Reviewing the coherence and effectiveness of implementation of multilateral biodiversity agreements in Estonia

This 2014 report by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) Tallinn Centre evaluates the coherence and effectiveness of Estonia's implementation of four multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) related to biodiversity: the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Ramsar Convention, CITES, and the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). Using a 15-category benchmarking methodology, the review finds that Estonia's overall implementation effectiveness is relatively high, with 'Cross-border cooperation' scoring as the strongest area and all other categories performing at a moderate level.

• Estonia's overall implementation effectiveness of the four biodiversity conventions is evaluated as relatively high, as no review category received a weak score. The strongest performance was in 'Cross-border cooperation', while the remaining 14 categories, including financing, were scored as moderate.
• Estonia has consolidated the governance and financing of nature conservation, which optimizes resources but obscures the specific targets and resources dedicated to individual biodiversity conventions, making effectiveness evaluation difficult.
• The legal and policy framework for biodiversity is primarily driven by the Nature Conservation Act (renewed in 2004) and the Nature Conservation Development Plan (NCDP) 2020. While Estonia has ratified the four main conventions and several protocols, it had not yet ratified the ASCOBANS, the Nagoya Protocol, or the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol as of the report date.
• Institutional coordination is relatively effective within the environmental sector, as the Ministry of the Environment serves as the focal point for all four conventions. However, coordination is less effective across different government sectors and institutions, with a noted lack of qualified personnel in non-conservation sectors.
• Estonia lacks a specific integrated national action plan for the biodiversity conventions; instead, objectives are fulfilled indirectly through national and EU legislation, species conservation action plans, and protected area management plans.
• Environmental monitoring is conducted through a state programme with 12 sub-programmes, including 'biodiversity and landscapes'. While generally adequate, gaps exist in the monitoring of alien invasive species, Ramsar sites, and certain AEWA and bat species.
• Financing for biodiversity is integrated into the general nature conservation budget, making it impossible to determine the exact adequacy of funds per convention. Funding sources include the state budget, the Environmental Investment Centre, and various EU funds such as the EAFRD and ERDF.
• The enforcement system is managed by the Environmental Inspectorate. While the total number of environmental violations has decreased since 2003, the highest number of recent violations occurred in fish protection.
• Environmental benefits are primarily derived from the designation of protected areas, which cover 22% of Estonian territory (18% land, 28% water). However, as of 2013, 35% of species and 48% of habitats protected under the EU Habitats Directive remained in unfavourable status.
• Socio-economic benefits include nature tourism, which contributes approximately 8% to Estonia's GDP, and financial incentives for landowners in protected areas, such as land tax exemptions (0% for strict reserves) and subsidies for maintaining semi-natural habitats.

APA

Peterson, K., Kuldna, P., Peev, P., & Uustal, M. (2014). Reviewing the coherence and effectiveness of implementation of multilateral biodiversity agreements in Estonia. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/reviewing-the-coherence-and-effectiveness-of-implementation-of-multilateral-biodiversity-sei-tallinn-2013.pdf

Chicago

Peterson, Kaja, Piret Kuldna, Plamen Peev, and Meelis Uustal. Reviewing the coherence and effectiveness of implementation of multilateral biodiversity agreements in Estonia. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2014. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/reviewing-the-coherence-and-effectiveness-of-implementation-of-multilateral-biodiversity-sei-tallinn-2013.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Peterson |first1=Kaja |last2=Kuldna |first2=Piret |last3=Peev |first3=Plamen |last4=Uustal |first4=Meelis |title=Reviewing the coherence and effectiveness of implementation of multilateral biodiversity agreements in Estonia |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=2014 |url=https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/reviewing-the-coherence-and-effectiveness-of-implementation-of-multilateral-biodiversity-sei-tallinn-2013.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{peterson2014reviewing, author = {Peterson, Kaja and Kuldna, Piret and Peev, Plamen and Uustal, Meelis}, title = {{Reviewing the coherence and effectiveness of implementation of multilateral biodiversity agreements in Estonia}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2014}, url = {https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/reviewing-the-coherence-and-effectiveness-of-implementation-of-multilateral-biodiversity-sei-tallinn-2013.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }