1.
REDD+ AND THE ‘DO NO HARM’ PRINCIPLE:
A RETREAT FROM JUSTICE?
Kimberly R. Marion Suiseeya, PhD kmarions@purdue.edu
Department of Political Science, Purdue University
IIED Workshop on Equity, Justice, and Well-being in Ecosystem Governance
1
27 March 2015
London, UK

2.
Outline
2
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.
3
The Promises of REDD+
Sources: UN-REDD

4.
4 Source: Indigenous Environmental Network

5.
5
Trends in Global Forest Governance
Through 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)

6.
Global Forests Regime Complex
6
Marion Suiseeya, K. (2014) The Justice Gap in Global Forest Governance. Unpublished Dissertation. Duke University: Durham, NC.

7.
7
Organization
/Institution
Justice 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.

8.
Research Question
8
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

9.
Global Forest Justice
9

10.
Justice Metanorm
10
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.

11.
Demand for Representation
11
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

12.
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

13.
Recap
13
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+

14.
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.
15
Thank you!
kmarions@purdue.edu
http://kimberlymarionsuiseeya.weebly.com

16.
References
16
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.