Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

Regarding the topic of Rail Baltic, there is a strong need to form a separate investigative commission and ensure the transparency and purposefulness of how public funds are used. This stance is aimed at seeking consensus between the coalition and the opposition, and the criticism centers on deficiencies in budget transparency and potential corruption risks. The establishment of the investigative commission is presented as a policy- and sector-specific oversight tool, not merely a rhetorical step.

The discussion concerns cost-benefit analyses and the correctness of the state budget, presenting various figures (4 billion, 3.1 billion, 3.6 billion) and their differing applications, while highlighting the distinct methods used for measuring costs and revenues. It clarifies that costs represent actual cash expenditure, whereas revenues are defined as socio-economic gain, and references an assessment conducted by the National Audit Office and the tripartite (Estonia-Latvia-Lithuania) joint audit body. Attention is drawn to the fact that the cost-benefit analysis does not include all expenditure items (the cost of trains, subsidies), and expert financial and project accounting is essential for gaining the necessary in-depth knowledge.

The focus is a rapid, fact-based, and, where necessary, critical approach. It utilizes questions and examples to emphasize the need for transparency and oversight. The text is formal and argumentative, blending factual discussion with ethical demands, while striving to achieve consensus and avoid emotional rivalry.

Maintains consistent activity on the Rail Baltic issue, emphasizing that they have been trying to get a response for a month, and calls for the establishment of a separate investigative committee. They seek to involve representatives from all factions and see an opportunity for collaboration between the two committees, referencing previous meetings with the Special Committee Against Corruption and the reports issued by the National Audit Office.

The opponent’s position becomes clear when it is mentioned that some colleagues voted against the draft bill, and it is pointed out that the Centre Party may not fully grasp the situation; this generates a spiral of criticism regarding their understanding and readiness to cooperate. The intensity of the situation is critical, but the necessity for consensus and transparency is emphasized, rather than endless confrontation.

At the core are efforts toward cooperation and consensus: the inclusion of representatives from all factions and the prospect of collaboration opportunities between the two committees. It has been emphasized that the use of public funds must be goal-oriented, and cooperation between the coalition and the opposition is a priority.

The key regional focus areas are cooperation among the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), near-border security, and the impact of infrastructure. It is emphasized that Latvia has already formed a similar commission, and the importance of joint state audit and regional cooperation is noted. Attention is also being paid to issues concerning European Union funding and regional impact.

In economic matters, the discrepancies between costs and revenues are highlighted: costs (real financial obligations) exceed the socio-economic benefit derived from the cost-benefit analysis (11.8 billion benefit versus 23.8 billion costs). It is stressed that revenues are measured using different metrics, and there is a need to secure financing, including the option of taking out a loan or implementing new taxes. It is vocally acknowledged that European Union funding has not yet been guaranteed, and there will be significant costs in the years 2026–2027 that must be covered, which provides justification for increased deliberation and risk management.

Not enough data.

The legislative focus centers on the formation of a special investigative committee of the Riigikogu concerning Rail Baltic, and the first reading of draft bill 460 OE. The primary objectives are transparency, oversight, and the legality of the funding. Emphasis is placed on the need for consensus between the coalition and the opposition, and it is recommended that all parliamentary factions be involved, allowing the committee to cooperate across national jurisdictions.