Closing Friendship Park visitor centre

Key points of the debate

The debate focused on the closure of the Petola visitor centre and research centre of Friendship Park in Kuhmo and the sale of the property. The government parties considered the savings justified due to low usage, high costs and the termination of cooperation with Russia. The opposition, for its part, opposed the closure, citing the weakening of eastern Finland's vitality, cuts to nature services in protected areas, and compensations once promised to the municipality.

• –Will the closure of the visitor centre weaken eastern Finland's vitality and nature tourism?
• –Are the savings targeting the nature services of Metsähallitus (the state forest enterprise) proportionate?
• –Does the closure breach the compensation commitment given to the municipality of Kuhmo for nature conservation?

• National Coalition PartyIn favour

  The National Coalition Party (NCP) considered the closure highly justified on economic grounds, as the per-visitor costs of the centre are exceptionally high and research cooperation across the eastern border has ended. The group took the view that tourism and vitality will rely on local entrepreneurship rather than central government administration.

  ”Pidän itse tätä lakiesitystä varsin perusteltuna.”

• Finns PartyIn favour

  The Finns Party (Finns) supported the proposal because the premises have seen little use and the town did not find a new use for them. The group considered that regional tourism and vitality would be strengthened through other projects and hunting tourism rather than by maintaining empty facilities.

  ”Petola ei ollut matkailun magneetti.”

• Social DemocratsAgainst

  The Social Democrats (SDP) criticised the cuts to national parks and visitor centres and considered Petola's closure an unfortunate weakening of people's connection to nature and of services. On the other hand, the group considered it understandable that legislation and naming referring to Soviet-era cooperation be updated.

  ”Todella suuri huoli on usean eri kansallispuiston alueella siitä, miten nämä palvelut jatkossa tullaan turvaamaan, muillakin kuin Petolalla.”

• Centre PartyAgainst

  The Centre Party (Cen) opposed closing the visitor centre because it weakens the vitality of the eastern border area and removes state jobs from crisis-hit eastern Finland. In the group's view, the visitor centre has been a legally secured compensation for protected forestry areas, and the state should not breach commitments it has made.

  ”Kyllä on kritisoitava tätä hallituksen esitystä, jolla Metsähallituksen luontopalveluiden säästöjä nyt tavoitellaan.”

• GreensAgainst

  The Greens opposed the proposal as part of a broader wave of cuts to nature conservation areas and hiking infrastructure. According to the group, closing visitor centres conflicts with developing nature tourism in eastern Finland and ensuring hiking safety.

  ”Kaiken kaikkiaan kyllähän nämä säästöt Metsähallituksen luontopalveluista ovat varsin kurja arvovalinta hallitukselta, kun samanaikaisesti me tiedetään, että luonnossa liikkuminen on lisääntynyt”

This digest was generated by AI from 21 speeches 13 Sep 2026. Group positions are read from the speeches, not from votes; quotations were checked verbatim against the record.