Agenda Profile: Tiit Maran

The political stance on the draft bill is controversial: while there is support for technical amendments that would simplify bureaucracy and have been long anticipated by officials, there is strong opposition to two specific provisions concerning compensation zones and the right of civil society to propose protected areas. This position is value-based, emphasizing the protection of civil society and the risk of political coercion, leading the Social Democrats to propose rejecting the bill entirely. The draft is a "stripped-down version" of an earlier bill that was under review when the Social Democrats were part of the coalition.

The speaker demonstrates a thorough command of the Nature Conservation Act and its amendments, detailing construction prohibition zones, regulations concerning compensation areas, and the procedures for establishing protected areas. Technical terminology is employed (e.g., "construction prohibition zone," "compensation and mitigation areas"), and reference is made to the long-standing legislative intent for the draft bill, dating back to 2017. A specific emphasis is placed on the underfunding of the Environmental Board and its political subordination.

The rhetorical style is analytical and critical, balancing logical arguments (the need to simplify bureaucracy) with strong value-based appeals (the stifling of civil society). The speaker uses rhetorical questions and hyperbole (e.g., replacing Lahemaa with an old quarry) to illustrate potential dangers. The tone is formal yet concerned, emphasizing that the draft bill is leading Estonia away from the direction desired by the majority of Estonians.

The patterns of activity indicate active participation in Riigikogu sittings during the first reading of the bill, involving both questions and extended discussions. The speaker utilizes procedural tools (such as requesting additional time) and presents positions on behalf of the parliamentary group. Reference is also made to prior involvement in the drafting of the legislation.

The primary opposition is directed at the policy of the Ministry of Climate and the provisions of the draft legislation, criticizing political pressure and the centralization of power within the Environmental Board. The criticism is both procedural and substantive, emphasizing that the new provisions grant politicians overly broad powers without legal guidelines. Criticism is also leveled at the former prime minister, who failed to submit the necessary amendments in 2022.

The speaker referenced previous cooperation, pointing out that the current draft is a shortened version of what was discussed when the Social Democrats were part of the coalition. Currently, that cooperation has been replaced by strong opposition, as two specific points in the bill are unacceptable, leading to the proposal that the bill be rejected entirely.

The focus is national, addressing the nationwide implementation of the Nature Conservation Act and the streamlining of bureaucracy. The regional aspect is evident in concerns regarding developer pressure faced by poorer local governments (municipalities) and the reduction of the building restriction zone, which could lead to damage to the living environment.

Economic perspectives address the balance between regulation and development activities, recognizing that restrictions are detrimental to the economy. Emphasis is placed on the risk that poor municipalities might make environmentally damaging decisions for the sake of economic gain (from a wealthy developer), and there is criticism regarding the removal of civil society rights under the pretext of cost.

The central social theme revolves around the role of civil society and the defense of rights within the context of nature conservation. The speaker vehemently opposes stripping civil society of the right to propose protected areas, arguing that this constitutes "silencing" and distances Estonia from democratic values. The emphasis is placed on the need to develop civil society, rather than restricting it under the guise of expense.

The legislative focus is on amendments to the Nature Conservation Act, the Hunting Act, and the State Assets Act (Bill 612 SE). Although technical amendments are necessary for simplifying bureaucracy, the speaker opposes the bill due to two provisions concerning the designation of compensation areas and the right to propose protected areas. The speaker is the initiator of the motion to reject the bill.