Policy|Conservation
According to the center and the opposition parties, the law would reduce the power of landowners.
The government the lines broke up when the Agriculture and Forestry Committee voted on the Nature Conservation Act.
The board voted in the committee in three different ways. The center ended up in the majority with the opposition parties, while Sdp Vasemmistoliitto and Rkp made their own dissenting opinion, and the greens still had theirs.
According to the center and the opposition parties, the sections dealing with endangered habitats should be completely removed from the law.
In the government’s presentation, it is proposed that a habitat type whose risk of disappearing from nature is at least high can be regulated as an endangered habitat type. In addition, the government proposes that the authorities must take endangered habitat types and endangered species into account in their decision-making. The centre, the coalition, the Basic Finns and the Christian Democrats therefore do not want these proposals into law.
The government there is a section in the presentation that lists 13 different habitat types. According to the section, the Business, Transport and Environment Center (ely-keskus) can decide to protect an occurrence belonging to these habitat types if it is important for the preservation of the protected habitat type.
According to the center and the opposition parties, this section should be the only way to protect natural habitats in the Nature Conservation Act. Among the 13 habitat types are limestone cliffs, sandy beaches and walnut thickets.
The parties oppose the section of the law according to which serpentine rocks, pebbles and gravel pits and open dunes on the coast are natural habitats that must not be destroyed or weakened. According to the parties, this would lead to the automatic protection of these habitats, which would reduce the power of landowners.
“When a specific decision on the protection and delimitation of a natural habitat is not made, the landowner also has no appeal. The proposal weakens the landowner’s legal security,” the committee’s statement reads.
Also the greens made their own dissenting opinion. The dissenting opinion of the Greens is in other respects the same content as the position of the Sdp, the Left Alliance and the Rkp, but the Greens want the paragraphs about cormorants and white-cheeked geese to be removed from the legal text.
According to the proposal, the law would give the possibility to deviate from the ban on disturbing a protected bird species, if it was likely that, in large numbers, the birds would cause significant damage to crops or fish farming.
“A timely and regionally limited decision would provide a targeted means for combating particularly significant damage caused by e.g. white-cheeked geese or cormorant colonies,” the bill says.
#Nature #conservation #lines #split #governing #parties #views #nature #conservation #law #committee
