A Tale of Two Protected Areas: “Value and Nature Conservation” in Comparable National Parks in Estonia and Russia

Abstract

This study explores how local communities reflect on institutional frameworks and protected area governance in two national parks (NPs) with similar nature values in Estonia and Russia, and aims to understand the role of value systems in these interactions. It is based on 50 in-depth interviews with a broad range of stakeholders, and a desktop analysis of relevant regulation and plans. Interview questions reflect on various aspects of well-being (including fairness of governance solutions), awareness of NPs’ function and restrictions, related value aspects, and covered basic personal data needed to interpret the interviews. The study reconfirms the pivotal role of social justice as a driver of wellbeing. In particular, it articulates the significance of value systems playing the role of filters between governance inputs and specific management activities of communities. It underlines the vulnerability of such systems at a community level, most of all to the impacts related to various instances of “centralization”. They are manifested through the choice of restrictive measures and top-down arrangements at the expense of transparency and inclusiveness (in Russia), as well as through the removal of governance autonomy from NPs and transferring monitoring and enforcement functions to local communities without clear mandates or sufficient capacity (in Estonia).

Socio-Economic Effects of National Park Governance and Management: Lessons from Post-Socialist Era Estonia

“…Thus, by 2020 the Aichi target 11 objectives of PA coverage in Estonia were met and exceeded. However, as elsewhere in the world, there is little information on the effectiveness and socio-economic impacts of protected areas [21,25,30,67,79]. Of the various protected areas, the national parks are the most people-oriented large, protected areas of Estonia and therefore well suited as research areas in this context.…”

“…On the other hand, problems have been reduced by more effective control and supervision, subsidy support schemes, and modern technical monitoring solutions (i.e., remote sensing and combined databases). As elsewhere in the world, the centralization of nature conservation and the abolition of protected-area administrations have led to a gradual distancing of nature protection from local conditions and the population [30,46,67,97,98]. As a result, respondents highlighted the moral obligation placed on the local population to engage in nature conservation and supervision as a matter of concern.…”

“…In Matsalu, support for the maintenance of semi-natural areas was paid earlier (1996) [107], which explains the limited change between the first and second surveys. In addition to the restoration of cultural landscapes and semi-natural communities, subsidies also acted as a catalyst for the revitalization of (traditional) agricultural activities and the improvement of socio-economic conditions, thereby contributing to the achievement of conservation goals and improved efficiency of the protected area [30,67]. The positive impact of support schemes and compensation on the preservation of natural values and the improvement of the local socio-economic situation has also been noted in other countries, including Tanzania, Vietnam, and China [108][109][110][111].…”

“…In addition to preserving the natural environment, the protection aims of national parks in Estonia also include the protection of traditional lifestyles and cultural her-itage [105,122,[148][149][150]. In national parks, management plans and protection rules have a significant impact on local socio-economic conditions [13,30,67], so it is important to understand the extent to which they consider the interests of permanent residents. The avoidance of differentiation was considered to be the biggest problem in all national parks, i.e., the rules and restrictions arising from regulations and strategic documents apply equally to everyone and no distinctions are made for permanent residents.…”

“…In the following years, support measures and subsidies expanded considerably, which led to active participation of the local populace in the restoration and management of protected areas. This was supported by the efforts of local administrations towards close cooperation, personal approach, involvement, and awareness raising [30,67]. Since the beginning of the 2000s, several reforms have taken place in the organization of nature conservation in Estonia (described in more detail in Section 2.1 of the current paper) and contrary to global trends, it has gradually moved towards centralization.…”