|
Finland Protection of the Environment
Although Finland had a very low population density and
was
famed for its many areas of nearly untouched nature, it
had not
been spared environmental pollution. Some of this came
from
neighboring countries, such as the dose of radiation it
received
after the accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in
the
Soviet Union in 1985. In this case, there was little
damage
because the radiation fell too far south to harm reindeer
herds
and fell too early to contaminate grasses and vegetables
that
have a late growing season because of Finland's long
winter.
Domestic sources also contributed significantly to the
country's problems with environmental pollution. The
exceptionally strong growth rate of an economy based to a
considerable degree on energy-intensive industries was a
factor,
as were the fertilizer-dependent agricultural sector and
the
wood-processing plants that, between them, contributed
much to
the pollution of Finnish rivers and groundwater. By the
1980s,
Finland registered considerably higher sulfur and nitrogen
emissions than other West European and Nordic countries,
and its
discharge of oxidizable matter into water was three times
the
average of the members of the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development
(OECD--see Glossary).
Finnish efforts to protect the environment began in the
1920s
with the Nature Conservation Act of 1923, which allowed
the
establishment of nature preserves if they were needed.
Since then
there have been many laws covering different aspects of
environmental protection, including water purity, control
of
poisons and pesticides, establishment of an oil pollution
fund,
waste management, prevention of marine and air pollution,
and
reduction of noise.
An attempt to protect the environment more thoroughly
was
evident in the formation of a ministry specifically
pledged to
this task. Established in 1983, the Ministry of
Environment had
four departments, employing about 250 persons in all. One
department dealt with administrative matters, while the
other
three were concerned with environmental protection and
nature
conservation, physical planning and building, and housing.
In
1986 the National Board of Waters with its 1,400 employees
was
renamed the National Board of Waters and the Environment
and was
placed under the new ministry.
In the mid-1980s, Finns were concerned about the
environment,
and a study found that only 11 percent of them would place
economic growth above protection of the environment. Many
believed ecological conditions were worsening. A 1983 poll
found
that only 31 percent of those questioned--compared with 57
percent in 1973--believed their country's environment to
be very
good or excellent. Another indication of Finns' concerns
was the
birth in the early 1980s of a new political party, the
Greens,
which was remarkably successful in elections
(see Smaller Parties and the Greens
, ch. 4). Commitment to pollution control
also was
seen in the portion of research money going to
environmental
research, which compared well with that spent by other
countries.
Despite these measures, there were observers in the late
1980s
who contended that Finnish efforts in this area needed
further
improvement.
An OECD study published in 1988 held that, despite
improvements, Finland still did not have an adequate
environmental program. There was still no single law
relating to
the environment, and different ministries often did not
consult
sufficiently with one another about the ecological impact
of
their plans. Despite the existence of excellent statistics
about
damage to the environment, decision makers were often not
well
informed about them. Also lacking, according to the OECD
report,
was a sufficient assessment, when making plans for
economic
development, of the real costs of pollution. Recommended
for a
more economical defense of the environment were an exact
consideration of these costs and an increased use of the
"polluter pays" and "user fees" principles. The report
noted,
too, that many local authorities lacked the expertise to
deal
properly with ecological decisions; moreover, because they
were
suspicious of the power of provincial-level and
national-level
officials, they were reluctant to cooperate fully with
them.
Data as of December 1988
|
