Why is the eutrophication governance over the Lake of Baikal failing? Land use governance solutions need to account for barriers across sectors, scales, and actor groups

• Shkaruba, Anton ^[1] ; Mnatsakanian, Ruben ^[2] ; Molodikova, Irina ^[2] ; Kireyeu, Viktar ^[3] ; Sepp, Kalev ^[1]
  1. [1] Estonian University of Life Sciences

     Estonian University of Life Sciences

     Tartu linn, Estonia

     
  2. [2] Central European University, Vienna, Austria
  3. [3] Erda RTE, The Hague, Netherlands

  Mostrar afiliaciones +
• Localización: Land use policy: The International Journal Covering All Aspects of Land Use, ISSN 0264-8377, ISSN-e 1873-5754, Nº. 141, 2024
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • In this study, we examined the failure of Russia’s environmental governance to prevent the nutrient load generated by littoral households and tourism businesses from reaching Lake Baikal. It is important to note that this failure has occurred even with sufficient implementation capacity and demonstrable political will to protect this body of water. This research inquiry into the ‘eutrophication governance’ of Baikal was based on field analysis of management issues, institutions, and actors concerned with the island of Olkhon and was further ‘triangulated’ and completed using desk research targeting the broader institutional framework and actors’ discourses. On one hand, the study of the island’s socio-ecological system demonstrated that governance solutions developed by the Federal Government to curb Baikal’s eutrophication do not constitute a coherent set of measures targeting various stakeholder groups using an applicable repertoire of policy instruments. On the other hand, many local actors oppose the conservation agenda, and in doing so, they are actively making use of any gaps and inconsistencies in the eutrophication governance regime. This difference has resulted in a high level of conflict among key actors that is spreading across all policy levels. Successful solutions could be based on an inclusive and transparent policy elaboration aimed at resetting existing conservation tools to more acceptable ones with a parallel “ratcheting up” of enforcement and monitoring, which are grossly underpowered at the moment. This resetting process needs to be targeted by adequate capacity-building efforts. The greatest challenge, however, is to address the inconsistent and confusing signals regarding the protection of Baikal originating from high-level policies.