Posted on September 18, 2001
Determination of Environmental Refugees:
Cases for Inclusion and Expansion
Ruth E. Baker
ruth_e_baker@hotmail.com
Macalester College
1600 Grand Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55105
Abstract
The fate of an
environment has direct repercussions on the inhabitants of the area. People are
often displaced from their lands because of changes to their environment. In
this paper, I propose a framework in which to examine this arising form of
displaced peoples. Natural disasters, development, resource abuse, and
degradation have forced millions of people from their homes and means of
subsistence. I analyze these existing causes of environmental displacement and
propose another, which includes those displaced because of the establishments of
parks, wildlife refuges, and other protected areas. I also attempt to address
the complex power structures which limit the rights of the people who are most
effected by these problems.
Environmental refugees are emerging as a significant proportion of the world’s
displaced peoples. Norman Myers, an Oxford University ecologist, estimates that
currently 25 million people worldwide have been uprooted for environmental
causes, exceeding the 22 million refugees from civil war and persecution
(Douglas 1996). As the world weather systems are becoming more erratic, the
resources scarcer, and the integrity of the environment is being continuously
degraded, people across the world are losing their lands, homes, and means of
subsistence. I will discuss how this arising form of refugee complicates the
accepted definitions, arguing that the determination of refugee status should be
modified to include all environmental refugees because of the special
circumstances they must face.
Environmental refugees experience persecution because of
hegemonic discrimination embedded in the world culture. By hegemonic
persecution, I refer to the uneven power structures that place the affluent
above the poor and majority ethnic or religious groups above the minorities.
This persecution is found throughout the examples of environmental refugees,
almost all of who are indigenous peoples. This is because non-subsistence people
overuse their resources, and have the power to take from those who have no
capitalistic influence in the national or global spheres. Indigenous groups have
often been moved, without reparation or voice in the system. The more affluent
and powerful have the resources necessary to relocate if the land degrades
beyond repair, leaving the subsistence groups homeless and hungry.
I
will argue why environmental refugees should be granted refugee status, but
first I will discuss why they currently are not. The concept of environmental
refugees is extremely difficult, complicated by a combination of biological and
social aspects. By including this group within the central definition of
refugees, it would distort the definitions and strain the few resources
available for international programs (Suhrke 1994). Because of this factor, most
governing bodies, including the U.S. State Department and the U.N. High
Commissioner for Refugees, choose to ignore the issue (Hugo 1996). Also, because
these governments do not collect data on this issue, research is extremely
difficult due to a significant lack of information. The categorization can also
be ambiguous, for example volcanoes can cause both permanent and temporary
displacement, and the definition of ‘permanent’ could be defined as 20 years
or 200. However, this field needs to be addressed, as the number of
environmental refugees is increasing as the impact of humans on the land becomes
greater. If we identify the problems, and implement temporary solutions, we can
buy time to develop remedies.
I will examine the three main types of environmental refugees proposed
by Hinnawi (1985) and the United Nations, and modify this list to include a
fourth, emerging category. The first category is comprised of people temporarily
displaced because of environmental stress. This classification applies mainly to
victims of natural disasters, such as earthquakes and volcanoes; massive storms,
such as hurricanes; and environmental accidents, such as Chernobyl. The
resulting damage is severe, but the land and people’s lives can usually be
reestablished after clean up and rebuilding. The second category of
environmental refugees includes those peoples permanently displaced and
resettled in another area. This classification is usually associated with human
caused permanent environmental changes, such as dams, but can also be associated
with natural disasters that permanently damage an area, such as destructive
volcanoes. The final category defined by Hinnawi is composed of those
individuals or groups who can no longer be supported by their lands because of
environmental degradation. This type of environmental refugee is displaced by
massive changes in the environment that render it practically obsolete for human
survival, often due to human actions. Examples are deforestation and
desertification. However this status rests on a fine line, and is accorded only
to those who are involuntarily forced to leave for survival, not if they migrate
because of economic situations or by choice. Hence, I propose a fourth type of
environmental refugee: those displaced because of policy implementation
affecting the environment. In these cases there is no significant change to the
land, only to the policy governing the land that force people to involuntarily
migrate. This is almost specifically applied to conservation units such as
national parks that either directly displace people or cut off their means of
subsistence.
In order to account for all refugees, we must redefine the context used
to assess refugee status. The US and the United Nations need to encompass
“environmental refugees,” according to Hinnawi’s definition, in order to
protect, assist, and legitimize their struggles. To demonstrate the scope that
environmental refugees envelop, and the necessity of their inclusion in the
UN’s classification of refugees, I will present four cases, corresponding to
the aforementioned categories.
Assigning
Definitions
To answer the question, Who is an environmental
refugee? We must first answer the questions: Who is a refugee? and Who are
internally displaced peoples? Basically every nation and organization has a
unique definition for refugees. These questions beg another: Why does it matter?
Refugee status is a privilege that comes with assistance, protection, and even
international rights. Academics argue over the definitions while masses of
people are left suffering and waiting.
The definitions of refugees are thus important because they determine
who receives aid and resettlement. For nearly the past 30 years, the United
Nations has been using the definition of refugees as persons who:
"owing
to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, is
outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear,
is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country." (UNHCR
2000).
The United States also assigned its own definition in the 1980 Refugee
Act, which described refugees as:
“any
person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case
of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person
last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is
unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that
country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account
of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion...” (Holman 1997:13-14).
Neither of the above definitions would explicitly encompass
environmental refugees. Both assign meaning by persecution founded on race,
religion, or nationality but ignore the strife of people unable to survive as
they traditionally have because the land they lived on was destroyed or terribly
modified.
In order to establish a framework, I feel it is more appropriate to look
at environmental refugees in a context including internally displaced peoples.
One of the most universally accepted definitions for internally displaced
peoples is currently found in the Secretary General’s report to the United
Nations in 1992. He identifies internally displaced peoples as:
“persons
who have been forced to flee their homes suddenly or unexpectedly in large
numbers, as a result of armed conflict, internal strife, systematic violations
of human rights or natural or man-made disasters, and who are within the
territory of their own country” (Cohen and Deng 2000:16).
This definition includes the plight of some environmental refugees.
Environmental refugees need special protection during environmental crises,
natural or human caused, because of neglect, persecution, and systematic
violation of their human rights, provoked by environmental disasters and
exacerbated by the generally underprivileged status of those most affected by
these events.
It is apparent that a definition of environmental refugees also needs to
include environmentally internally displaced peoples. Especially in larger
nations, many environmental refugees are relocated within their own political
borders. However, because most environmental refugees are those people
marginalized within a nation (i.e. minority groups, indigenous peoples, and the
poverty-stricken), it can be inferred that they will be unable to avert this
persecution. For the remainder of this paper, the term “environmental
refugee” will be used to represent both refugees and internally displaced
peoples as a result of environmentally caused, involuntary movement. I will
discuss the systematic persecution associated with each type to demonstrate the
need to assign refugee status to these environmentally displaced peoples (both
internal and external).
For purposes of this paper, it is necessary to establish a definition of
environmental refugees. I will use the definition accepted into the United
Nations, but since abandoned because of the problems discussed in the
introduction. It defines environmental refugees as:
“those
people who have been forced to leave their traditional habitat, temporarily or
permanently, because of a marked environmental disruption (natural and/or
triggered by people) that jeopardized their existence and/or seriously affected
their quality of life (Hinnawi 1985:4).
To explain further, Hinnawi defines an “environmental disruption” to
encompass all types of ecosystem agitation, including chemical or biological
changes in the environment or essential resources that render the area useless.
This definition assigns meaning to the concept of “environmental refugees,”
broadens the definition of refugees, but it also does not specify that one must
leave the country, cross often undefined, arbitrary political boundaries, in
order to secure this special protection. Hence this definition is in accordance
with the premises I set forth, including internally displaced peoples within the
definition of an environmental refugee.
Temporarily Displaced Due to Environmental Stress
Natural disasters
displace millions of people every year. In India alone, approximately 15 million
people are negatively impacted by natural disasters each year (Gadgil, Madhav
and Ramachandra Guha. 1995). Floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, and
droughts, are just a few examples of the powerful, unexpected cause of many
deaths, massive destruction, and the displacement of people. These are examples
of environmental refugees who are temporarily displaced due to natural
environmental stress. The causes are clear-cut and the effects are universal,
regional, and nondiscriminatory, however, the policies determining the fate of
these people are none of the above. The privileged have the economic
opportunities to leave, and generally have some sort of back-up support, while
the oppressed groups generally live the closest to the areas most at risk and
suffer the most damage, yet have the least available support. I will present a
case study of a natural disaster and describe how it fits into the context of
environmental refugees.
On
January 17, 1995, an earthquake measuring 7.2 on the Richter scale
devastated an area 20km long and 1km wide, and destroyed over 400,000 houses in
Kobe, Japan (Tanida 1996). Almost 6,000 people died in the collapsing structures
and approximately 600-700 more in the resulting fires. This earthquake was
estimated to cost $114 billion US dollars, three times the cost of any other
natural disaster ever recorded in history (Horwich 2000). Many privileged people
moved in with family or to the mainland of China, while over 300,000
marginalized people became homeless (Horwich 2000). Because of post-quake
policies, recovery was slow, assistance was inaccessible, and the suffering was
great, especially for impoverished refugees.
Initial response to the disaster was quick for volunteers, but Japanese
officials were extremely regimented in their policies and rejected much
assistance. Many US doctors volunteered to help with the immediate aftermath,
but they were not certified to practice medicine in Japan (Oakes 1998). Even
assistance from the Japanese Association of Acute Medicine was initially
rejected because the officials were unfamiliar with the organization. Likewise,
plumbers, construction workers, and service people from other cities in Japan
were not allowed to help with reconstruction because of certification problems.
A Japanese official described the situation to a reporter from the L.A. Times:
“Even in an emergency, we don’t desire letting in simple laborers” (Oakes
1998:32). The officials making these decisions were not living in temporary
housing with no water or heat, waiting for medical attention that was not to
come.
Due to the slow recovery and lack of public assistance, of the 50,000
households that lived in temporary shelters, 27,000 families still remained in
1998 and 5,000 remained in 1999, with no prospects for relocation (Oakes 1998;
Yoshimune 1999). The policy in Japan said the people needed to rebuild their
lands, or forgo their property rights. As a result, most of the less affluent
lost these rights because they could not afford to hire the few construction
workers certified to work in that region. Nearly 300 families lived in a park in
downtown Kobe and requested wooden shelters for more security and better living
conditions. The Japanese government rejected their request, so they were forced
to build their own shelters (Yoshimune 1999).
The
conditions in the temporary shelters were extremely harsh. Temperatures were
below freezing at times and heating was not allowed due to fire code
restrictions. Food and water were scarce and delivery was erratic because of the
confusion after the quake and the lack of a central organization of volunteers
(Tanida 1996). The emotional duress compounded by the quake, the loss of home,
the deaths of friends and family, and the unfamiliar surrounding caused Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder in many of the temporary shelter inhabitants, which
went almost completely untreated (Tanida 1996). Many of the elderly and women
were left behind in these shelters as the young and able rebuilt their homes.
These problems were caused and exacerbated by the recession that Japan
was facing even before the devastation of the quake (Yoshimune 1999). This made
government assistance nearly impossible to receive and the government
discouraged foreign aid and volunteer doctors and workers. Fukunga, editor of
Tokyo Business Today, commented on the handling of the disaster by the
government:
“It now seems clear that even in a national emergency the
nation’s pen-pushers will not swerve a millimeter from official procedures,
even if fellow citizens’ lives were at stake… While hours slopped by and
thousands lost their lives in the fiery ruins left by the Kobe disaster,
Japanese officials’ top priorities were observing protocol and following
precedent” (Oakes 1998:32).
This situation fits into
the framework of environmental refugees. Most victims lost everything and no aid
was provided for them. Many spent over five years in temporary shelters, under
severe living conditions, while denied foreign aid by their own government.
The
wealthy people affected by this disaster had the means to rebuild and much of
their property was insured, while nearly none of the lower classes could afford
such a luxury. If they had been accorded the rights and privileges of refugees,
they would have had the assistance of the United Nations and many other
international organizations, even with the denial of this aid by the Japanese
government. In fact, the government denying this aid to the victims is, in and
of itself, a form of persecution.
Permanently Displaced Due to Problems Created by Human Actions
Another major category of environmental refugees is comprised of people
permanently displaced and resettled. This type of environmental refugees is
generally caused by human-made environmental disasters that permanently
transform the land. When humans modify an environment in attempts to control it,
there are many ramifications not only for the inhabitants, but also for the
immediate surroundings and the environment at large.
Often
the decision to construct, and the placement of, dams is implemented as a result
of uneven power structures. The governments or powerful agencies make these
decisions, without consulting the people of the designated area, and reap the
benefits without distributing them to the people who have lost their lands and
livelihoods. This constitutes persecution because of the power structure, which
is often also based on race, subsistence strategies, and socio-economic status.
For example, a dam would not be considered in an affluent area, so the
marginalized groups must face the ramifications because they occupy the land of
little or no value. I will discuss human-caused, permanently displaced
environmental refugees specifically resulting from the massive construction of
dams throughout India.
The Indian government has been a major dam builder in the past four
decades. This development has displaced between 20 and 50 million people (Judge
1997). Many of the displaced people were not consulted or properly compensated,
and most of these refugees are also indigenous and tribal groups. For example,
the Karjan and Sukhi reservoirs in the state of Gujarat displaced only tribal
people. In the state of Orissa, indigenous people constituted 98% of the people
displaced by the Balimela Hydro Project, and 96% of those displaced by the Upper
Kolar Dam (Judge 1997). Also, due to the land specifications necessary to
construct dams, the displaced people generally were hill or river inhabitants,
but were moved to plains, deserts, or mountains—less desirable, less
productive lands.
This
displacement and resettlement to unfamiliar areas is especially traumatic in
India because people differentiate themselves in terms of religion, race, caste,
marital practice, and observation of festivals and rituals. The first of
India’s many dams, the Bhakhra Dam, built in 1959, submerged the town of
Bilaspur. The people were resettled in other villages, where they have since
been considered a new ethnic community known as Bilaspuris (Judge 1997). The
Bilaspuris keep familial bonds and made contracts through marriages, but these
people were of different social and economic classes before the construction of
the dam.
Resettlement created new health problems for refugees.
People who
subsisted on the river or in the hills for many generations encountered problems
learning how to subsist off of their new lands. Also, they encountered new
health risks that traditional healers were not armed to address. Not only were
the diseases and other health risks unfamiliar, but also the flora and fauna
were different and the traditional medicines could not be properly made. In one
case, the refugees from Maharashtra, resettled in Parvetha Village, suffered
severe health problems from the drastic move and change of environment. These
problems escalated to the point that not a single baby survived beyond infancy
in the second half of 1989 (Judge 1997).
Similar cases of environmental refugees from the reservoirs of dams have
been recorded all over Southeast Asia and are beginning to appear in South
America. There is a contemporary proposition for another dam along the Mekong
River in Cambodia. The Sambor dam would flood 310 square miles and displace
60,000 people. The villagers of the area have not been informed of this, except
that they will be moved 30 miles away to the mountains, in a known
malarial-infected region. They will be completely cut off from the river, which
has been their home since the Khmer Rouge resettled them there. Communal chief
Len Chou commented: “Here we have our houses, our land, our river…there’s
no water, no fish up there.” A tribal elder known as Grandfather Dolphin
remarked: “In a sense we died under the Khmer Rouge, but then we were
reborn…The Mekong saved our lives” (Mecir 1999). Now they will be moved
again, and must adjust their subsistence means while fighting to survive new
elements.
The problem with the construction of dams is not only the loss of the
land, but also the manner in which the displaced are treated. Virtually all are
minority groups in the country, for if not indigenous groups, they are communal
people in the hills, cut off from mainstream society and not afforded the same
voice and rights. The abuses extend far beyond not consulting and misinforming
these groups. The displaced have received little to no compensation for the loss
of their lands, subsistence, and livelihoods. The governments have also
habitually lied to the refugees and punished them for disobedience or protest.
For example, protesters of the Narmada dam were repeatedly beaten, arrested,
robbed, and killed (Gadgil and Guha 1995). Also, during the construction of the
Pong Dam, the Rajasthan government had agreed to resettle 66% of the displaced
peoples, while only 4% were ultimately resettled (Judge 1997).
These
environmental refugees should be included in the traditional definitions of
refugees, although they did not cross international borders. The people moved
were obviously marginalized groups. They were not consulted; they were given no
rights and insufficient compensation; they were almost all minorities in the
country; and they were violently suppressed when they protested. These refugees
were persecuted against and exploited by their own governments. Their
persecution is not only from geographical location, but also their race, class,
and way of life. They had no power to fight their governments, and no means to
ask for aid from other nations. Once again, these people could have been deemed
“refugees” had they vacated their county of origin. These instanced
demonstrate that the definition of refugees is limited and thus should encompass
those environmental refugees who are persecuted within their own country.
Environmental Degradation Rendering the Land Unlivable
Environmental degradation
is another source of environmental displacement, caused almost exclusively by
humans. By exploiting our natural resources, we are destroying the integrity of
the earth and taking the opportunity to subsist on the land from others. For
example, deforestation in the Amazon rainforest strips the ecosystem of vital
protection from erosion and causes nutrient leaching, which depletes the
productivity of the entire area. The indigenous people lose their source of
sustenance, their homes, their safety, and their lands. Because they are at the
bottom of the power structure, they receive no compensation for this. An example
of this is the flooding and erosion in Bangladesh that causes approximately a
million people each year to abandon their homes (Indra 2000). Inhabitants of the
area frequently lose their lands because of flooding and erosion, or in order to
claim better lands made available from drainage from another area. The result is
extremely complicated land ownership problems. The poor are generally left to
move to the flood banks, which are not intended to be permanent structures, or
other areas not legally claimed (Indra 2000).
The major types of
environmental degradation that displace people have been identified as
deforestation, desertification, and rise in sea level (Douglas 1996; Suhrke
1994). Overgrazing of livestock or overuse of the land causes desertification.
This creates poor grazing and growing conditions, so that eventually the cattle
are killed and the seeds are consumed (Suhrke 1994). As these people lose their
means of subsistence, they quickly become environmental refugees. Desertification has been especially devastating in the Sahel belt of northern
and western Africa, because of increases in pastoralism (Douglas 1996; Suhrke
1994).
Deforestation—the
clear-cutting of forests and burning of ground cover—causes more and longer
periods of drought, and exposes the soil to nutrient leaching (Douglas 1996).
In
Haiti, intense population growth caused deforestation by increasing demands on
the resources. This led to severe soil erosion, which increased poverty because
the inhabitants could not produce for themselves. Eventually this led to the
abandonment of the land (Suhrke 1994). Finally, rising sea levels are results of
increased global temperature, which is caused by human pollution and
deforestation. Some predictions estimate the sea level may rise 30 to 110
centimeters by 2100 (Suhrke 1994; Douglas 1996). Increasing sea levels are
affecting coastal populations in China, Bangladesh, and Egypt, islands in the
South Pacific and the Maldives, and urban populations in Karachi, Pakistan, and
Dhaka, Bangladesh (Suhrke 1994; Douglas 1996). However, this problem has not
been directly linked to humans and remains highly controversial.
Unfortunately,
companies are profiting greatly from this degradation, and some have been
accused of intentionally forcing migration so that they may deforest and develop
more land, and increase their profits (Manser-Fonds 1998). In Malaysia, several
companies are being prosecuted for the intentional destruction of the land and
displacement of people; 43 of the companies are Malaysian, one is American, and
five are Singaporean. In fact, because of the rapid deforestation and burning of
the rainforest, more than 10,000 people were sent to the hospital for
respiratory problems. The smoke generated by these companies had an Air
Pollutant Index of 839; to put this into context, a rating of 100-200 API is
considered unhealthy, and 300-500 API is extremely hazardous (Manser-Fonds
1998).
A major
complication with environmental degradation caused refugees is that people are
both the origins and victims of these problems (Hinnawi 1985). Deforestation is
directly the result of human resource abuse, and human pollutants and
deforestation arguably indirectly cause the rise in sea level. Droughts are
caused by all three of the aforementioned types of degradation, as are the
increased numbers and intensities of storms and unpredictable weather patterns.
Most of these types of degradation have a gradual onset, until a threshold is
reached, after which it is too late to correct.
Indigenous
people are most directly and readily impacted. They are bound to the land in
cultural, social, and economic ways that make them more vulnerable to changes (Suhrke
1994). There is much more debate as to whether these people are actually
environmental refugees or economic migrants. However, I argue that because they
are involuntarily moving due to environmental pressures that render their homes
unsustainable, they should be granted refugee status. The people who reap the
benefits of the degradation are not those who are adversely affected by it.
Rather they are generally the multinational companies who cause and fund most of
the deforestation. Politically, it is a fine line, but people forced to evacuate
an area because of various sources—toxic burning and quickly approaching
fires; unrelenting floods and storms; and drought and famine—are obviously
victims of unnatural, biological
events, not economic migrants.
Policy Changes Causing Environmental Refugees
Finally, I propose a fourth type of environmental refugees comprised of
persons displaced due to policy implementation regarding their surrounding
environment. There is no change to the land, only to the policies governing the
land that displace people. This is almost specifically applied to conservation
units such as national parks that either directly displace people or cut off
their means of subsistence. However, it also pertains to instances when the land
has been otherwise allocated and rendered useless to the inhabitants. This type
of environmental displacement is the direct result of those in power claiming
the land for themselves, from those who have traditionally resided on it. This
strategy has been practiced since colonialism in Africa. I will briefly discuss
several examples of this, describing the essential features of this type of
oppression.
In 1906, British colonial
authorities prohibited indigenous hunting by declaring all wild animals the sole
property of the royal crown (Naughton-Treves 1997). Ironically, they were also
eradicating “problem animals,” including elephants, hippopotami, and
leopards, at the same time, in order to expand the agricultural potential.
During colonialism in the 19th century in Africa, indigenous groups
were frequently moved, involuntarily and usually by force, out of lands claimed
by the British, French, and Dutch. This was usually under the guise of
establishing a wildlife refuge, which was actually a hunting ground for the
wealthy elites. The Masai in Kenya were displaced by the establishment of the
Amboseli National Park, the Shanga in South Africa by Krueger National Park, and
the Eek tribe from northeastern Uganda, by the establishment of Kidepo Valley
National Park, who eventually starved to extinction (Armstrong 1991; Hitchcock
1995; Turnbull 1972).
“Many of the beautiful
game reserves of Africa became and remain oases of plenty in deserts of rural
poverty” (Armstrong 1991:54). The land turned into national parks is generally
the most productive, with the highest density and diversity of flora and fauna.
Conversely, the land to which the displaced peoples are assigned is usually of
very poor quality. Most of these parks, once used for elite hunting, now serve
as tourist attractions, and the land the tribes remain on perpetually degrades.
Also, the land assigned to the people is not always of the same type as that
which they were removed from; many forest people have been displaced into
mountainous environments, where they have neither the skills nor the familiarity
to survive (Turnbull 1972).
Although historical accounts of these abuses are abundant, and current
examples are extremely rare, this abuse still occurs. Currently, peasant farmers
in Kosi Bay, northern Zululand, are fighting to halt the establishment of a
coastal nature reserve that will displace them. One resident said “The bureau
is more concerned with the animals than the people and as a result we are
dying” (Armstrong 1991:55). Conversely, some of the lands are being
reinstated. In 1990, Namibia was declared a nation and the Ovambo people finally
cut down the fences surrounding the Etosha National Park. Etosha was established
in 1973, without any consultation of the Ovambo and their subsistence rights
were literally cut off from them. They were specifically excluded from the park
as visitors until 1978 (Armstrong 1991).
The wounds are still fresh and violence is still a threat to many of
these displaced peoples. Many subsistence farmers refer to elephants as “the
government’s cattle” and chimpanzees as the property of foreign researchers
because they have no rights to hunt them for food or protect their farms (Naughton-Treves
1997). Many reports of killings, torture, and arrests continue to surround these
pristine parks. The World Wide Fund and Nature who donated a helicopter to
Zimbabwe to help curb poaching, found that it had been used to trap and kill 57
poachers, and withdrew the gift (Armstrong 1991). These drastic actions do not
halt starving people from finding a way to eat, and hunting is the only means
many of them have ever known to survive.
I will now examine the case of the Tyua tribe of Botswana and Zimbabwe in
depth, providing historical and contextual background. Botswana currently has
more of its land allocated to wildlife management and conservation purposes than
any other country in Africa; and Zimbabwe is not far behind (Hitchcock 1995).
Hunting, gathering, and fishing were predominant strategies for Tyua subsistence
needs in the Nata region in the 19th century. Later in the century
some animals were declared “royal game,” only for the elites to kill, and
were thus made illegal for use by subsistence hunters. The Game and Fish
Preservation Act of 1929 established several game reserves and national parks in
Zimbabwe. These included what is now considered Hwange Game Reserve in the
northern part of the Nata region, where Tuya resided and were subsequently
forced to move (Hitchcock 1995).
In
the late 1940s, some of the Tyua were still being rounded up within the park by
police patrols and violently forced to migrate south, were they were resettled
in villages. Erosional processes made fishing unproductive, and hunting and
gathering was not permitted, so they were forced to adopt agricultural
subsistence strategies. By the 1970s the Tyua had shifted almost completely away
from foraging, although some still risked their lives by continuing to hunt
within the boundaries of the park (Hitchcock 1995). In the late 1970’s the
Botswana government allocated several ranches to small groups of cattle
ranchers—forcing the local and indigenous people to move once again.
In
the past several decades, many Tyua and other local people have been arrested,
tortured, and killed by the Department of Wildlife and National Parks on the
grounds of illegal poaching. Some official numbers claim that at least 20, and
possibly over 92 people were killed in 1992 alone (Armstrong 1991; Hitchcock
1995). In the past 2 years, at least a dozen people, many of them unarmed and
women and children, have been killed in the nearby villages when questioning by
the DWNP proved unsuccessful. Some people assert that these incidents are
genocide under the guise of wildlife management. One Tyua woman from northern
Botswana proclaimed: “Just because these people say that they are helping
preserve the environment does not mean that they should be able to violate our
human rights” (Hitchcock 1995:82).
This type of environmental refugee coincides with the definition of
refugees and internally displaced peoples. Their own governments victimize them:
they are usually poor, foraging societies, they receive little or no
compensation, and they have no means to defend themselves—so they need the
protection of refugee status. Their own governments directly persecute them
because of many reasons: some would claim race, class, subsistence means, or
simply because they are at the bottom of the power structure. In the case of the
Eek of northern Uganda, the displacement of the foragers into the mountains
caused the starvation and the eventual extinction of the race, as is told by
Turnbull (1972) in a horrifying ethnographic account. These people are directly
persecuted because the government does not acknowledge them as full citizens of
the country. They are a constant obstacle to development. These displaced people
must be considered environmental refugees, and they need the protection of this
distinction.
Conclusions: The Implications of
My Argument
Through this examination
of environmental refugee status and classifications, I have presented examples
of people persecuted by their own government and involuntarily forced to
resettle in another location, generally of undesirable quality. This feature
alone warrants the inclusion of these refugees under international human rights
laws and policies. Although in the examples the refugees did not cross
international borders, their situations take precedence over this requirement
because of the hegemonic persecution and the sources of their
displacement—natural disasters, human formed policy, and resource abuse.
The
examples that I have given demonstrate the dichotomy within the power structures
between the displaced and those in command. Generally the ruling government or
powerful elites have the power to control where and how the displaced can live,
and they force unattractive, dangerous, and unsustainable living conditions,
regardless of the foundation for discrimination (i.e. race, class, or
subsistence means). In the case of the Kobe earthquake in Japan, the people were
being persecuted as their basic needs were neglected and assistance was
withheld. The people displaced in India because of dams were resettled on
extremely barren, unfamiliar lands, if they were resettled at all. Generally,
the compensation was not sufficient even to cover the cost of relocating. The
inhabitants were not consulted and violently punished in the few protest
attempts made.
The
argument is more complex for those people displaced due to environmental
degradation. The causes of environmental degradation are generally from wealthy
foreign or domestic lumber companies, development agencies, polluting businesses
in the industrialized North, along with many other powerful sources. Conversely,
the people most adversely affected by these actions are the indigenous people
living off the land. Their subsistence is fragile and can easily be thrown out
of balance, as my examples have demonstrated. Because the displaced peoples are
losing the most and gaining the least, while the industries are reaping the
benefits at virtually no cost, this reflects an unbalanced power structure,
which serves as a form of oppression.
Finally,
the category I included regarding people displaced because of policy changes,
generally due to the establishment of conservation units, is an obvious case of
persecution based on race and class. The foragers all around Africa have
historically been displaced because of the value of the lands they require for
subsistence. They have been moved and their subsistence deemed illegal,
beginning with the British Crown and continuing today by their own governments.
These actions have led to genocide in the case of the Eek, killings, brutality
under the guise of wildlife management, and recurring persecution because they
have no resources for protection from their own governments or other powerful
institutions.
This
type of persecution must encompass those who do not cross international
political boundaries. They are environmental refugees because their environment,
for one reason or another, cannot sustain them any longer. Thus they must move
environments. Especially for indigenous people, this is an extremely difficult
feat. For people who live off the land, a change in the ecosystem can mean
starvation, deprivation of their subsistence methods, loss of traditions and
connections to other people and the land, and even extinction.
I would like to emphasize
that by defining people as internally displaced as opposed to refugees, without
considering the amount of suffering incurred and automatically excluding them
from most international assistance, is that some may cross greater distances and
suffer more severe economic, social, and security losses than traditional
refugees. Thus, since internally displaced people may cross longer distances,
suffer greater persecution, and have more difficulties assimilating to a new
culture, even within the same national boundaries, they should not be
automatically excluded from the assistance given to refugees. Rather they should
be evaluated by the factors mentioned above and assigned aid and protection
accordingly.
Bibliography
Armstrong,
Sue. 1991. The People Who Want Their Park Back. New Scientist 131(1776): 54(2).
Cohen,
Roberta and Francis M. Deng. 1998. Masses
in Flights: The Global Crisis of
Internal
Displacement. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute Press,
pp.15-72.
Douglas,
David. 1996. Environmental Eviction. The
Christian Century. 113(26):839(3).
Gadgil,
Madhav and Ramachandra Guha. 1995. Ecology
and Equity: The Use and Abuse of
Nature in Contemporary India.
London: Routledge.
Hinnawi, E.E. 1985. Environmental Refugees. New
York: United Nations Development Program.
Hitchcock,
Robert K. 1995. Centralization, Resource Depletion, and Coercive Conservation Among the Tyua of the Northeastern
Kalahari. Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary
Journal
23(2):169(30).
Holman,
Phililp A. Refugee Resettlement in the United States. In David W. Haines (Ed.). 1997. Refugees
in America in the 1990s: A Reference Handbook. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp 3-27.
Horwich,
George. 2000. Economic Lessons of the Kobe Earthquake. Economic Development
and Cultural Change,
48(3):521(2).
Hugo, Graeme. 1996. Environmental Concerns and International Migration.
International Migration
Review,
30(1):105(27).
Indra,
Doreen. Not Just Dis-placed and Poor: How Environmentally Forced Migrants in Rural Bangladesh Recreate Space and Place Under
Trying Conditions. In Gozdziak and Shandy (Eds). 2000. Rethinking
Refuge and Displacement, Selected
Papers on Refugees and Immigrants.
Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association, pp165-193.
Judge,
Paramjit S. 1997. Response to Dams and Displacement in Two Indian States. Asian
Survey,
37(9):840(12).
Manser-Fonds,
Bruno. 1998. Why Are the Forests Burning? The
Ecologist, 28(1):8.
Mecir, Antonin. 1999. Taming the Mekong, Killing the Past. International Wildlife, Electronic document,
http://nwf.org/internationalwildlife/1998/mekong.html,
accessed November 28.
Naughton-Treves,
Lisa. 1997. Farming the Forest Edge: Vulnerable Places and People Around Kibale National Park, Uganda. The
Geographical Review, 87(1):27(20).
Oakes,
Michael J. 1998. Shaky Recovery. Reason,
29(8):30(6).
Suhrke, Astri. 1994. Environmental Degradation and Population Flows. Journal
of International
Affairs,
47(2):473-496.
Tanida, Noitoshi. 1996. What Happened to the Elderly People in the Great Hanshin Earthquake. British
Medical Journal, 313(7065):1133(3).
Turnbull,
Colin M. 1972. The Mountain People.
New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc.
United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees. 2000. What is a refugee? Electronic document, http://www.unhcr.ch/refworld/refworld/legal/instrume/asylum/1951eng.htm,
accessed, November 28.
Yoshimune, Chie. 1999. Kobe
Quake Victims Still Displaced. Earth
Island Journal, 14(3):40.
Back to Top
