Funding conservation is not always a straightforward moral good.
At times, it has been tied to human rights abuses, from forced evictions of Indigenous communities to violence by eco-guards. Donors—be they governments, multilateral agencies, or NGOs—are increasingly being asked to account for such abuses. Yet the question remains: when violations come to light, what should funders do?
John Knox, former UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, has spent years considering this dilemma.
“There are many reasons for these abuses and failures,” he said in a recent conversation with Latoya Abulu published on Mongabay, “but one important factor is a lack of clarity as to the responsibilities of private conservation organizations and funders.”
In response, he co-authored a UN report outlining core human rights principles for conservation funders.
Knox describes a tiered approach. First, conservation organizations should conduct human rights due diligence before engaging in protected areas, assessing potential risks. If abuses occur, they must determine whether they are causing the problem, contributing to it, or merely linked through their partnerships.
“If they’re causing it or contributing to the problem, then they should stop and make remediation for whatever they did,” he says.
If they are linked to abuses—such as by funding a park where government rangers commit violations—they should use their leverage to press for reforms. Pulling out, he insists, should be a last resort.
Yet the media can complicate matters.
“Often, when it hits the media, there is a strong urge… just to pull out and cut their losses,” Knox says. That, he argues, is a failure: organizations should be proactive, aware of risks before they make headlines, and engaged in solutions rather than reactive withdrawals.
The challenge is particularly acute where conservation efforts have a colonial legacy. Many protected areas were established by displacing Indigenous peoples. If NGOs manage such parks today, should they press for Indigenous land access?
“They have a responsibility not to be complicit in the ongoing violations,” Knox says. “[They should be on record supporting] renewed access.”
For funders, the responsibility is no less significant.
“Instead of stepping back, they should think seriously about stepping in,” Knox suggests, shifting resources to improve human rights outcomes rather than simply withdrawing support.
Conservation, it seems, must evolve beyond preserving landscapes to protecting the rights of those who call them home.
