Conservation: from "us vs them" to a shared "we"

Some speak of socio-economic interests and impacts regarding nature conservation. Others speak of autonomy, or: freedom. A third group emphasizes the intrinsic value of nature and the need to keep nature conservation purely as a public good.

In Estonia, we must acknowledge that we cannot protect nature through only one worldview. People value different aspects of life, and no one should be condemned for their worldview. If we want landowners to be genuinely willing to contribute, we must speak in a language and principles that are understandable and trustworthy to them as well.

It is unjustified to leave the impression that a contractual or partnership-based approach “skews the entire system.” The majority of Estonian nature conservation is, and will remain, in the hands of the state. The only question is how to involve the remaining part as wisely and effectively as possible.

The concern is understandable—Estonian nature is too valuable (as a permanently forested boreal region) to experiment with. But it is precisely for this reason that the Sorainen/Partnership model is necessary. We need a system that works with people, not against them. Science (Miljand 2021) proves that coercion generates resistance, whereas autonomy and fair partnership bring actual protection to places where the arm of the state does not reach. If anyone can articulate the principles of legitimate state authority, surely the Riigikogu [Parliament] can.

Furthermore, more diverse management: state conservation areas, voluntary contributions from private owners, collaborative projects, different management methods; gives us more opportunities to test, learn, and find what truly works in a situation where the climate and habitats are changing rapidly.

Therefore, the partnership model is not the antithesis of conservation principles, but a practical additional option that helps achieve better species protection results through trust, flexibility, and the inclusion of the actual practitioners.

Target: 1% of GDP for Nature – 2024 Mid-Year Summary

The strategic goal of the Loodushoiu Fond (The Nature Fund) is to help Estonia reach a level of funding where at least 1% of GDP is directed toward wildlife management and care —in line with global recommendations by international organizations such as The Nature Conservancy. The planned KEVAD development programme amounts to €1.898 billion per year, yet only €35 million of that is allocated to nature protection. As the area of protected land increases without a proportional rise in support measures to offset the burden on society, we see a growing need to bring private sector funding into nature conservation.

We continue to develop service contracts for the provision of ecosystem services and are mapping potential new funding sources. We have added new nature conservation funding options to our online store, and our donation platform remains active. On the international level, we are introducing the Looduse hoidja™ (Nature Guardian™) platform, which enables foreign individuals and companies to support nature protection in Estonia through local landowners. We also placed a donation box in the Pärnu Department Store to raise co-funding for our white-tailed eagle nest project.

At the COP 16 conference in Cali, Colombia, the EU presented its research on the potential and challenges of biodiversity certification and nature credits, as part of its innovative finance toolbox aimed at broadening funding sources. The goal is to mobilize resources, support companies in setting nature-positive targets, and reward those who protect and restore nature—including farmers, foresters, fishers, and other land and sea managers. The EU’s research includes two pilot projects, one of which involves the Loodushoiu Fond working with private landowners in Estonia.

Renewal ecology: nature conservation on antropocene

Bowman et al research team discusses that the global scale and rapidity of environmental change is challenging ecologists to reimagine their theoretical principlesand management practices. Increasingly, historical ecological conditions are inadequate targets for restoration ecology, geographically circumscribed nature reserves are incapable of protecting all biodiversity, and the precautionary principleapplied to management interventions no longer ensures avoidance of ecological harm. 

In addition, human responses to globaal environmental changes, such as migration, building of protective infrastructures, and land use change, are having their own negative environmental impacts. 

This approach, which we call “renewal ecology,” is based on acceptance that environmental change will have transformative effects on coupled human and natural systems and recognizes the need to harmonize biodiversity with human infrastructure, for the benefit of both. Peter Kareiva and Michelle Marvier's “The Conservation Science” and Chris Thomas' “Inheritors of the Earth” acknowledge the acceptance of new ecosystems needed to adapt to climate change. In addition to the differences in the theoretical frameworks outlined below, interested people can listen to Emma Marris TED presentation: Nature is everywhere - we just need to learn to see it Emma Marris - YouTube.

Implications for Practice

• By accepting environmental change as inevitable and irrevocable, renewal ecology provides those practicing conservation management greater social license to innovate.
• Irretrievably degraded land and seascapes can proovide opportunities to renew biological function and diversity, in places where attempts to recreate the former natural state would fail.
• Urban and agricultural landscapes largely written off as sites for effective conservation can be reimagined as species habitat with enhanced ecological functionality, while delivering cobenefits for human well-being

Martin et al.(2014) provide a valuable summary (their Table 1) of how existing scientific fields, and proposed new ones, and associated concepts can contribute to conservation goals and human livelihoods in the face of global environmental change. 

Our concept of renewal ecology, defined as “a solutions-focused discipline aimed at creating and managing ecosystems designed to maximize both biodiversity and human well-being in the face of rapid environmental change” builds on these approaches, and below we briefly outline (in alphabetical order) how renewal ecology differs or enhances some key related fields and concepts. 

Definition of renewal ecology and its relationship to related disciplines. There is increasing recognition that classical approaches to conservation and natural resources management are unable to meet the challenges of the Anthropocene.

Agroecology: Renewal ecology incorporates the argument of Perrings et al. (2006) that understanding agriculture as an ecological system, where biodiversity plays a critical beneficial role for food production and provision of ecosystems, is essential given increasing conversion of wildland to agri-culture to feed increasing human populations.

Compassionate Conservation: An approach to management of trophic interactions to reduce the need for lethal con-trol to stabilize wildlife and pest species (Ramp & Bekoff2015). Such ethical consideration of the treatment of then non-human world is shared in renewal ecology.

Conservation Biology: Aimed at reducing the risk of extinction of non-human species and degradation of their habitats and the services they provide, taking past abundance, com-position, and/or structure as an aspirational standard. We propose renewal ecology as more forward-looking than traditional conservation biology, focusing on adaptation opportunities that provide benefits for biodiversity while people directly or indirectly adapt to global change.

Conservation Science: Proposed by Kareiva and Marvier (2012) to make conservation biology more responsive and relevant to current threats through the “application of both natural and social sciences to the dynamics of coupled human–natural systems.” They argue that human well-being and social justice must be central to all conservation efforts with a focus on provision of ecosystems services, an ethos central to renewal ecology

Human Ecology/Coupled Human-Natural Systems/Social-Ecological Systems (Herein Termed “Human Ecology”): The interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary study of the relationship between humans and their natural and built environments. In clearly defined and data-rich systems, methodologies developed in human ecology can be employed to evaluate likely biodiversity and human benefits associated with alternative renewal ecology interventions. Such holistic understanding of human–nature coupling is fundamental to the practice of renewal ecology.

Intervention Ecology: Hobbs et al. (2011) outlined th ecase for steering restoration ecology and land management towards a more “thoughtful experimental approach embed-ded in adaptive management” and have suggested the term “intervention ecology” to capture this approach. Renewal ecology builds on this argument by focusing on the need to design ecosystems consciously and manage them actively, using targeted interventions in the face of unprecedented environmental change.

Novel Ecosystems: The concept that new assemblages of species (i.e. those that have no historical precedent) will result from differential responses to global change (Hobbset al. 2006). These assemblages may be biodiverse, functional, resilient, and self-sustaining. Renewal ecology is aimed at managing the trajectory of such novel assemblages to maximize biodiversity and services.

Precautionary Principle and Biodiversity: The principle of “do no harm” and placing the “burden of proof” on proponents of environmental change lie at the heart of the precautionary principle. But an overly cautious approach to undertaking active interventions to save species can, in itself, contribute to extinction risk (Myers 1993). Renewal ecology argues for bethedging, rather than risk aversion inherent in “intervention ecology” (see above).

Reconciliation Ecology: Rosenzweig (2003) presciently recognized that effort should be made to modify diverse anthropogenic landscapes to create habitat for species, thereby increasing biodiversity. Renewal ecology embraces this idea but, because of the pervasive effects of global environmental change, applies it to all natural systems.

Restoration Ecology: This approach has generally been aimed at assisting the recovery of ecosystems that have been degraded or destroyed to return to a previous, indigenous, state. Renewal ecology recognizes that in many cases, the rapidity of environmental change means that such an objective is unlikely to be achieved and instead promotes the creation and/or enhancement of landscapes that support bio-diversity and provide ecosystem services for human com-munities in the context of change.

Urban Ecology: The study of the relationships and interactions between all organisms— human and non-human—within this most anthropogenic of landscapes. This discipline can be regarded as a fundamental component of renewal ecology.