Human rights standards for conservation: rights, responsibilities and redress

Project

Despite increased recognition that conservation initiatives can violate the human rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, addressing 'unjust' conservation remains a contemporary problem.

IIED and Natural Justice are seeking feedback on a series of papers that aim to serve as a foundation for clear guidance about the human rights obligations of conservation actors, and specific details of the rights and forms of redress available.

San peoples from the Kalahari have lived in harmony with nature, but their contribution to the conservation and sustainable uses of biodiversity lacks appropriate recognition, particularly in Botswana and South Africa (Photo: Harry Jonas)

The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) has been working with Natural Justice to systematically review and analyse relevant international law to answer the following three questions:

  • Which actors bear human rights obligations and responsibilities in the context of conservation initiatives?
  • What are their obligations and responsibilities? 
  • What are the grievance mechanisms available to peoples and communities in cases of violations of their human rights?

The results were released to coincide with the IUCN World Parks Congress in November 2014. The three-part series of discussion papers and the synthesis report will serve as an empirical basis for developing an accessible "Guide to Human Rights Standards for Conservation".

Part one provides an overview of the evolution of international law and policy as relevant to conservation initiatives, and presents the case that diverse actors such as international organisations, businesses, NGOs and funders, also have responsibilities and obligations for ensuring just conservation.

The second part identifies the relevant body of human rights law, CBD decisions, and IUCN resolutions and recommendations that contain provisions relevant to upholding the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities in a conservation context.

Part three clarifies which redress mechanisms exist, their strengths and weaknesses, and asks whether a body focused specially on the conduct of conservation initiatives should be formed.

A synthesis report proposes a number of options for taking this work a step further to elaborate a set of specific minimum human rights standards for conservation initiatives. Over the next year we will be running a consultation process on these options and developing a funding proposal for taking them forward. The options include:

  1. The series' findings could be further distilled and the key rights afforded to indigenous peoples and local communities clarified, and then be presented as a set of core standards
  2. In addition, a set of stakeholder-specific guidance and related tools could be developed. These might include simple checklists for conservation implementers and 'Know Your Rights' tools for local communities
  3. Guidance could be provided to funders to enable them to monitor and evaluate the projects they support against these standards
  4. A deeper assessment of existing redress mechanisms could be conducted to explore the need for a globally recognised grievance mechanism dedicated to conservation-related disputes, and
  5. The standards, guidance and grievance mechanism could be developed, monitored and upheld by an independent body.

Work to date on this initiative has been conducted by a small group of conservation and human rights lawyers and researchers. This initiative could continue under the auspices of this small group or could be widened into a multi-stakeholder process that allows for more extensive participation.

We are keen to receive feedback on our conclusions, and comments on their implications, from a range of interested parties such as lawyers, conservationists, indigenous peoples and local communities
- Harry Jonas/Dilys Roe

We invite your feedback on these options and look forward to engaging with you as this initiative moves into the next phase.

Publications

Part I: To which conservation actors do international standards apply?, Jael E. Makagon, Harry Jonas and Dilys Roe (2014), IIED | en español

Part II: Which international standards apply to conservation initiatives?, Harry Jonas, Dilys Roe and Athene Dilke (2014), IIED

Part III: Which redress mechanisms are available to peoples and communities affected by conservation initiatives?, Jael E. Makagon (2014), IIED

Synthesis report: An analysis of responsibilities, rights and redress for just conservation, Harry Jonas, Dilys Roe and Jael E. Makagon (2014), IIED

Supporting documents

Supporting document 1: Provisions from international legal instruments relevant to the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, Jael E. Makagon, Harry Jonas and Athene Dilke (2014), IIED
 
Supporting document 2: Decisions of the conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity that reference indigenous peoples' and local communities rights and concerns: CBD COP VII, VIII, IX, X, Harry Jonas and Athene Dilke (2014), IIED

Supporting document 3: IUCN resolutions that reference indigenous peoples' and local communities' rights and concerns, Harry Jonas and Athene Dilke (2014), IIED

Contact

Harry Jonas (harry@naturaljustice.org) is a lawyer and co-founder of Natural Justice.

Dilys Roe is a principal researcher in IIED's Natural Resources Group and leader of the biodiversity team.