Agenda Profile: Rain Epler

Draft law amending the Nature Conservation Act, the Hunting Act, and the State Property Act (612 SE) – First Reading

2025-05-15

15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, plenary session

Political Position
The political position involves strong opposition to the proposed amendments to the Nature Conservation Act (Bill 612 SE), specifically those relating to the restriction and compensation of private land. The primary focus is the defense of private property rights and the unfair compensation mandated by the state, which forces the landowner to bear the cost of public benefit. The bill is rejected on behalf of the faction, as it is deemed flawed and controversial.

3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise regarding nature conservation regulations, the logic behind land valuation, and the procedural processes of the Environmental Board. He/She addresses detailed issues concerning the logic of imposing restrictions and the conflict inherent in compensation, calling the situation "absurd" and "perverse." Technical terms such as "logging notice" and "planned nature reserve" are utilized, and reference is made to specific examples (Haanja, Lahemaa) and communication with the Environmental Board.

3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is confrontational, critical, and employs strong judgments, such as "absurd" and "perverse logic." The appeals are primarily logical, focusing on the contradictions in the state's policy, but they are delivered with high intensity. The speaker addresses the minister ("Andres") and the coalition partner ("Tarmo") directly, while maintaining the formal tone of a parliamentary debate.

3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is active in the legislative debate, having spoken repeatedly during the bill's first reading and submitting a motion for rejection on behalf of the parliamentary group. He refers to previous work, including discussions with the Environmental Board and the submission of comprehensive lists concerning restrictions, which demonstrates preparatory work and the gathering of case studies.

3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponents are the Ministry of Climate and its officials, who are accused of pursuing contradictory and unfair policies. These policies simultaneously emphasize the importance of biodiversity while forcing property owners to bear the associated costs. The criticism is political and intense, comparing the state's actions to the nationalization of private property that occurred in the 1940s. They show no willingness to compromise; instead, they demand that the draft legislation be withdrawn and debated anew.

3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The style of cooperation is intra-factional, demonstrated by presenting a motion for rejection on the faction's behalf and referencing a previous explanation given by a colleague ("Andres"). There is no openness to compromise with the coalition; instead, the coalition partners ("Tarmo") are urged to seriously reconsider their positions and withhold support for the draft legislation.

3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is on national legislation and the protection of private property rights, but specific regions and nature reserves are highlighted to illustrate the problems. Real-life restrictions existing within the Haanja and Lahemaa nature reserves are mentioned.

3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic views emphasize the protection of private property rights and the requirement for compensation based on fair market price when the state restricts economic activity. The state's actions are viewed as an attempt to solve budgetary problems at the expense of private owners, forcing them to bear the cost of public nature conservation. The state's logic, according to which the value of the land drops by half due to the restrictions, is criticized.

3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Insufficient data.

3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus centers on the rejection of Draft Bill 612 SE (amendments to the Nature Conservation Act, Hunting Act, and State Assets Act) during its first reading. The speaker is an active opponent who is presenting the motion for rejection on behalf of the parliamentary group. The draft bill is being criticized in combination with the previous Draft Bill 610, which dealt with Natura sites.

3 Speeches Analyzed