Distinguishing park rangers from environmental defenders

IUCN COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL POLICY SPECIAL ISSUE ON ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS SEPTEMBER 2021 VOLUME III CONSERVATION AND THE NEED FOR GREATER DEFENDERS PROTECTION POLICY MATTERS SPECIAL ISSUE ON ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS VOLUME III Table of contents Dame permiso/Grant me permission Poem by Rosa Chávez iv Preface vi Guest contributor – Manuela Picq Environmental defenders as first guardians of the world’s biodiversity 1 1 What do you know about conservation and human rights? Helen Newing and Anouska Perram Wayne Lotter by Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime 7 15 2 BINGO complicity, necropolitical ecology and environmental defenders Mary Menton and Paul Gilbert 18 The murder of Zafar Lund by Ali Nobil Ahmad 32 3 Green violence and human rights in conservation spaces Maano Ramutsindela 36 Women defenders of land and territory: challenging extractive ‘development’ Testimonies by Laura Carlsen and Adelaide Mazwarira 44 Defiende tu sangre/Defend your blood Poem by Rosa Chávez 48 4 Distinguishing park rangers from environmental defenders Judith Verweijen, Francis Massé, Anwesha Dutta and Esther Marijnen 50 Women Building Power: Activist Stories Testimonies by WoMin African Alliance 63 5 The urgency of addressing gender-based violence against women environmental human rights defenders Melissa Luna, Laura Sabater, Itzá Castañeda and Cate Owren 72 Rap del Veedor/The Monitors’ Rap Video by Gasel 89 6 Protecting and supporting defenders: A review of policies for environmental and land defenders Shivangi Khanna and Philippe Le Billon 90 Another Poverty Poem by shalan joudry 119 Endnotes 120 III POLICY MATTERS SPECIAL ISSUE ON ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS VOLUME III Benches and pots from a rangers’ camp in Virunga National Park. SOURCE: ESTHER MARIJNEN Distinguishing park rangers from environmental defenders Judith Verweijen,a) Francis Massé,b) Anwesha Duttac) and Esther Marijnend) Abstract Around the world, many conservation officials and park rangers work courageously and with significant personal risk to protect biodiversity. Despite this, we argue, there are considerable differences between rangers on the one hand and environmental and land defenders on the other, in terms of their occupational role, social embeddedness and position, and the nature of their work. Rangers’ occupational role as state officials, or employees of statemandated organisations, and sometimes as arms-bearing law enforcement agents, sets them apart from environmental defenders. The latter are often Indigenous peoples, community-based organisations and civil society groups, who in many contexts dispute the state, its policies and laws, and particular state officials. Their objects of contestation include laws and policies to protect biodiversity, which people living in and around protected areas may perceive to be at odds with their land and socio-economic rights. Furthermore, rangers’ mandated use of force, for instance, to carry out evictions, sits uneasy with the emphasis placed on ‘peaceful action’ in mainstream definitions of environmental defenders. In addition, rangers are often locally perceived to have a different social position than environmental defenders. Finally, because of the distinct nature of their work and position, rangers and environmental defenders have different protection needs. We therefore suggest conceptualising rangers as a group apart from ‘environmental defenders’’. This has important policy implications, as it allows for addressing the challenges faced by each group through distinct mechanisms and frameworks. Ultimately, this will enhance the protection of both rangers and environmental and land defenders. a) University of Sheffield, UK. E-mail: j.verweijen@ sheffield.ac.uk b) Northumbria University, UK c) Chr. Michelsen Institute, Norway d) University of Ghent, Belgium TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 Key words: park rangers; environmental and land defenders; conservation; parkpeople conflict 3 4 5 6 50 POLICY MATTERS SPECIAL ISSUE ON ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS VOLUME III Introduction In its annual statistical overview of environmental defenders killed, Global Witness (2019; 2020) includes park rangers and certain other types of state officials. Similarly, certain branches of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), such as IUCN Netherlands, explicitly consider rangers to be environmental defenders (IUCN, 2021b). Presenting park rangers as environmental defenders chimes with growing global attention to the precarious working conditions and dangers this group faces (Belecky, 2019). It also coincides with increasingly prominent discourses about rangers as ‘heroes on the frontlines’ (IFAW, 2020) and as martyrs who are willing to sacrifice their life in the defence of nature (Kathri, 2020). Many conservation officials and park rangers work, often tirelessly, to protect landscapes of conservation, and the species, habitats, and ecosystems within them. Moreover, in doing so, many of them run considerable and often lethal risks, being threatened by wildlife, armed poachers, rebels, diseases and accidents. But is it appropriate to label rangers as ‘environmental rangers’? This question is not only important to ask from a conceptual point of view, but also because of its practical and policy implications, as it shapes approaches to protect both rangers and environmental defenders. There are ongoing debates about the definition, adequacy and usefulness of the terms environmental (and land) defenders and environmental human rights defenders, which are broad umbrella terms that lump together disparate categories of activists, professionals, movements, community leaders and others (Verweijen et al., 2021). This article contributes to this discussion by focusing on the specific role and status of rangers, which is a growing subject of debate. One indication of this is that in its latest annual report, Global Witness (2020) no longer automatically includes rangers as environmental defenders, but only does so when certain criteria are fulfilled (which we further discuss below). We contend that ultimately, the nature of rangers’ work and their occupational role in state or state-mandated organisations – as well as their social position and the way they are locally perceived – set them apart from other categories considered ‘environmental defenders’ and create distinct challenges and protection needs. This is not to downplay the work of rangers in protecting biodiversity and ecosystems, or the risks that they face. It’s simply to acknowledge the distinct nature of their work, social roles and status, while taking into account that in certain contexts, there can be very real tensions and conflicts between different groups of people currently labelled as ‘environmental defenders’. The rest of this article proceeds as follows. We first outline how rangers differ from environmental and land defenders and how these differences shape perceptions of rangers in the areas where they operate. We then explain why it may be productive to distinguish rangers from defenders, specifically how this could help improve the protection of both groups. We conclude by highlighting the need to develop a deeper understanding of the social embedding and local perceptions of both rangers and environmental defenders, and the challenges each group faces. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 51 POLICY MATTERS SPECIAL ISSUE ON ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS VOLUME III 2. Why rangers differ from environmental and land defenders In certain contexts, the work of rangers and environmental defenders aligns. Yet, this does not eradicate the considerable differences that exist between the two groups. Here we systematically explain these differences, taking into account that the role, work and status of both defenders and rangers, as well as the relations between them, show great variation around the world. 2.1 Occupational role Many definitions of defenders highlight that they engage in their activities in “either their personal or professional capacity” (United Nations, 2016, p. 4). Rangers, as employees of conservation agencies with a remunerated professional role, do the latter. While there are important differences in park rangers’ statute and the nature of their work globally, they are commonly part of conservation and law-enforcement bodies within the state, or of private organisations that are mandated and regulated by the state to conduct conservation and law enforcement work.5 In addition, in many areas around the world, park rangers are armed and receive law enforcement and sometimes military training to be able to conduct their work. Similar to other law enforcement organisations, ranger bodies are generally hierarchically structured, with rangers being expected to follow orders from their superiors (Warchol & Kapla, 2012; Kuiper et al., 2021). These features set rangers apart from other professionals who are environmental defenders, such as NGO staff, journalists or lawyers. These professionals are rarely part of state agencies and do not engage in law enforcement. Nor does their profession require them to bear firearms, or undergo military training (although some of them may be trained in security and self-defence techniques). Moreover, these other professionals tend to have higher levels of autonomy in shaping their professional actions. For instance, investigative journalists mostly decide by themselves whether to conduct a risky investigation into efforts by multinationals to cover up pollution and environmental damage. This higher degree of autonomy is reflected in the fact that these professionals are only considered environmental defenders through their actions. Rangers, by contrast, are considered defenders by virtue of their job as rangers. These differences also bear relation to motivations for doing their respective jobs. Both rangers and defenders engage in their activities out of dedication to defending the environment, nature, ecosystems and biodiversity. However, research has shown that rank-and-file rangers, in particular in low-income countries, join the service also for other reasons, including economic precarity and the absence of other employment avenues (Belecky et al., 2019). This seems rarely the case with environmental defenders. Rangers’ variety of motivations for joining the service nuances the popular romanticisation of rangers protecting wildlife purely out of vocation. Moreover, it partly explains why in some contexts, rangers have been found to facilitate the illegal exploitation of forest and other resources in exchange for bribes (Moreto, Brunson & Braga, 2015; Dutta, 2020), which further calls their blanket categorisation as environmental defenders into question. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 52 POLICY MATTERS SPECIAL ISSUE ON ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS VOLUME III 2.2 Embeddedness in state structures Rangers’ embeddedness within hierarchically structured state or state-mandated organisations implies their work generally aligns with the interests of at least certain segments of the state apparatus. In some contexts, rangers are strongly endorsed and even celebrated by the state, with many governments hosting World Ranger Day celebrations and creating special awards for rangers. Moreover, people living in or around the areas where rangers work often closely associate them with the state or state-sanctioned organisations, not least as they wear uniforms that symbolically set them apart from the population (Dunn, 2009; Poppe, 2013; Massé et al., 2017). These close ties to ‘the state’ differ from the position of many environmental and land defenders, who frequently contest the state, its policies and laws, or the unlawful practices of state officials. This is in part because the state often coercively acts against the values and interests of local populations and criminalises them for trying to defend their land and the environment against state-supported economic and conservation projects. Tent for rangers in Virunga National Park. Illustratively, Global Witness’s (2019) Annual Defenders report PHOTO: ESTHER MARIJNEN of 2018 was called Enemies of the State. Some environmental and land defenders specifically challenge the laws that rangers seek to implement and uphold, for instance, as they have a different vision on how nature, their land and ecosystems should be protected (Carson et al., 2018). To understand why local populations at times contest rangers, it’s important to consider the context of conservation and the tensions that have historically characterised it, especially in the Global South. Conservation areas were often created by forcibly displacing local communities and imposing restrictions on land and resource access that continue until present (Neumann, 1998; Brockington & Igoe, 2008; Agrawal & Redford, 2009). Displacement to create, extend and secure protected areas still happens today (Lunstrum, 2015; Witter & Satterfield, 2019). In India, for instance, forest bureaucracy has evicted local populations residing within protected areas throughout history. This first occurred under colonial rule, when forests were primarily utilised for timber production and has continued in the postcolonial period for the conservation of trees and wildlife (Randeria, 2007; Bose et al., 2012). Barred from what they often consider their ancestral land and its natural, cultural and spiritual resources, many displaced communities see conservation as a threat to their ways of life and living with nature (Schmidt-Soltau, 2003; Baker et al., 2012). ‘Land’ and ‘environmental’ defenders are generally treated as a singular category. However, depending on the context, there can be important differences in priorities, objectives and motivations between those defending land on the one hand and those striving to protect nature, ecosystems, or the environment on the other. Indeed, conservation projects can TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 53 POLICY MATTERS SPECIAL ISSUE ON ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS VOLUME III heavily undermine people’s land rights by inducing displacement or restricted access to land and resources. Consequently, local populations can come to consider conservation a form of large-scale land grabbing (Fairhead et al., 2012), similar to the agro-industrial and mining projects that defenders often contest (Prause & Le Billon, 2021). This is especially true where protected areas work closely with private sector actors, such as mining companies, that Indigenous and other communities are resisting to protect their socioeconomic and environmental rights (Le Billon, 2021). In the Selous Reserve in Tanzania, for example, rangers are supported and trained by and even work alongside mining companies and their private security personnel (Holterman, 2020). 2.3 Use of force It’s generally within rangers’ professional mandate to enforce access restrictions and other conservation laws that may be locally contested. Depending on the type of protected area, this entails apprehending people who entered the area to cultivate, gather firewood and twigs, log trees, hunt bushmeat, gather caterpillars, mushrooms and medicinal plants, and conduct spiritual ceremonies. Rangers also carry out evictions, regardless of whether they personally agree with these policies or not. Some of these law enforcement tasks entail the intended or inadvertent use of force against people and property, such as burning down people’s huts, and confiscating or destroying their harvest, agricultural fields and tools, and fishing nets (Carlson et al., 2015; Warren & Baker, 2019; Verweijen, 2020). For instance, violent eviction drives in India involve rangers razing makeshift homes of forest dwellers and Indigenous communities using elephants, often with little to no prior notice (Dutta, 2018). Park rangers may also beat suspected offenders when apprehending them or shoot at them when they try to flee, which is standard practice where shoot-on-sight policies are in place (Neumann, 2004; Mabele, 2017; Mogomotsi & Madigele, 2017). The use of force is particularly frequent in contexts of armed conflict and/or where poachers are armed, especially when rangers conduct anti-poaching or other operations in collaboration with national armed forces. The training of rangers operating in these violent settings increasingly emphasises arms handling, combat tactics and fitness, and is often provided by private security contractors and (former) commandos or special operations personnel (Humphreys & Smith, 2014; Annecke & Masubelele, 2016; Verweijen & Marijnen, 2018; Duffy et al., 2019). Rangers’ professional use of force sits uneasy with most definitions of environmental defenders, particularly since it sometimes involves human rights violations (Neumann, 2004; Warren & Baker, 2019; Vidal, 2020). These definitions maintain that only people using non-violent means can qualify as environmental defenders, while emphasising that this group also defends human rights. For instance, UN Environment describes defenders as “individuals and groups who (…) in a peaceful manner, strive to protect and promote human rights relating to the environment, including water, air, land, flora and fauna” (UNEP, 2018; emphasis added). Global Witness (2020, p. 40, emphasis added) describes defenders as “people who take a stand and carry out peaceful action against the unjust, discriminatory, corrupt or damaging exploitation of natural resources or the environment”. While neither of these organisations explain what they in fact mean by TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 54 POLICY MATTERS SPECIAL ISSUE ON ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS VOLUME III ‘peaceful’, rendering this an arbitrary criterion, we believe that certain actions of armed rangers that entail the use of force, even where an integral part of their job, do not qualify as such. 2.4 Social position Rangers’ professional mandate to enforce laws and their close association with the state puts them in a social position that differs from that of people living adjacent to or in conservation areas. This is even the case where they belong to the same communities and ethnic or Indigenous groups as local populations. The position of such locally recruited rangers is inherently ambiguous, in particular when they serve at lower levels of the forest or conservation service hierarchy (Poppe, 2012; Dutta, 2020). As stated by Vasan (2002, p. 4126), these rangers navigate “in a twilight zone, torn between the demands of the state for which they work, and those of the society in which they live and socialise” as community members. This ambivalence comes starkly to the fore when rangers have to prove their loyalty to the state by arresting their own kin (Dutta, 2020). Such arrests and other law enforcement practices underscore the highly unequal power relations between rangers and communities, especially where rangers are armed. These inequalities tend to be even more pronounced where rangers are heavily sponsored by international donors, who sometimes contribute to their salary and pay for their training, equipment, uniforms, health insurance and means of transport. Foreign support creates further social distance between rangers and local populations, making the first appear all-powerful and wealthy compared to the latter (Marijnen, 2017; Massé et al., 2017; Verweijen et al., 2020). In many contexts, rangers’ professional role and social position cause them to be seen as decidedly distinct from those considered environmental defenders, in particular community and Indigenous leaders, grassroots movements, community-based and civil society organisations, and other local activists. Indeed, rangers’ actions are often associated with the wider socio-political structures they are embedded in (Poppe, 2013; Marijnen, 2018), which differ substantially from the socio-political base of community leaders and members of civil society. These diverging perceptions should make us cautious to conceptualise rangers as environmental defenders. Moreover, ignoring local people’s perceptions of who qualifies as a defender and who does not could lead the concept of defenders to become perceived as externally imposed by western-based organisations, (Verweijen et al., 2021). Research shows that how rangers are perceived by the people living in and around conservation areas is highly context dependent. In some areas, rangers are seen in positive terms, for instance, as they enhance people’s physical security by protecting them against armed kidnappers and poachers (Kelly & Gupta, 2016). In other contexts, by contrast, perceptions of rangers are more negative due to long-standing tensions (Moreto, 2015; Moreto, Brunson & Braga, 2017). Where Indigenous and other local groups contest a loss of environmental and socio-economic rights as a result of conservation, rangers might even be seen as ‘enemies’ (Verweijen et al., 2020). TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 55 POLICY MATTERS SPECIAL ISSUE ON ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS VOLUME III In sum, while rangers work to protect biodiversity, often at great personal risk, the nature of their work and their professional role and social position differ from environmental defenders. Moreover, in many contexts, the defence of biodiversity and protected areas does not align with the defence of local and Indigenous land, resources, and human rights. Global Witness has recently acknowledged these tensions by changing their position on the inclusion of rangers and other government officials in their annual statistics of environmental defenders killed. Their most recent annual report states that: “We do not include in our data cases of individuals linked to violence against Indigenous or local communities in their efforts to protect natural reserves. We do, however, include cases of government officials and park rangers who have been specifically threatened or targeted while trying to protect forestland and biodiversity, where there is no known conflict with Indigenous or local communities” (Global Witness, 2020, p. 41). This change in language reflects growing awareness of the issues we have outlined above. It remains unclear, however, how Global Witness verifies whether there are conflicts or not and how it defines ‘conflict’. 3. Why distinguishing rangers and environmental defenders is useful Lumping together professionals mandated or employed by the state with environmental defenders who seek to represent and protect the rights of local populations risks undermining the work of each group. There are separate policy and organisational frameworks designed specifically to protect park rangers and improve their working conditions and safety. Given their distinct needs and challenges, it is unclear how including rangers in the category of ‘environmental defenders’ benefits their protection or work. At the same time, community-based, Indigenous and civil society groups might be better protected if their unique social position and status are taken into consideration. The work of rangers is – and rightly so – separately acknowledged and valued. Similar to environmental defenders, rangers have their own awards,6 such as the IUCN International Ranger Award to “highlight and felicitate the extraordinary work that rangers do in protected and conserved areas worldwide” (IUCN, 2021a). A commonality throughout these awards is the recognition of rangers as a professional occupation within conservation and the need to support them for their work within that professional mandate. For example, the IUCN International Ranger Award defines a ranger as any “mandated person working at the site-level as a custodian of species, habitats, ecosystems, and cultural heritage” (Ibid.; emphasis added). The importance of approaching rangers as a professional category, including as agents of law enforcement, is central to much research and policy work on how to support rangers. This work highlights how rangers often operate in an environment of low benefit and high personal safety risk (Moreto, 2015; Belecky et al., 2019; Belecky et al., 2021) and how this influences job satisfaction and motivation (Ogunjinmi et al., 2008). In this respect, a recent study “paints a disturbing picture of the current state of ranger employment” (Belecky et al., 2021, p. 185; see also Belecky et al., 2019). To understand and improve rangers’ work, research also foregrounds TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 56 POLICY MATTERS SPECIAL ISSUE ON ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS VOLUME III the role of occupational culture, or “shared norms, values, beliefs and priorities” with regard to the ranger profession and how this influences rangers’ behaviour, performance and conduct (Kuiper et al., 2021, p. 149; see also Moreto, 2013). There are separate policy frameworks and initiatives to support rangers and improve their work and service conditions, such as the Chitwan Declaration adopted at the International Ranger Federation’s 2019 World Congress in Chitwan, Nepal. In response to the Declaration’s adoption, a group of international conservation organisations started the Universal Ranger Support Alliance (URSA) to facilitate its implementation. The Declaration constitutes a type of “new deal” for park rangers and includes Global Welfare Standards and a Code of Conduct. Its first Article focuses on “ranger welfare” “both on and off duty”, including the equipment, training and support rangers need to do their job as safely as possible. Article 1 (ii) lists the need for employers to provide life insurance, while Article 1 (iii) stresses the need for rangers to be supported in balancing work and home life. Current advocacy efforts further emphasise that the International Labour Organisation (ILO) has an important role to play in developing frameworks and international standards for rangers, thus recommending ratifying the Labour Inspection Convention 1949 and other relevant ILO conventions with regards to ranger welfare (Belecky et al., 2021). Compared to rangers, environmental defenders operate in very different circumstances and face distinct challenges. Therefore, ways to support and protect them differ considerably. This is clearly reflected in the 2018 Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean, also known as the Escazú Agreement. Article 9 of the agreement, which is dedicated to protecting environmental defenders, highlights that protecting and promoting the rights of defenders entails protecting “their right to life, personal integrity, freedom of opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association, and free movement, as well as their ability to exercise their access rights” (UN, 2018). This wording shows that frameworks to protect environmental and land defenders generally emphasise their status as human rights defenders and states’ obligations to protect this category and uphold civil rights. However, contrary to rangers, defenders rarely rely directly on the state to offer them protection, especially when challenging state authorities for acts of environmental harm, corruption or neglect. Furthermore, state security agencies often lack the resources to protect environmental defenders, which is generally not among their priorities. Defenders may also face repression and intimidation from the state, in particular where they are associated with political opposition and seen as a threat to the established order (Butt et al., 2019; Middeldorp & Le Billon, 2019). In some contexts, police and other security services harass defenders through stop-and-search actions, confiscating property and permanent surveillance, or engage in direct physical violence such as beatings (Brock & Dunlap, 2018). Another difference between the protection needs of rangers and defenders is that defenders are more at risk of criminalisation than rangers. In many contexts, defenders are prosecuted on trumped up charges, or face other forms of repression through legal TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 57 POLICY MATTERS SPECIAL ISSUE ON ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS VOLUME III means, such as restraining orders (Rasch, 2017; Brock & Dunlap, 2018). Such “lawfare” often involves invoking anti-terror legislation, with defenders labelled “extremists”, “terrorists” or “insurgents” (Balfour, 2004; Brock, 2020). To protect themselves against these threats, defenders need specific forms of assistance, such as legal aid, visits in prison to check on their condition, and support from citizens and civil society movements in the areas where they operate. They may also benefit from international pressure on governments to liberate those who are unjustly detained and to reform legislation used for repression. Defenders are also more exposed to “insidious forms of repression” than rangers. Such repression involves anonymous perpetrators, such as private security contractors, criminal entrepreneurs or current or former security personnel acting “unofficially” (Dunlap, 2019; Middeldorp & Le Billon, 2019). While rangers can be rotated to protected areas far away from where they receive such threats, defenders, on the other hand, might need to flee and go into hiding. A final difference between rangers and defenders is the different intersections of violence to which they are exposed. Research on defenders shows that those running the highest lethal risk are generally from Indigenous and other marginalised groups (Le Billon & Lujala, 2020; Scheidel et al., 2020). Physical violence against such groups tends to intersect with forms of structural and slow violence, including historical marginalisation, profound socio-economic inequalities, and the destruction of lifeworlds and livelihoods (Butt et al., 2019). Protecting these groups therefore requires broader strategies focusing on their general position in society. While rangers can also be from marginalised groups and face various forms of structural violence, the most effective way to improve their protection, as highlighted above, is focusing on their professional status and work and service conditions. Conclusion Placing environmental defenders and park rangers in the same category can be detrimental to the interests of both groups. The frameworks for supporting defenders and rangers were designed to reflect the distinct occupational, social, and political needs and challenges of each respective group, and the contexts within which they operate. Moreover, it is important to acknowledge that while their work sometimes aligns, in numerous cases, the two groups stand opposed to each other, not only in respect of incompatible immediate objectives, but through their embedding in wider socio-political structures that are historically in contradiction. Environmental defenders often challenge the state or specific state representatives for their environmental and socio-economically destructive policies and practices, while park rangers are representatives of or mandated by that very same state. These differences are apparent to people living in and around protected areas, who see rangers in different terms than Indigenous and community leaders, civil society organisations and social movements. It is imperative to take these divergent perceptions into account in discussions around who is and who is not an environmental defender. To avoid that the concept of defenders becomes seen as externally imposed, it’s necessary TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 58 POLICY MATTERS SPECIAL ISSUE ON ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS VOLUME III to look beyond definitions put forward by international organisations and national governments, which may depart from local realities and perceptions. Developing a better grasp on local experiences, perceptions and dynamics is also crucial for improving the protection of both rangers and defenders. To understand the challenges they face, it’s important to grasp rangers’ social position and their everyday interactions with local populations (Moreto, Brunson & Braga 2017; Massé et al., 2017; Woodside et al., 2021). The same applies to environmental defenders: we can only address their needs by understanding their position in the local and broader social networks in which they are embedded (Butt et al., 2019). Ultimately, this fine-grained attention to local dynamics and perceptions is key not only to enhancing the safety and work of both rangers and defenders, but also to improving conservation and social justice outcomes. References Brock, A. (2020). ‘’Frack off’: Towards an anarchist Agrawal, A. and Redford, K. (2009). ‘Conservation and political ecology critique of corporate and state displacement: An overview’. Conservation and Society responses to anti-fracking resistance in the UK’. 7(1): 1–10. Political Geography 82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Annecke, W. and Masubelele, M. (2016). ‘A review of the polgeo.2020.102246 impact of militarisation: The case of rhino poaching in Brock, A. and Dunlap, A. (2018). ‘Normalising corporate Kruger National Park, South Africa’. Conservation and counterinsurgency: Engineering consent, managing Society 14(3): 195–204. resistance and greening destruction around the Baker, J., Milner‐Gulland, E.J. and Leader‐Williams, N. (2012). ‘Park gazettement and integrated conservation and development as factors in community conflict at Hambach coal mine and beyond’. Political Geography 62: 33–47. Brockington, D. and Igoe, J. (2006). ‘Eviction for Bwindi Impenetrable Forest, Uganda’. Conservation conservation: A global overview’. Conservation and Biology 26(1): 160–170. Society 4(3): 424–470. Balfour, L. (2014). ‘Framing redress after 9/11: Protest, Butt, N., Lambrick, F., Menton, M. and Renwick, reconciliation and Canada’s war on terror against A. (2019). ‘The supply chain of violence’. Nature Indigenous peoples’. The Canadian Journal of Native Sustainability 2(8): 742–747. Studies 34(1): 25–41. Carlson, K., Wright, J. and Donges, H. (2015). ‘In the Belecky, M., Parry-Jones, R. and Singh, R. (2021). line of fire: Elephant and rhino poaching in Africa’. In: ‘Employment conditions of public sector rangers: A G. McDonald and E. LeBrun (eds.), Small Arms Survey major under-addressed problem’. Parks Stewardship Yearbook 2015: Weapons and the World. Cambridge, Forum 37(1): 185–195. UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–35. Belecky, M., Singh, R. and Moreto, W. (2019). Life on Carson, S.L., Kentatchime F., Djomo Nana, E., Njabo, the Frontline 2019: A Global Survey of the Working K.Y., Cole, B.L. and Godwin, H.A. (2018). ‘Indigenous Conditions of Rangers. Gland, Switzerland: WWF. peoples’ concerns about loss of forest knowledge: https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/life-on- Implications for forest management’. Conservation and the-frontline-2019-a-global-survey-of-the-working- Society 16(4): 431–440. conditions-of-rangers [Accessed 4 February 2021]. Bose, P., Arts, B. and van Dijk, H. (2012). ‘’Forest Duffy, R., Massé, F., Smidt, E., Marijnen,E., Büscher B., Verweijen, J., Ramutsindela, M., Simlai, T., governmentality’: A genealogy of subject-making of Joanny, L. and Lunstrum, E. (2019). ‘Why we must forest-dependent ‘scheduled tribes’ in India’. Land Use question the militarisation of conservation’. Biological Policy 29(3): 664–673. Conservation 232: 66–73. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 59 POLICY MATTERS SPECIAL ISSUE ON ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS VOLUME III Dunlap, A. (2019). ‘“Agro sí, mina NO!”: The Tía Maria security. https://www.iucn.nl/app/uploads/2021/05/ copper mine, state terrorism and social war by every V3_ENG_DIGITAAL_Protecting-human-rights- means in the Tambo Valley, Peru’. Political Geography defenders.pdf [Accessed 5 August 2021]. 71: 10–25. Kathri, T. (2020). ‘National Forest Martyrs Day: Dunn, K.C. (2009). ‘Contested state spaces: African Remembering camouflaged warriors’. Free national parks and the state’. European Journal of Press Journal, 12 September 2020. https://www. International Relations 13(3): 423–446. freepressjournal.in/indore/national-forest-martyrs- Dutta, A. (2018). ‘Rural informalities and forest squatters in the reserved forests of Assam, India’. Critical Asian Studies 50(3): 353–374. day-remembering-camouflaged-warriors [Accessed 4 February 2021]. Kelly, A.B. and Gupta, A.C. (2016). ’Protected areas: _____ (2020). ‘Forest becomes frontline: Conservation and counter-insurgency in a space of violent conflict in Assam, Northeast India’. Political Geography 77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2019.102117 Fairhead, J., Leach, M. and Scoones, I. (2012). ‘Green Offering security to whom, when and where?’ Environmental Conservation 43(2): 172–180. Kuiper, T., Massé, F., Ngwenya, N.A., Kavhu, B., Mandisodza‐Chikerema, R. L. and Milner‐Gulland, E.J. (2021). ‘Ranger perceptions of, and engagement grabbing: A new appropriation of nature?’ Journal of with, monitoring of elephant poaching’. People and Peasant Studies 39(2): 237–261. Nature 3: 148–161. Global Witness (n.d.). Land and Environmental Defenders. Le Billon, P. (2021). ‘Defending territory from the https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/ extraction and conservation nexus’. In: M. Menton, environmental-activists/ [Accessed 12 June 2021]. M. and P. Le Billon (eds.), Environmental and Land _____ (2019). Enemies of the State. How governments Defenders: Deadly Struggles for Life and Territory. and business silence land and environmental defenders. London, UK: Global Witness. _____ (2020). Defending Tomorrow. The climate crisis New York, NY and London, UK: Routledge. Le Billon, P. and Lujala, P. (2020). ‘Environmental and land defenders: Global patterns and determinants of and threats against land and environmental defenders. repression’. Global Environmental Change 65. https:// London, UK: Global Witness. doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102163 Holterman, D.J. (2020). ‘Unlikely Allies? The Intersections Lunstrum, E. (2016). ‘Green grabs, land grabs and the of Conservation and Extraction in Tanzania’. spatiality of displacement: Eviction from Mozambique’s Unpublished PhD thesis. Toronto, Canada: York Limpopo National Park’. Area 48(2): 142–152. University. Mabele, M.B. (2017). ‘Beyond forceful measures: Humphreys, J. and Smith, M.L. (2014). ‘The ‘rhinofication’ Tanzania’s ‘war on poaching’needs diversified of South African security’. International Affairs 90(4): strategies more than militarised tactics’. Review of 795–818. African Political Economy 44(153): 487–498. International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) (2020). Marijnen, E. (2017). ‘The ‘green militarisation’ of ‘Heroes on the frontlines. Rangers continue to protect development aid: The European Commission and wildlife during COVID-19’. https://www.ifaw.org/ca-en/ Virunga National Park, DR Congo’. Third World campaigns/africa-parks-rangers-covid-19 [Accessed Quarterly 38(7): 1566–1582. 11 June 2021]. _____ (2018). ‘Public authority and conservation in areas IUCN (2021a). IUCN WCPA International Ranger of armed conflict: Virunga National Park as a ‘state Award. https://www.iucn.org/commissions/world- within a state’ in eastern Congo’. Development and commission-protected-areas/about/awards/iucn- Change 49(3): 790–814. wcpa-international-ranger-award [Accessed 12 June 2021]. Massé, F., Gardiner, A., Lubilo, R. and Themba, M. (2017). ‘Inclusive Anti-poaching? Exploring the _____ (2021b). Protecting the environmental human rights Potential and Challenges of Community-based Anti- defenders. Physical and digital networks offer greater Poaching’. South Africa Crime Quarterly 60: 19–27. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 60 POLICY MATTERS SPECIAL ISSUE ON ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS VOLUME III Middeldorp, N. and Le Billon, P. (2019). ‘Deadly environmental governance: Authoritarianism, ecopopulism, and the repression of environmental and industrial and mining investment projects’. Journal of Peasant Studies 48(5): 1100–1123. Randeria, S. (2007). ‘Global designs and local lifeworlds: land defenders’. Annals of the American Association of Colonial legacies of conservation, disenfranchisement Geographers 109(2): 324–337. and environmental governance in postcolonial India’. Mogomotsi, G.E. and Madigele, P.K. (2017). ‘Live by the Interventions 9(1): 12–30. gun, die by the gun. Botswana’s’ shoot-to-kill’ policy Rasch, E. D. (2017). ‘Citizens, criminalization and as an anti-poaching strategy’. SA Crime Quarterly 60: violence in natural resource conflicts in Latin 51–59. America’. European Review of Latin American and Moreto, W.D. (2013). ‘To Conserve and Protect: Examining Law Enforcement Ranger Culture and Operations in Queen Elizabeth National Park, Caribbean Studies/Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe (103): 131–142. Scheidel, A. et al. (2020). ‘Environmental conflicts Uganda’. Unpublished PhD thesis. New Brunswick, and defenders: A global overview’. Global NJ: Rutgers University. Environmental Change 63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. _____ (2015). ‘Occupational stress among law enforcement rangers: Insights from Uganda’. Oryx 50(4): 646–654. gloenvcha.2020.102104 Schmidt–Soltau, K. (2003). ‘Conservation–related resettlement in Central Africa: Environmental and Moreto, W.D., Brunson, R.K. and Braga, A.A. (2015). ‘“Such misconducts don’t make a good ranger”: Examining law enforcement ranger wrongdoing in Uganda’. British Journal of Criminology 55(2): 359–380. social risks’. Development and Change 34(3): 525–551. United Nations (UN) (2016). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights _____ (2017). ‘“Anything we do, we have to include the Defenders, A/71/281. https://www.protecting- communities”: Law enforcement rangers’ attitudes defenders.org/sites/protecting-defenders.org/ towards and experiences of community–ranger files/57d2a3364_0.pdf [Accessed 3 May 2021]. relations in wildlife protected areas in Uganda’. British Journal of Criminology 57(4): 924–944. Neumann, R.P. (1998). Imposing Wilderness: Struggles _____ (2018). Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa. the Caribbean. https://treaties.un.org/doc/ Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Treaties/2018/03/20180312%2003-04%20PM/CTC- _____ (2004). ‘Moral and discursive geographies in the war for biodiversity in Africa’. Political Geography 23(7): 813–837 XXVII-18.pdf [Accessed 12 June 2021]. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2018). Who are environmental defenders? https://www. Ogunjinmi, A.A., Umunna, M.O. and Ogunjinmi, K.O. unep.org/explore-topics/environmental-rights-and- (2008). ‘Factors affecting job satisfaction of rangers governance/what-we-do/advancing-environmental- in Yankari Game Reserve, Bauchi, Nigeria’. Journal rights/who [Accessed 12 June 2021]. of Agriculture and Social Research (JASR) 8(2). http:// dx.doi.org/10.4314/jasr.v8i2.43332 Poppe, J. (2012). ‘Conservation’s ambiguities: Rangers on the periphery of the W Park, Burkina Faso’. Conservation and Society 10(4): 330–343. _____ (2013). ‘The power of the uniform: Paramilitary Vasan, S. (2002). ‘Ethnography of the forest guard: Contrasting discourses, conflicting roles and policy implementation’. Economic and Political Weekly 3(40): 4125–4133. Vidal, J. (2020) ‘Armed ecoguards funded by WWF “beat up Congo tribespeople”’. The Guardian, 7 February foresters and rangers at the W Park, Burkina Faso’. 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/global- Sociologus 63 (1-2): 11–36. development/2020/feb/07/armed-ecoguards-funded- Prause, L. and Billon, P. L. (2021). ‘Struggles for land: Comparing resistance movements against agro- TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 by-wwf-beat-up-congo-tribespeople [Accessed 4 February 2021]. 61 POLICY MATTERS SPECIAL ISSUE ON ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS VOLUME III Verweijen, J. (2020). ‘A microdynamics approach to geographies of violence: Mapping the kill chain in militarized conservation areas’. Political Geography 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2020.102153 Verweijen, J. and Marijnen, E. (2018). ‘The counterinsurgency/conservation nexus: Guerrilla livelihoods and the dynamics of conflict and violence in the Virunga National Park, Democratic Republic of the Congo’. Journal of Peasant Studies 45(2): 300– 320. Verweijen, J., Kubuya, S., Mahamba, E., Marijnen, E., Murairi, J. and Mvano, C. (2020). Conflicts around Virunga National Park: Grassroots Perspectives. The Hague, Netherlands: Knowledge Platform Security and Rule of Law. Verweijen, J., Lambrick, F., Le Billon, P., Milanez, F., Manneh, A. and Moreano, M. (2021). ‘Environmental defenders: The power/disempowerment of a loaded term’. In: M. Menton and P. Le Billon (eds.), Environmental and Land Defenders: Deadly Struggles for Life and Territory. New York, NY and London, UK: Routledge. Warchol, G. and Kapla, D. (2012). ‘Policing the wilderness: A descriptive study of wildlife conservation officers in South Africa’. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 36(2): 83–101. Warren, T. and Baker, K. (2019). ‘WWF funds guards who have tortured and killed people’. Buzzfeed News, 4 March 2019. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/ article/tomwarren/wwf-world-wide-fund-nature-parkstorture-death [Accessed 4 February 2021]. Witter, R. and Satterfield, T. (2019). ‘Rhino poaching and the “slow violence” of conservation-related resettlement in Mozambique’s Limpopo National Park’. Geoforum 101: 275–284. Woodside, D.P., Vasseleu, J., Pyke, T.W., Wilson-Holt, O. and Roe, D. (2021) ‘Building healthy relationships between rangers and communities in and around protected areas’. Parks Stewardship Forum 37(1): 153–173. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 62