News

You don’t have to be a military expert to understand the strategic role of logistics in the defence system. If the necessary amount of equipment and ammunition doesn’t reach the right place at the right time, there’s little point in discussing what comes next.

According to the recently approved national designated spatial plan for the defence industry park, it will be developed in Ermistu, Pärnu County, focusing on the production of ammunition of various sizes, from cartridges to projectiles weighing tens of kilograms. If the Ermistu area turns out to be too small, an alternative site is planned in the Kiviõli region.

Currently, it is unclear how the logistics of such large-scale production are planned to function. Without a functioning railway transport solution, the potential of the defence industry park will inevitably be more limited than expected, writes Mart Kägu, attorney at RASK Attorneys-at-Law.

The military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz aptly noted that “transport and supplies are so obvious a need that they are often overlooked in theory.” Although the designated spatial plan for the defence industry park addresses logistical issues, one sentence stands out: “Freight transport and logistics solutions are not yet definitively determined at this stage of the environmental impact assessment or planning process, as they depend on specific developers and future infrastructure development.” The current approach focuses mainly on road transport and ports, justified by existing practice. Interestingly, it is noted that freight transport will not take place at night, but during regular working hours.

Current practice forsees that the necessary ammunition is delivered by trucks, for example from Spain and Germany. The provisions of the Weapons Act also assume that transport occurs mainly by road. True, ports are also intended to be used, but even there, the goods are primarily transported by trucks. Such a solution may suffice to meet today’s needs, but when it comes to profitable ammunition production or a real wartime situation, the picture changes drastically.

According to the plan, there will be approximately 1,700 trips to and from the defence industry park per year, about four to five per day. The trucks are expected to head either to the Port of Paldiski, 150 kilometres away, or the Port of Muuga, 177 kilometres away, as the Port of Pärnu, located 34 km away, is largely unsuitable for transporting hazardous goods. The exact routes will be determined by the carriers, but it is highly likely that at least part of the traffic will move along the already heavily congested Tallinn–Pärnu highway. What remains unclear is the basis for the traffic forecast and whether such a volume would be sufficient for an ammunition manufacturer to remain profitable.

It is no secret that Estonia’s ammunition demand alone is insufficient for manufacturers – it is vital to produce and sell large quantities abroad. The principle is simple: the more, the better. It is also possible that in the future, production will partly take place under subscontracting arrengements or other forms of cooperation with major European manufactures.

However, the overall picture is clear: without reliable logistical capacity, large-scale production loses its meaning. This is especially true for Estonia, located on the periphery of Europe, which must be able to offer seamless logistics at a competitive price. No one wants to order products whose delivery involves inconvenience and additional costs.

A single truck with a trailer can carry about 27 tons of cargo, but for explosives, the permitted limit is 16 tons. Considering that a train can carry up to 1,000 tons without issue, the conclusion is simple: transporting the same amount of goods would require either one train or at least 30 trucks.

These numbers make it necessary to take a more serious look at railway transport. The defence industry park is expected to begin production as early as 2026 and reach full capacity by 2027. Although the special plan does mention railways, it does so primarily in a future-oriented context, once Rail Baltica has been completed (presumably in 2030).

This raises an inevitable question: can we really afford to simply wait for Rail Baltica to be finished? If we want the defence industry park to become operational as soon as possible, such waiting seems unrealistic. On one hand, ammunition manufacturers need reliable and large-scale logistical solutions, but on the other, we must ask what kind of rail transport capacity we will even have left in five years.

It is worth remembering that there already exists a functioning rail branch suitable for freight in the Pärnu direction. Likewise, all major deep-water ports – Paldiski, Muuga, and Sillamäe – are connected to operational rail networks.

According to the Estonian Railway Yearbook, around three million tons of goods were transported on Estonian railway infrastructure in 2024, which is 40% less than the previous year. The company’s sales revenue reached 28 million euros, while operating expenses totalled 70 million euros. In 2024, five transport companies operated on public railways, most of which were local operators carrying only specific types of cargo.

It is no exaggeration to say that today’s rail freight annual volume equals what used to be transported in a single month during “good times.” The situation has become especially difficult over the past five years, as both the COVID-19 crisis and Russia’s war in Ukraine have effectively halted eastbound transport.

We have reached a point where the importance of rail transportation has become highly secondary, even as plans are being made to transport large volumes of goods, including defence products, by rail in the future (via Rail Baltica and the planned Pärnu freight terminal). It would be naïve to expect that if current trends continue, we could quickly and fully utilise Rail Baltica’s potential once it’s completed. The development of rail transport requires a qualified workforce, which cannot be created overnight.

Currently, a large portion of the railway sector’s workforce has been laid off, with only a critical core retained in the hope that the situation will improve. However, railway rolling stock requires very specific technical maintenance and repair expertise. These skills still exist in Estonia, but it’s worth remembering that all railway operators are private companies operating under market principles. If losses grow too large and the light at the end of the tunnel turns out to be an oncoming train, they will simply pack up and leave.

There are other ways to make a profit in the railway sector besides freight transport. For example, before its privatisation, AS Operail earned 99% of its profit from wagon leasing, while freight transport contributed only 1%. Therefore, it’s entirely fair to ask: what kind of rail freight capacity will we even have left in five years?

Few would argue that we need even more freight trucks on our roads, especially those carrying explosives. It is clear that the more freight we can shift from roads to railways, the safer traffic becomes. Road transport certainly has its role and function, but much of the freight currently moved by road could at least partially be transported by train, such as timber or crushed stone. The issue of lowering railway infrastructure charges has been on the agenda for years. Reduced fees could be one measure to help revitalise domestic rail transport.

It is also often overlooked that rail is one of the most environmentally friendly modes of transport. While the transport sector as a whole generates about a quarter of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions, railway accounts for only 0.4%, compared to 72% for road transport. Even diesel locomotives are nearly five times more environmentally efficient than road transport.

Increasing the volume of rail freight is therefore crucial for developing sustainable transport and a key part of Europe’s overall emissions reduction plan. Moreover, rail transport is reliable, less dependent on weather conditions, and carries far lower risks than road transport, especially when it comes to accidents. So why not make full use of this potential?

Estonian rail transport currently operates under the SMGS Convention, which covers the former Soviet republics and Far Eastern countries. In contrast, rail transport in Western Europe is regulated by the COTIF Convention and its CIM appendix.

The question now is: under which framework will we operate in the future? Both conventions regulate, among other things, the technical requirements for trains and wagons. In simple terms, the problem is that under SMGS, we are accountable to Moscow, meaning certain data must be transmitted there, which clearly poses a security risk for defence-related transport.

In practice, Estonian and Latvian operators have tried to mitigate this by agreeing to apply the COTIF framework to specific shipments. However, this is only a partial solution, as questions remain about which framework governs the rest of the operations, such as maintenance and repair of rolling stock. It is also worth noting that the SMGS system uses a track gauge of 1520 mm, while COTIF uses 1435 mm.

We cannot operate under one system today, switch to another tomorrow, and then back again the day after. In the current situation, there are essentially two possible directions. The first is to make a political decision about which convention Estonia’s railway system will follow in the future. The second is to conduct a thorough legal analysis to determine whether and how we could continue without completely severing ties with SMGS, which would allow us to maintain freight capacity toward Central Asia. These are serious questions that require clear answers today.

Estonia wants to be part of and closely integrated with the European defence industry. Railways are a key link in that system. A lack of capability in this area would create problems for our defence industry, leaving essential support and assistance dependent mainly on roads or ports, both of which could be vulnerable to enemy fire.

Given the situation, it is time to clearly decide how we intend to utilise the potential of railways in the future, both from a security and an economic standpoint.