Agenda Profile: Helle-Moonika Helme
Interpellation regarding the state's plan to end compensation to farmers for damages caused by geese (No. 582)
2024-09-09
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
Political Position
The political position centers on strong opposition to the government's plan to terminate compensation for damages caused by waterfowl to farmers. The speaker emphasizes that the current situation is unjust and arbitrarily shifts the burden of feeding migratory birds onto the farmer, demanding that the government rethink its decisions. The stance is highly critical of current policy and is presented within an outcome-based framework, focusing specifically on the livelihood of farmers.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates awareness of practical agricultural problems, such as crop damage and ineffective prevention methods (e.g., covering fields or scaring birds away). They also understand the nutritional needs of migratory birds and the resulting conflict between economic interests and nature conservation. While detailed data or statistics are not used, the framing of the problem is specific.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and employs strong sarcasm when describing ineffective prevention methods. An emotional appeal is used, emphasizing the unfair financial burden placed on farmers ("paying out of their own pocket"), and many direct rhetorical questions are posed to the minister. The tone is confrontational rather than conciliatory.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
There is insufficient data regarding the frequency or rhythm; this is a single interpellation addressed to the minister.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The primary criticism is aimed at the government or the minister who made the decision to terminate the compensation payments. The criticism is policy-driven, stressing that the decision is arbitrary and leaves farmers struggling without viable alternatives. The stance of animal rights activists regarding the cruelty of hunting is also mentioned, which adds complexity to the situation.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
Data regarding the readiness for cooperation or compromise is absent. The address was submitted as a formal interpellation directed at the government, demanding the reconsideration of the decisions.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is on the agricultural sector and farmers' problems more broadly, indicating a national political scope. Specific regions or local projects are not mentioned.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Supports financial compensation for farmers covering unavoidable damages caused by migratory birds. Opposes policies that arbitrarily shift a national burden (such as feeding birds) onto private sector producers, thereby damaging the economic interests of the agricultural sector. Demands state intervention to mitigate these damages.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
We briefly touch upon the social conflict between animal welfare advocacy (declaring hunting as cruelty) and the economic livelihood of farmers. This topic is presented as a context explaining why damage prevention is complicated.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is currently aimed at challenging and amending the government's decision regarding compensation for agricultural damages (Interpellation No. 582). The speaker is actively opposing the existing policy, demanding either its full repeal or modification.
1 Speeches Analyzed