Can Rights-Based Approaches Enhance Levels of Legitimacy and Cooperation in Conservation? A Relational Account

Human Rights Review

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 283-303

  Jodoin, Sébastien ^a  

^a Yale University   (United States)

Author keywords

Conservation; Environmental governance; Human rights; Legitimacy; Procedural justice; Rights based approaches

Indexed keywords

EID: 84907349550     PISSN: 15248879     EISSN: 18746306     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12142-014-0312-8     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Adams W, Hutton J (2007) People, parks and poverty: Political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conservation and Society 5(2): 147.
2. Agrawal A, Gibson C (1999) Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development 629: 27.
3. Bernstein S (2005) Legitimacy in global environmental governance. Journal of International Law and International Relations 1: 139.
4. Bernstein S, Cashore B (2007) Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework. Regulation & Governance 1: 347.
5. Borgström S (2012) Legitimacy issues in Finnish wolf conservation. Journal of Environmental Law 1.
6. Borrini-Feyerabend G et al. (2004) Sharing power: Learning by doing in co-management of natural resources throughout the world. IIED and IUCN, London.
7. Bouma J, Ansink E (2011) Community co-management and the perceived legitimacy of conservation. IVM Working Paper 11/03.
8. Brockington D, Igoe J (2006) Eviction for conservation: A global overview. Conservation and Society 4(3): 424.
9. Cabello J, Gilbertson T (2012) A colonial mechanism to enclose lands: A critical review of two REDD+-focused special issues. Ephemera 12(1/2): 162.
10. Campese, J (2009) Rights-based approaches to conservation: An overview of concepts and questions. In Campese, J, Sunderland, T, Greiber, T, and Oviedo, G (eds.) Rights-based approaches: Exploring issues and opportunities for conservation, Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR and IUCN, 1.
11. Campese, J, Sunderland, T, Greiber, T, and Oviedo, G (2009a) (eds.), Rights-based approaches: Exploring issues and opportunities for conservation, Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR and IUCN.
12. Campese, J, Sunderland, T, Greiber, T, and Oviedo, G (2009b), What have we learned and where do we go from here? In Campese, J, Sunderland, T, Greiber, T, and Oviedo, G (eds.) Rights-based approaches: Exploring issues and opportunities for conservation, Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR and IUCN, 287.
13. CARE and Oxfam America (2007). Rights-Based Approaches. Learning Project. Oxfam: Oxford.
14. Carlsson L, Berkes F (2005) Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management 75(1): 65.
15. Cernea M (2006) Re-examining 'displacement': A redefinition of concepts in development and conservation policies. Social Change 36(1): 8.
16. Conservation Initiative on Human Rights (2010) Conservation and human rights framework. https://community. iucn. org/cihr/Pages/conservation. aspx. Accessed 15/02/2013.
17. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1981) UNGA Res. 34/180, 34 U. N. GAOR Supp. (No. 46) at 193, U. N. Doc. A/34/46.
18. Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990) UNGA Res. 44/25, annex, 44 U. N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U. N. Doc. A/44/49.
19. Corbera E, Brown K, Adger W (2007) The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Development and Change 38(4): 587.
20. Cortell A, Davis J (2005) When norms clash: international norms, domestic practices, and Japan's internalisation of the GATT/WTO. Review of International Studies 31: 3.
21. Crane, W, Sandwith, T, McGregor, E and Younge, A (2009). Where conservation and community coincide: A human rights approach to conservation and development in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. In Campese, J, Sunderland, T, Greiber, T, and Oviedo, G (eds.) Rights-based approaches: Exploring issues and opportunities for conservation, Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR and IUCN, 141.
22. Danielsen F et al (2009) Local participation in natural resource monitoring: a characterization of approaches. Conservation Biology 23(1): 31.
23. Ellemers N, Spears R, Doosje B (eds) (2002) Social identity. Blackwell: Oxford.
24. Fearnside, P (2003) Conservation policy in Brazilian Amazonia: understanding the dillemas World Development 31(5): 757.
25. Ferraro P, Simpson D (2002) The cost-effectiveness of conservation payments. Land Economics 78(3): 339.
26. Fischer, R. (2010) Devolution or persistence of state control. In Chusak Wittayapak & Peter Vandergeest (eds.), The Politics of Decentralization: Natural Resource Management in Asia, Chiang Mai, Mekong Press: 21.
27. Greiber, T. (2009) (ed.) Conservation with Justice, IUCN Environmental Law and Policy Paper No. 71.
28. Gruskin S, Bogecho D, Ferguson L (2010) Rights-based approaches to health policies and programs: Articulations, ambiguities, and assessment. Journal of Public Health Policy 31: 129.
29. Hajjar R, Kozak R, Innes J (2012) Is decentralization leading to 'real' decision-making power for forest-dependent communities? Case studies from Mexico and Brazil. Ecology and Society Art. 17(1): 12.
30. Igoe J, Brockington D (2007) Neoliberal conservation: A brief introduction. Conservation and Society 5(4): 432.
31. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1969) UNGA Res. 2106 (XX), annex, 20 U. N. GAOR Supp. (No. 14) at 47, U. N. Doc. A/6014 (1966), 660 U. N. T. S. 195.
32. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976) UNGA Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U. N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U. N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U. N. T. S. 171.
33. International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (1976) UNGA Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U. N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 49, U. N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 993 U. N. T. S.
34. IUCN (2013) Conservation with justice: A rights-based approach applied to The Hague Region, the Netherlands. IUCN Rights-Based Approach to Conservation Portal. https://community. iucn. org/rba1/projects/Pages/A%20Rights-based%20Approach%20Applied%20to%20The%20Hague%20Region,%20the%20Netherlands. aspx. Accessed 15/02/2013.
35. Jodoin S, Stephenson S (2013) Introduction: Understanding Legal Empowerment of the Poor in the Context of Sustainable Development. Canadian Journal of Poverty Law 2(1): i.
36. Johnson C, Forsyth T (2002) In the eyes of the state: negotiating a 'rights-based approach' to forest conservation in Thailand. World Development 30(9): 1591.
37. Jonas H, Shrumm H, Bavikatte K (2010) Biocultural Community Protocols and Conservation Pluralism. Policy Matters 17: 2012.
38. Keulartz J, Leistra G (eds) (2008) Legitimacy in European nature conservation policy. Springer: London.
39. Konovsky M (2000) Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Journal of Management 26(3): 489.
40. Konovsky M, Pugh S (1994) Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal 37: 656.
41. Laban P, Haddad F and Mizyed B (2009) Enhancing rights and local level accountability in water management in the Middle East: Conceptual framework and case studies from Palestine and Jordan. In Campese, J, Sunderland, T, Greiber, T, and Oviedo, G (eds.) Rights-based approaches: Exploring issues and opportunities for conservation, Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR and IUCN, 97.
42. Lele S, et al (2010) Beyond exclusion: alternative approaches to biodiversity conservation in the developing tropics. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 94(2): 1.
43. March J, Olsen J (1989) Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. Free Press, New York.
44. Mayer D et al. (2009) When do fair procedures not matter? A test of the identity violation effect. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(1): 142.
45. Menzies N (2007) Our Forest, Your Ecosystem, Their Timber. Communities, Conservation and the State in Community-Based Forest Management, New York: Columbia University Press.
46. Murphree, M (2009) The strategic pillars of communal natural resource management: Benefit, empowerment, and conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 18(10): 2551.
47. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2012) Principles and Guidelines for a Human Rights Approach to Poverty Reduction Strategies. U. N. Doc. HR/PUB/06/12.
48. Oviedo G, Puschkarsky T (2012) World Heritage and rights-based approaches to nature conservation. International Journal of Heritage Studies 18(3): 285.
49. Peluso N (1993) Coercing conservation? The politics of state resource control. Global Environmental Change: 199.
50. Peluso N, Lund C (2012) New frontiers of land control: Introduction. Journal of Peasant Studies 38(4): 37.
51. Pierce Colfer C (2011) Marginalized forest peoples' perceptions of the legitimacy of governance: An exploration. World Development 39(12): 2147.
52. Pimbert M (2004) Institutionalizing participation and people centered processes in natural resource management. Research and publications highlights. IIED, London.
53. Pirard R (2012) Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: A lexicon. Environmental Science & Policy 59: 19.
54. Pulhin J, Dressler W (2009) People, power and timber: the politics of community-based forest management. Journal of environmental management 91(1): 206.
55. Rantala T (2012) Legitimacy of forest and nature conservation policy: A conceptual framework with illustrations. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 27: 164.
56. Reed P (2011) REDD+ and the indigenous question: A case study from Ecuador. Forests 2(2): 525.
57. Reinisch A (2005) The changing international legal framework for dealing with non-state actors. In Alston P (ed) Non-State Actors and Human Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 37.
58. Ribot, J (2003) Democratic decentralisation of natural resources: Institutional choice and discretionary power transfers in Sub-Saharan Africa. Public Administration and Development 23(1): 53.
59. Ribot J, Larson A (2011) Affirmative policy on an uneven playing field: Implications for REDD. In Sikor T, Stahl J (eds) Forests and People. Property, Governance, and Human Rights. Easthscan: London, 67.
60. Ribot J, Peluso N (2003) A theory of access. Rural Sociology 68(2): 153.
61. Schuijers L, (2011) Application of a Rights-Based Approach to Conservation: The Problem of Fragmentation and the Need for a Coordinated Response. Macquarie Journal of International and Comparative Environmental Law 7(1): 22.
62. Sharma Paudel N, Ghimire S, Raj Ojha H (2007) Human rights - A guiding principle or an obstacle for conservation? IUCN Policy Matters 15: 299.
63. Shelton D (2009), A Rights-based Approach to Conservation. In Greiber, T. (ed.) Conservation with Justice. IUCN Environmental Law and Policy Paper No. 71, 2009.
64. Siegele L, Roe D Giuliani A, Winer N (2009) Conservation and human rights-Who says what? A review of international law and policy. In: Campese J, Sunderland T, Greiber T, Oviedo G (eds) Rights-based approaches: Exploring issues and opportunities for conservation. Bogor, Indonesia, 47.
65. Skitka L (2002) Do the means always justify the ends or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28: 588.
66. Sokhi-Bulle B (2010) Governing (through) rights: Statistics as technologies of governmentality" Social & Legal Studies 20: 1.
67. Steffek J (2009) Discursive legitimation in environmental governance. Forest Policy and Economics 11: 313.
68. Stern, M (2008a) The power of trust: Towards a theory of local opposition to neighbouring protected areas. Society and Natural Resources 21(10): 859.
69. Stern M (2008b) Coercion, voluntary compliance and protest: the role of trust and legitimacy in combating local opposition to protected areas. Environmental Conservation 35(3): 200.
70. Svadlenak-Gomez K (2007). Human rights and conservation: Integrating human rights in conservation programming. TransLinks (WCS) 48.
71. Tyler T (1997a) The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review 1(4): 323.
72. Tyler T (1997b) Procedural fairness and compliance with the law. Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics 133 2(2): 219.
73. Tyler T (2006) Why people obey the law: procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance. Yale University Press, New Haven.
74. Tyler T (2011) Why people cooperate: The role of social motivations. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
75. Tyler T, Degoey P (1995) Collective restraint in social dilemmas: Procedural justice and social identification effects on support for authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(3): 482.
76. U. N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2006) U. N. Human Rights Council Resolution 2006/2.
77. van den Bos K, Lind E (2001) The psychology of own versus others' treatment: Self-oriented and other-oriented effects on perceptions of procedural justice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27(10): 1324.
78. Viteri C, Chavez C (2007) Legitimacy, local participation, and compliance in the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Ocean and Coastal Management 50(3-4): 253.
79. Wells M, McShane T, Dublin H, O'Connor S, and Redford, K (2004) The future of integrated conservation and development projects: Building on what works. In McShane, T and Wells M (eds.) Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work: Towards More Effective Conservation and Development. Columbia University Press, New York.
80. Wollenberg E, et al. (2007) Fourteen years of monitoring community-managed forests: Learning from IFRI's experience. International Forestry Review (9)(2): 670.
81. World Conservation Congress (2008) Resolution 4. 056 Rights-based approaches to conservation. 4th Session, Barcelona, Spain, 5-14 October 2008.
82. Wunder S (2005) Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper 42. Bogor, Indonesia.