Survey confirms civic space in tropical forest landscapes is under pressure

Effective forest conservation and Indigenous peoples and local communities (IP&LC)-led forest governance can only be achieved in a context where civil society organisations (CSOs) and IP&LCs can act in a safe operational space. A survey carried out by the Green Livelihoods Alliance (GLA), of which IUCN NL is part in 2023 showed that partners and communities in the GLA’s Forests for a Just Future programme experience difficulties in their civic freedom, seriously impacting their work to protect forests and the livelihoods of IP&LCs in forest landscapes.

Header photo: Upemba, DRC © Paul Villaespesa IUCN NL

In all GLA countries ^[1]The countries where the Green Livelihoods Alliance operates are: Bolivia, Cameroon, Colombia, DR Congo, Ghana, Indonesia, Liberia, Malaysia, Philippines, Uganda, and Vietnam. civic space is diminishing, and either rated as closed, repressed or obstructed. The GLA civic space survey showed that GLA partners experience difficulties in all their civic freedoms, in particular Access to Information, (Women) Environmental Human Rights Defenders ((W)EHRDS) Protection, Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Assembly. GLA partners and communities experienced all types of retaliation, ranging from physical attacks to political repression. Some pressing issues include restrictive legislation (e.g. on foreign funding), red-tagging, SLAPPs (cases filed against individuals or organisations who speak out on issues of public interest or concern to intimidate them and inflict costs), negative framing, misinformation / fake news and cyber bullying.

Civic space survey

The civic space survey was conducted by the Green Livelihoods Alliance (GLA) in 2023.  The survey looked into the OECD dimensions of open civic space: civic freedoms; citizen/CSO participation; CSO-enabling environment; media and digital rights, and freedom and security of those who speak up. It provided useful insights into how GLA partners in the 11 countries of implementation experience civic space and the ability to exercise their human rights.

The findings show that GLA partners face many types of restrictions, both formal (legal, regulative, administrative) and informal (e.g. intimidation, stigmatising, loss of legitimacy). Many IP&LC leaders and (W)EHRDs are subject to arbitrary arrests and assault, retaliatory litigation and even death. The top three difficulties experienced by GLA partners are Access to Information, Threats to (W)EHRDs and Loss of Legitimacy and Criminalisation.

‘Our organisation is the victim of a political trial (disguised as an administrative trial) promoted by the government, in retaliation for the actions we develop, investigating and disseminating critical information on economic and environmental policies and their impacts on human rights. This judgment has affected us and hangs over us like a permanent threat.’

– African GLA partner organisation

No access to information

There is a lack of access to information from the government or companies in relation to extractive projects, for example oil extraction or mining for critical minerals, which have an impact on nature and on the rights of IP&LCs. This greatly complicates the work of GLA partners, because not only are they not (timely) informed of these projects, but they are also not provided with relevant documentation on the project, making it difficult for them to object to the development of these projects through legal means.

Threats to (W)EHRDs

Unfortunately, the survey also confirmed findings revealed in the most recent Global Witness report regarding the situation of (W)EHRDs. This report shows that in 2022 at least 177 (W)EHRDs were killed for trying to protect human rights, their land and the environment and that more and more (W)EHRDs are threatened by violence, intimidation and curtailment of their rights. Almost all GLA partners working in Africa, South-America and Southeast Asia experience both the physical and non-physical threats described in the report.

Loss of legitimacy and criminalisation

Governments in GLA partner countries also implement legislation that makes it, for example, more difficult to receive funds from abroad or that requires CSOs to be registered with a government agency. This registration can then be revoked at will by these government agencies, which can cause the CSO in question to lose its legitimacy. CSOs and its employees are also criminalised by falsely linking them to communist organisations which happens, for example, in the Philippines. These unsubstantiated allegations are often followed by threats or physical surveillance, eventually leading to attacks, arrest, detention or death by security forces or ‘unidentified persons/groups’.     

Power inequalities

Another aspect that is very important to understand in this regard are the power inequalities that GLA partners deal with. Combating deforestation and related human rights violations requires the ability of CSOs and IP&LCs to stand up against vested interests. Structural power inequality between corporate actors (e.g. mining and plantation companies) and government elites on the one hand, and IP&LCs on the other, is a major underlying cause of deforestation, displacement of people from their lands and human rights violations. 

These power inequalities prevent the voices of IP&LCs, especially women and youth, from being heard in institutionalised decision-making processes. Not only do vested powers dominate these arenas, but limited resources restrict IP&LCs, community-based organisations (CBOs), CSOs and women’s rights and youth organisations to participate in social movements and resist powerful actors.

GLA approach towards securing civic space and protecting (W)EHRDs

GLA works towards securing the civic space for CSOs and (W)EHRDs, so that they can stand up for their rights, livelihoods and forests. GLA supports these (W)EHRDs in a variety of ways to protect themselves against threats and in dealing with repression. Our approach is multi-faceted, both preventive and responsive, and includes, amongst others:

• Strengthening the rights, voice, position of IP&LCs, 
• (Country / regional / international) network and solidarity building,
• Supporting access to justice, 
• Trainings on safety & security of partners and communities, 
• Providing emergency funds, 
• Using UN mechanisms (Universal Periodic Review, Special Rapporteur etc.),
• Contributing to regional environmental human rights protection mechanisms such as Escazu and the ASEAN framework on environmental human rights,
• Policy advocacy (country / regional / international) for more favorable policies and against policies that would further restrict civic space.

GLA successes

Despite the challenging context, our efforts have in many cases enhanced the security of our partners. We also prevented the adoption of several laws and policies that would have further restricted civic space in some countries. We have also made progress at the EU level, for instance on due diligence legislation for companies. However, it is an uphill battle: the global trend of more autocratic regimes continues steadily, ensuring that we often already consider preventing (further) deterioration of civic space a ‘success’.

The survey report provided useful insights and recommendations that are taken forward in the remainder of the programme.

Forests for a Just Future programme

Through the Forests for a Just Future programme by the Green Livelihoods Alliance, IUCN NL contributes to more sustainable and inclusive management of tropical forests that supports climate mitigation and adaptation, human rights, and the livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.

Read more

• Our work for human rights & nature
• Our work for climate & forests