REDD+ AND THE ‘DO NO HARM’ PRINCIPLE: A RETREAT FROM JUSTICE?

Kimberly R. Marion Suiseeya, PhD kmarions@purdue.eduDepartment of Political Science, Purdue University

IIED Workshop on Equity, Justice, and Well-being in Ecosystem Governance

1

27 March 2015London, UK

Outline2

� Why REDD+ justice?

� Trends in global forest governance

� Justice possibilities in REDD+

� What justice demands

� Approaches to justice in REDD+

� Representation for justice

� The Harm of “do no harm”

� Visions for a more just REDD+

3

The Promises of REDD+

Sources: UN-REDD

4 Source: Indigenous Environmental Network

5

Trends in Global Forest GovernanceThrough late 1970s

Commercial/Industrial/Hunting

Government and Industry

Late 1970s-Early 1990s

+ Social forestry, forestry-poverty, wildlife

+ Donors, Forest-dependent communities, research

Mid 1980s-2000

+ Community/Joint, indigenous rights, environmental concerns, watersheds

+ NGOs, Civil society organizations

21st century + Participatory, Climate change, desertification, biodiversity and land degradation

+ Media, citizens groups

Adapted from FAO (2009)

Global Forests Regime Complex6

Marion Suiseeya, K. (2014) The Justice Gap in Global Forest Governance. Unpublished Dissertation. Duke University: Durham, NC.

7

Organization

/InstitutionJustice Dimensions Descriptioni

IUCN Resolution

1975/5 (1975)

Recognition, distributive(tenure)

Devise means by which indigenous people may bring their lands into conservation areas without relinquishing their ownership, use, or tenure rights (FPP n.d.)

CBD (1992)

Recognition, participation, and distributive (benefits sharing)

8(j) Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices

UN Forest Principles

(1992)

Recognition, participation, distributive (benefits sharing, tenure)

5(a) National forest policies should recognize and duly support the identity, culture and the rights of indigenous people, their communities and other communities and forest dwellers. Appropriate conditions should be promoted for these groups to enable them to have an economic stake in forest use, perform economic activities, and achieve and maintain cultural identity and social organization, as well as adequate levels of livelihood and well-being, through, inter alia, those land tenure arrangements which serve as incentives for the sustainable management of forests.

Forest Stewardship

Council (1993)

Recognition, distributive (tenure)

PRINCIPLE #3: Indigenous Peoples Rights -The legal and customary rights of indigenous peoples to own, use and manage their lands, territories, and resources shall be recognized and respected.

Research Question8

� How does REDD+ approach the justice concerns of forest peoples?

� Justice metanorm (common global justice norms) in global environmental governance � common justice practices

� Common justice practices ≠ justice demands

➠ Perpetuation of the justice gap

Global Forest Justice9

Justice Metanorm10

� States as sole arbiters of justice

� Justice-in-exchange

� Presence-as-inclusion

� Perpetuation of injustice

Marion Suiseeya, K. (2014). “Negotiating the Nagoya Protocol: Indigenous Demands for Justice.” Global Environmental

Politics 14(3): 102-124.Marion Suiseeya, K. (2014) The Justice Gap in Global Forest Governance. Unpublished Dissertation. Duke University: Durham, NC.

Demand for Representation11

� Requires expansion of power for forest peoples across levels of decision-making

� REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards (SES):

� Awareness raising

� Facilitation team

� At local level

REDD+ and “do no harm”12

� UN-REDD and Forest Carbon Partnership Facility requires that projects “do no harm”

� Harm:

� Definition

� Evaluation

� Temporal scope

� Negative principle

Recap13

� Why REDD+ justice?

� Trends in global forest governance

� Justice possibilities in REDD+

� What justice demands

� Approaches to justice in REDD+

� Representation for justice

� The Harm of “do no harm”

� Visions for a more just REDD+

Towards a more just REDD+14

� Cosmopolitan approach to justice

� Broadening of the discursive space

� Norm entrepreneurship

� Communicative democracy

� Advance positive requirements for justice

15

Thank you!

kmarions@purdue.eduhttp://kimberlymarionsuiseeya.weebly.com

References16

� Barnett, Michael N., and Martha Finnemore. "The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations." International organization 53, no. 4 (1999): 699-732.

� Clayton, Susan. "Preference for macrojustice versus microjustice in environmental decisions." Environment and Behavior 30, no. 2 (1998): 162-183.

� Conca, Ken. Governing water: Contentious transnational politics and global institution building. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006.

� George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2005.

� Martin, Adrian, Shawn McGuire, and Sian Sullivan. "Global environmental justice and biodiversity conservation." The Geographical Journal 179, no. 2 (2013): 122-131.

� Merton, Robert King. On theoretical sociology: Five essays, old and new. New York: Free Press, 1967.

� Okereke, Chukwumerije. Global justice and neoliberal environmental governance: ethics, sustainable development and international co-operation. Routledge, 2007.

� Schlosberg, David. "Reconceiving environmental justice: global movements and political theories." Environmental politics 13, no. 3 (2004): 517-540.

� Young, Oran R., Leslie A. King, and Heike Schroeder, eds. Institutions and environmental change: principal findings, applications, and research frontiers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.