I was recently asked to write some responses to my experiences of human-rights based approaches (HRBA) toward forest management as part of a wider dialogue around REDD+ and the inclusion of social issues. This is something that we have touched upon in our previous work around integrating antislavery actions within environmental/conservation organisations and actions.
My work is currently focused on the link between modern slavery and the environment, with particular reference to the issues within forests and associated tree loss. This has included undertaking an assessment of the global risk, and my current work that is attempting to quantitatively link tree loss and modern slavery within Brazil (that I most recently explore at the FLARE Twitter Conference 2020).
These connections and the inclusion of modern slavery - linking Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 8.7 (end modern slavery) and 15.2 (protect forests and end deforestation) - within forest management is particularly feasible when thinking about a HRBA to these actions.
My exploration of these questions posed as part of this discussion are contained below.
_______________________________________
What has been your experience with forest monitoring programmes?
Can you think of cases where national forest monitoring (national forest
inventory, satellite land monitoring, data sharing, consultation processes and
all associated activities) could harm human rights?
The
work we undertake is based on ending modern slavery by the 2030 target as
outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly in relation
to the environmental impacts and causes of modern slavery. This work has
several focuses and one of those strands is the impact of modern slavery in
forestry and adjacent sectors (e.g. agriculture) which may be linked to tree
loss and deforestation. This work often combines mix-methods approaches,
especially through the combination of seemingly disparate datasets, with
satellite remote sensing data on forest conditions, to determine the
relationship between the two social-ecological issues.
Our
experience of forest management thus far has been the obvious lack of engagement
with some key stakeholders who have been linked to the degradation of the
forests – perhaps not by their own means – via experiences of exploitation and
forced labour. In order to fully manage forests and thus protect the
environment, taking seriously the issue of modern slavery within a human
rights-based approach (HRBA) to forest management needs to acknowledge and
account for all forms of human rights issues within the forest from modern
slavery to the deaths of environmental defenders. I think therefore that the
lack of inclusion of these relevant stakeholders and their needs means that
human rights are already being harmed. However, by addressing these gaps in
provision and inclusion will not only strengthen the capacity of these
communities to be resilient but it will also work to support SDG 15.2
(protecting against deforestation) and provide the ability to more actively
engage in HRBA of forest environments.
How do you make sure that forest monitoring is sensitive to all
the factors that affect people who depend on the forest?
In
order to make sure that forest monitoring is sensitive to the needs of people
within the forests and those who may be experiencing human rights abuses within
the forest environment, it is important that we begin to engage more
significantly with local communities at this forefront, including moving them
from stakeholders in the community to those who are leading the action. For
example, the further inclusion and platforming of indigenous peoples
experiences should be learned from, and their opinions and education around
protecting the forests should be seen as a way forward when delivering positive
forest management for both people and nature.
Furthermore,
as we have seen in our work around the intersection of modern slavery and
forest environments, those who may be subjected to modern slavery within
forested areas are more likely to engage as a first response with environmental
and conservation organisations. Therefore, as part of a wider push toward
forest management there needs to be more inclusion of those social
organisations and actors who may support individuals and communities who may be
engaged in poor management practices or the exploitation of the environment.
For example, we have advocated for more inclusion of antislavery organisations
to engage with those who have been subjected to modern slavery in these forest
ecosystems directly, but also as part of training to support environmental
organisations who may be directly engaging with forest communities as part of
this social-ecological issue. Whilst we may have advocated for possible
intersection points with large-scale forest management and climate change
mitigation programmes at present (e.g. REDD+) (see Jackson & Decker Sparks 2020) it is also important that these
interactions occur further down the chain. A parallel bottom-up and top-down approach is necessary to engaging with
adjacent and primary stakeholders to improve forest management and make it
sensitive to those who depend on the forest, as well as those who may be
exploited within these environments.
How did you involve stakeholders in design and implementation?
As
part of our research into the modern slavery-environment nexus within the
forest environment, forming a HRBA to environmental and social protections, we
have primarily engaged with those stakeholders who are interested in
environmental crime but have often identified human rights abuses occurring
alongside those forms of illegal environmental activity. These groups have thus
educated themselves, and begun to engage in multi-faceted projects that are
more beneficial to understanding the whole landscape of an issue from climate
change and migration, to deforestation and workers’ rights. All of this makes
for a more compelling and structured understanding of these approaches and our
engagement with such stakeholders. As well as those involved more directly in
the antislavery movement (e.g. service provision), it is has been important to
develop relationships with those that are navigating related human rights
issues but incorporate angles toward forest management and protections for both
people and the trees by having a mutual understanding of these interactions
which can provide actionable policy outcomes and benefits to those experiencing
human rights abuses.
How do you resolve conflicts?
Perhaps
the one conflict that we often note is that of environmental and/or
conservation organisations noting issue of human rights abuses occurring
alongside environmental crimes and then taking over the provision of services
where they may not be appropriate. This is something that has been raised
particularly in relation to our work around modern slavery cases.
The
key to resolving these conflict is for environmental/conservation actors to
engage with those key stakeholders who provide or require primary service
provision. By raising the profiles of communities within the programmes and
taking more of a people-focused (HRBA) approach to forest management the
current trend of environmental protections – often from an economic resource
perspective – can be shifted to one that is more focused on the protection of
the environment with an understanding of the complex social-ecological dynamics
that are often in place.
Comments
Post a Comment