The struggle for protection of environmental refugees: who's responsibility? Discourses from the United Nations and Non-governmental organizations

This thesis identifies, examines and problematizes some of the discourses that have so far come to light on the issue of protection for environmental refugees. By analyzing the discourses produced by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and two non-governmental organizations - the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) and Equity and Justice Working Group Bangladesh (EquityBD), I examine the struggling discourses that have emerged about how protection for environmental refugees has been interpreted. To do this, I rely on Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's theory and method of discourse analysis. The results show that responsibilization is the main point of struggle in the discussions on the protection of environmental refugees. As a floating signifier, it was utilized by the discourses produced by the UNCHR and the selected NGOs in contingent ways and with different political objectives. The UNHCR discourse responsibilized both the environmental refugees for their own protection and the individual states. The EJF and EquityBD, by contrast, allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees to the international community. These contingent understandings of responsibilization necessitated different justifications. While the EJF discourse relied on humanitarianism for the assistance of environmental refugees, the EquityBD discourse constructed a rights based, more permanent solution. The humanitarian based discourse of the EJF was found to be inextricably linked with the neoliberal discourse produced by the UNHCR. Both these discourses encouraged environmental refugees to stay in their homelands, undermining the politics of protection. Another way in which protection was undermined was by UNHCR's discourse on securitization. In this context, climate change induced displacement became threat to developed countries, the global economy and transnational classes. The struggling discourses about who/what has been allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees also meant that identities of the displaced be constructed in specific ways. While the UNHCR discourse constructed as voluntary migrants and predators, the EJF and EquityBD discourses portrayed them as victims. However, even though the EJF discourse constructed them as victims, their reliance on humanitarianism could also be interpreted as a way of giving the environmental refugee a predator like identity. These discourses on responsibilization and identity formation clashed with each other in the aim of achieving a hegemonic position in discussions and debates about the protection of environmental refugees.

The struggle for protection of environmental refugees: who's responsibility? Discourses from the United Nations and Non-governmental organizations

This thesis identifies, examines and problematizes some of the discourses that have so far come to light on the issue of protection for environmental refugees. By analyzing the discourses produced by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and two non-governmental organizations - the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) and Equity and Justice Working Group Bangladesh (EquityBD), I examine the struggling discourses that have emerged about how protection for environmental refugees has been interpreted. To do this, I rely on Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's theory and method of discourse analysis. The results show that responsibilization is the main point of struggle in the discussions on the protection of environmental refugees. As a floating signifier, it was utilized by the discourses produced by the UNCHR and the selected NGOs in contingent ways and with different political objectives. The UNHCR discourse responsibilized both the environmental refugees for their own protection and the individual states. The EJF and EquityBD, by contrast, allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees to the international community. These contingent understandings of responsibilization necessitated different justifications. While the EJF discourse relied on humanitarianism for the assistance of environmental refugees, the EquityBD discourse constructed a rights based, more permanent solution. The humanitarian based discourse of the EJF was found to be inextricably linked with the neoliberal discourse produced by the UNHCR. Both these discourses encouraged environmental refugees to stay in their homelands, undermining the politics of protection. Another way in which protection was undermined was by UNHCR's discourse on securitization. In this context, climate change induced displacement became threat to developed countries, the global economy and transnational classes. The struggling discourses about who/what has been allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees also meant that identities of the displaced be constructed in specific ways. While the UNHCR discourse constructed as voluntary migrants and predators, the EJF and EquityBD discourses portrayed them as victims. However, even though the EJF discourse constructed them as victims, their reliance on humanitarianism could also be interpreted as a way of giving the environmental refugee a predator like identity. These discourses on responsibilization and identity formation clashed with each other in the aim of achieving a hegemonic position in discussions and debates about the protection of environmental refugees.

The Rocky Road of Social Sustainability : The Impact of Integrated Biodiversity Conservation and Development on the Local Realities in Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar

The objective of this study is to examine the social impacts of the integrated conservation and development project (ICDP) aimed at biodiversity conservation and local socio-economic development in the Ranomafana National Park (RNP), Madagascar. Furthermore, the study explores social sustainability and justice of the ICDP in Ranomafana. This ethnographically informed impact study uses of various field methods. The research material used consists of observation, interviews (key-person and focus group), school children's writings, official statistics and project documents. Fieldwork was conducted in three phases in 2001, 2002 and 2004 in twelve villages around the park, as well as in neighbouring areas of Ranomafana. However, four of those twelve villages were chosen for closer study. This study consists of five independent articles and a concluding chapter. Social impacts were studied through reproductive health indicators as well as a life security approach. Equity and distribution of benefits and drawbacks of ICDP were analysed and the actors related to the conservation in Ranomafana were identified. The children and adolescents' environmental views were also examined. The reproductive health indicators studied showed a poor state of reproductive health in the park area. Moreover, the existing social capital in the villages seemed to be fragmented due to economic difficulties that were partly caused by the conservation regulations. The ICDP in Ranomafana did not pay attention to the heterogeneity of the affected communities even though the local beneficiaries of the ICDP varied according to their ethnicity, living place, wealth, social position and gender. In addition, various conservation actors (local people in various groups, local authorities, tourist business owners, conservation NGOs and scientists) contest their interests over the forest, conservation and its related activities. This study corroborates the same type of evidence and conclusions discussed in other similar cases elsewhere: so called social conservation programmes still cannot meet the needs of the people living near the protected areas; on the contrary, they even have a reverse impact on the people's lives. A fundamental misunderstood assumption in the conservation process in Ranomafana was to consider the local people as a problem for biodiversity conservation. Major reasons for the failure of the ICDP in Ranomafana include a lack of local institutions that would have been able to communicate as equals with the conservation NGOs as well as to transfer the tradition of the authoritarian governance in conservation management together with the over-appreciation of scientific biodiversity, and lack of will to understand the local people's rights to use the forest for their livelihoods.