaching and smaller conservation violations have resulted in misdemeanor penalties, major real estate developments have generally reached compromises before disputes escalated into criminal proceedings.
Sooman said developers can often accommodate protected species by adjusting building locations, rerouting roads or making other relatively minor changes to their plans.
"You can't tell a flying squirrel to get out of a tree and move somewhere else. But agreements of some kind are still possible. Perhaps the buildings can be moved slightly. A road originally planned in the detailed spatial plan can instead be routed through another corner of the property. Maybe the road ends up being 50 meters longer and therefore a little more expensive, but the overall amount of development can be preserved," he said.
"The important thing is not to simply start ranting on social media, complaining to the press or taking pointless cases to court when there's no good reason to do so."
Uustal cited bats as one example of how conservation requirements affect construction in Tallinn. In the Astangu area, developers must consider lighting inside buildings because it can disturb bats. Similar requirements apply to smaller projects, including the renovation of parks, cemeteries and outdoor lighting.
Sooman also pointed to the former Hansapank building on Liivalaia tänav where one corner was designed with a zigzag shape to preserve a large oak tree that would otherwise have been felled.
At the same time, environmental protection sometimes gives way to other public interests, particularly national defense and infrastructure.
For example, the Environmental Board authorized the destruction of Eastern pasqueflowers, a Category II protected species, during the development of the Nursipalu military training area.
Ots said national defense considerations, especially in the current security environment, can outweigh the need to preserve individual protected plants.
Similarly, construction of a new road through the Saatse Boot resulted in the destruction of Eastern pasqueflowers and sand pinks.
"We all understand that we need to build that road there. Conservationists shouldn't take an overly harsh view of it because some things are unavoidable," Ots said.
At Lahekalda, however, conservationists remain determined to challenge the development.
As the criminal investigation into the alleged destruction of Alpine bluegrass dragged on, the NGO Chamber of Nature Cooperation, whose leaders include Hein and Helina Tilk, challenged a building permit issued by the City of Tallinn in court.
Tilk rejected suggestions that the conservationists' objections were unreasonable, arguing that their actions are grounded in existing legislation and that environmental laws must apply equally to everyone.
"If we had nothing to support our claims, if we'd simply made everything up, then perhaps some people could call us cranks. But in reality, we're acting within the law and we're saying that if laws exist, they should apply to everyone," Tilk said.
Hein also criticized what he sees as inconsistent enforcement by the Environmental Board. He argued that the agency can be extremely strict when private property owners seek permission to remove one or two trees, yet appeared reluctant to intervene when a developer allegedly damaged a protected plant.
Tilk emphasized the ecological importance of the Maarjamäe limestone escarpment.
"This is the Maarjamäe limestone escarpment, which is incredibly valuable in the context of Estonia as a whole. And if we don't protect even this area, then, excuse me, what exactly are we protecting?" she said.
The conservationists' central demand concerns the environmental impact assessment of the Lahekalda development.
Because the original detailed spatial plan was approved in the 1990s, when such assessments were not required, no environmental impact assessment was conducted for the project.
The City of Tallinn has now also concluded that the next phases of Merko's development will require a separate environmental impact assessment.
"Building new apartment buildings will certainly trigger the initiation of an environmental impact assessment," Uustal said.
Merko does not directly oppose the requirement, but Tarto believes the company is being subjected to a double standard.
"Of course, we feel there should be equal treatment. I've read the environmental impact assessment for Tallinn Hospital and it concluded that even though, unlike us, they plan to excavate three stories underground, for example, and essentially build over the entire property, the project would have no significant impact on nature. That somehow seems unfair," Tarto said.
Sooman, meanwhile, stressed that development and environmental protection should not be treated as mutually exclusive.
"That doesn't mean we should flatten the planet and cover it in asphalt. That would be rather foolish, too. The real estate business isn't the be-all and end-all of the world. Everything needs to be balanced," he said.
--