Human Rights Standards for Conservation

The report argues that conservation initiatives frequently violate the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, despite an increasing international legal consensus on their protections. It asserts that responsibility for upholding these rights extends beyond states to include international organisations, businesses, and NGOs. The authors analyse a vast array of international instruments and find that while normative trends are moving toward greater recognition of rights, enforcement and redress remain significant challenges. The document concludes by suggesting the creation of core standards, stakeholder guidance, and potentially a dedicated global grievance mechanism or 'Roundtable on Ethical Conservation' to ensure just conservation practices.

• Responsibility for upholding human rights in conservation extends beyond state actors to include non-state entities such as international organisations, businesses, and NGOs, who should not design or fund initiatives that violate the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
• There is a comprehensive and detailed body of international law—comprising both binding treaties and non-binding agreements—that defines the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, covering substantive individual, collective, land, and procedural rights.
• Analysis of Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) decisions and IUCN resolutions shows a marked increase over time in the frequency and priority given to the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
• Indigenous Peoples and local communities face severe barriers when seeking redress for conservation-related injustices, including discrimination, lack of recognition of collective rights in national courts, and weak enforcement of international rulings.
• The report identifies a persistent gap between international human rights consensus and local implementation, citing numerous cases of forced evictions, violence, and loss of livelihoods carried out in the name of conservation across Africa, Asia, and the Americas.
• To address systemic conservation injustice, the authors propose several options, including the distillation of core human rights standards, the development of stakeholder-specific tools, and the possible creation of an independent body like a 'Conservation Stewardship Council' to monitor compliance and handle grievances.

APA

Jonas, H., Roe, D., & Makagon, J. E. (2014). Human Rights Standards for Conservation. Natural Justice. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Human-Rights-Standards-Conservation.pdf

Chicago

Jonas, Harry, Dilys Roe, and Jael E. Makagon. Human Rights Standards for Conservation. Natural Justice, 2014. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Human-Rights-Standards-Conservation.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Jonas |first1=Harry |last2=Roe |first2=Dilys |last3=Makagon |first3=Jael E. |title=Human Rights Standards for Conservation |publisher=Natural Justice |date=November 2014 |url=https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Human-Rights-Standards-Conservation.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{jonas2014human, author = {Jonas, Harry and Roe, Dilys and Makagon, Jael E.}, title = {{Human Rights Standards for Conservation}}, institution = {Natural Justice}, year = {2014}, month = nov, url = {https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Human-Rights-Standards-Conservation.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }