Environmental Injustice as a Multiplier of Injustice and Human Insecurity: The Cases of Boko Haram and the Taliban

INTRODUCTION

According to Goodwin-Gill and Mc Adam, a refugee is fleeing from conditions or circumstances that he or she finds intolerable and, consequently, is seeking protection from a state other than the one of which he or she is a national. ¹ There are, however, many reasons for leaving a given place, considering it uninhabitable. For example, geopolitical, geo-economic, and environmental factors impact the ecosystems and communities living there. These factors, on the one hand, favor the emergence of various forms of injustice that push people to migrate and, on the other hand, the emergence and consolidation of repressive regimes. In general, in certain contexts, there is a dominant group that rises to power thanks to the existence of environmental degradation phenomena and exploits the population's lack of opportunities and resentment to consolidate its position.

The main international instrument on the matter, is the 1951 Geneva Convention, in Art. 1A(2) defines who is eligible for refugee status and specifies the conditions for eligibility: being outside the borders of the state of nationality or habitual residence; well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; lack of protection by the state of origin. ² On a first reading of the provision, we can see that people fleeing due to environmental and climatic factors do not fall under the eligibility conditions of the Convention and this is one of the focal points of the debate on “environmental refugees.”

Some authors believe that the term “refugees” has too precise a meaning in international law and that the category of the environmental refugee has legal significance only in the strict sense of the term, that is, in cases where people are forced to flee when repressive forces use environmental destruction as an instrument of warfare. ³ On the contrary, however, some believe that the classical refugee definition already has the interpretative prerequisites for the protection of environmental refugees.

On the one hand, the 1951 Convention would recall many human rights notions and consequently would have to refer to existing international human rights instruments. On the other hand, if it is true that environmental factors lead to persecution and conflict, many people have received refugee status without it being traced back to environmental causes. ⁴ On this point, some argue that the term “persecution” should also include economic, social, and environmental persecution that occurs through public choices (or the omission thereof) and that forces people to seek asylum. ⁵

At present, as observed by Docherty and Giannini, this “is a de facto problem currently lacking a de jure solution.” ⁶ Given the aforementioned, this contribution aims to show how environmental injustice can be a multiplier of different types of injustice leading to new forms of power and a reduction in the human security of the affected population. Consequently, forms of protection in the countries of arrival and actions to adapt to environmental degradation in the countries of origin would be necessary for parallel to avoid the emergence of persecution based on socio-environmental inequality. For the discussion, reference will be made to the Boko Haram situation in Nigeria and the rise of the Taliban in 2021 in Afghanistan.

DIFFERENT FORMS OF INJUSTICE

According to Watts and Hodgson, ⁷ injustice can be defined as a “lack of fairness or justice” and can consist of social, economic, or legal aspects. However, these aspects are interdependent in that, although in different ways, they sort “just or unjust outcomes” among the population of society. Consequently, the authors believe that “privilege” and “disadvantage” are circumstantial and socially, politically, and historically constructed. In other words, injustices can be defined as material realities that can be established through social constructs. On this basis, the authors distinguish different forms of injustice: (1) inequality; (2) refugees, asylum seekers, and displaced people; (3) discrimination and stigma; (4) violence, abuse, and mistreatment; (5) racism; (6) poverty; (7) environmental injustice.

The forms of injustice mentioned are not exhaustive but allow, in the writer's opinion, to highlight the fact that when we talk about injustice, we are talking about a complex concept. The concept of injustice is composed of different aspects that afflict a person in different ways. Within different societies, it is possible to distinguish different forms of injustice based on the enjoyment of economic well-being, differential treatment based on belonging to a group or according to sex or gender, the state of poverty, or arising from racist or colonialist dynamics, even in the relations between the so-called north and south of the world.

Increasingly, especially in the global south, such forms of injustice are accompanied by occasional or structural episodes of violence against certain groups, which, as Iris Marion Young states, ⁸ constitute a form of injustice in themselves and are an essential component of oppression. In turn, such forms of oppression may be at the root of the disruption of economic, social, political, environmental, and demographic factors behind the reasons for migration. ⁹ Refugees, asylum seekers, and displaced persons are by definition migrants forced to leave their place of residence due to material, immaterial, economic, or social deprivation.

An important step forward on this point was made on October 24, 2019 by the United Nations Human Rights Committee through a view on the Ioane Tetiota v. New Zealand (communication No. 2728/2016). ¹⁰ The views state that the effects of environmental degradation can stimulate the cross-border movement of individuals seeking protection from the harm they have suffered and/or the risks they face. According to the committee's reasoning, without strong national and international efforts, the effects of climate change may expose individuals to a violation of their rights under Articles 6 (right to life) and 7 (prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment) of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, thus making it possible to apply the obligations related to the principle of non-refoulement in such cases.

Even though the opinion was not in favor of Ioane Tetiota because the rights and guarantees deriving from refugee status were not granted to him, the decision represents the baseline for the recognition of forms of protection for environmental refugees. The legal foundation for the case before the United Nations (UN) Committee is the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1996 (ICCPR). ¹¹ The protocol establishes the mechanism of individual communications according to which an individual who alleges that he or she has suffered harm as a result of the violation of one or more of the Covenant's norms may submit a claim before the committee.

In this case, Tetiota was denied his application for asylum by New Zealand and was returned to Kiribati, a small country in the South Pacific. As a consequence, Tetiota decided to appeal to the committee alleging that New Zealand violated his right to life due to the impact of climate change on his country of origin. In contrast to the New Zealand courts, the committee found that Mr Tetiota's case was a case for deportation and extradition because the necessary assessment of the real risk the person would face upon repatriation had not been made.

Although recognizing the severe impacts of climate change on Kiribati and acknowledging the possibility that the effects of environmental degradation may provide the basis for international protection, ¹² the decision of the New Zealand courts was upheld on the grounds that (1) there was no genuine general conflict situation; (2) the government was taking adaptive measures to reduce vulnerabilities resulting from climate change; and (3) insufficient evidence had been presented to show that access to water or food was impossible. ¹³ However, as stated earlier, the committee's views on the Tetiota case represent the baseline for the recognition of ad hoc forms of protection for environmental migrants.

In this perspective, an example of the normative value of the views, in terms of interpretation, can be represented by Order No. 5022 of the Italian Supreme Court. ¹⁴ In this occasion, the court includes the theme that socioeconomic pressure amplifies environmental and climatic phenomena, which, in turn, aggravate the condition of socioeconomic vulnerability in which individuals find themselves. The Italian Supreme Court, making direct reference to and quoting the views on the Ioane Tetiota case, affirms the principle that states have an obligation to ensure and guarantee the right to life of individuals, and that this right extends also to reasonably foreseeable threats and potentially life-threatening situations that may lead to a substantial worsening of conditions of existence, including environmental degradation, climate change, and unsustainable development.

Furthermore, according to the Italian Court, the assessment, for the purposes of recognizing humanitarian protection, must be conducted with specific reference to the particular risk to the right to life and a dignified existence arising from environmental phenomena. In a nutshell, in the writer's opinion, the undermining of the individual's conditions for a dignified life depends on the socio-environmental context in which the individual finds himself, resulting in the risk for the individual to see his fundamental rights, including the right to life, liberty, and self-determination, annihilated. Therefore, the Supreme Court links the notion of vulnerability to the notion of dignity, legitimizing on this basis the recognition of a form of protection for this kind of migrant. ¹⁵

Given the important the strong interconnection and overlap between human rights and the environment, ¹⁶ in our view the effects of each of the aforementioned forms of injustice can be multiplied by environmental injustice, that is, that injustice related to ecological or environmental issues. This form of factual injustice can be well understood through Amartya Sen's Capabilities theory and the interpretation offered by Martha Nussbaum.

UNDERSTANDING ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE THROUGH A HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH

According to Roberts and Parks ¹⁷ in the face of so-called “ecological problems” the existing inequality, in terms of asymmetries of power and influence, at the global and local level undermines the possibility of cooperative measures. The consequences of climate change are disproportionately distributed. By way of illustration, we can refer to the global emissions produced by the United States. These are comparable with those of 136 developing countries, yet the impact of climate change is greater in those countries that are not among the main contributors to climate change.

In general, it can be said that the situations compromised by environmental problems involve multiple fundamental rights that are interdependent. On this point, it is useful to remember that, on October 8, 2021, the UN Human Rights Council adopted Resolution 48/13 recognizing “the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right that is important for the enjoyment of human rights.” ¹⁸ The resolution, in its preamble, reaffirms the universality, indivisibility, interdependence, and inter-relatedness of all human rights, and then notes the increased impact of environmental degradation on segments of the population that are already in a vulnerable condition.

Also of interest is the visit to Tuvalu, an island state in the Pacific Ocean, of the UN Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights Karima Bennoune. ¹⁹ On this occasion, the Special Rapporteur recalls that of particular importance are the cultural rights enshrined in Articles 18, 19, and 27 of the ICCPR—respectively, protecting the rights to freedom of religion or belief, to opinion and expression and the rights for national, ethnic, and linguistic minorities to protect and practice their culture, and Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which includes the right of everyone to take part in cultural life without discrimination.

The Special Representative also states that the ratification of these two instruments guarantees the protection of these rights from the threat of the effects of climate change. Consequently, the application of a Human Rights-based approach in preventing and responding to the effects of climate change serves to empower individuals and groups, who should be perceived as active agents of change and not as passive victims. However, in the writer's opinion, it must be emphasized that, on the one hand, there are multiple subjective situations with different protection and needs, whereas, on the other hand, these rights must be satisfied within the regenerative capacity of ecosystems. This is much more complex in those contexts where environmental crisis is a daily reality for the world's most vulnerable and marginalized groups.

According to the theory of Capabilities elaborated by Amartya Sen, ²⁰ capabilities are understood as the actual abilities to have the opportunity to pursue useful actions and activities to achieve one's conception of the “good life.” These depend on the physical environment, institutions, social ties, and the individual's particular circumstances. From the combination of these four aspects derive the actual possibilities of individuals to have their basic needs met and, consequently, to be able to live a decent life. In this regard, Martha Nussbaum ²¹ believes that the fundamental good of society consists in the promotion for the respective populations of a set of opportunities, or substantial freedoms substantial, which people can then put into practice or not.

“To have capabilities” means nothing more than to have the possibility to choose or, to use one of the authors' concepts, to “function” in a given context, and, consequently, to be able to self-determine one's life paths. In other words, Capability theory shows that the individual's lack of “capability,” that is, the possibility of self-determination through the enjoyment of one's fundamental rights, is caused by discriminatory and marginalizing phenomena. In our view, the climate crisis creates unsafe places and, more and more often, this generated by an asymmetrical dynamic of natural resource distribution: on the one hand, the “unsustainable” economy damages the natural resources and habitats of many communities, on the other hand, populations see their surroundings become unhealthy and resources become increasingly scarce.

Such asymmetry has concrete sociopolitical repercussions, and among them we must include, notably, those phenomena of “impoverishment,” “migration,” and “destabilization.” We believe that to understand such dynamics and the effects they have, it is necessary to analyze the role of structural characteristics of the individual's living environment impacted by the effects of environmental degradation and climate change. In this regard, we can refer to characteristics that we term “socio-environmental” to highlight the interaction between socioeconomic status, individual characteristics, and exposure to environmental and social risks.

On the capabilities of individuals and the socio-environmental context depends what Giddens called “agency,” or the power of individuals to freely make choices and actions that influence the course of their lives. ²² In the writer's view, the “agency” of people in contexts that see the rise of repressive regimes is important at two stages: before repression begins and when repression is in place. If people can act and self-determine they have greater “immune defenses” to counter repressive regimes and dynamics. In some cases, certain groups would not gain strategic positions simply because they would not appeal to certain populations. On the other hand, people's capacity to act allows them to resist and create small islands of resistance that can bring about change in the context in which they live.

In contexts of environmental crisis, as a result, people are more vulnerable to the emergence of repressive regimes because (1) the environmental crisis reduces people's ability to “produce” leading to a situation of substantial poverty; (2) poor production and/or poor nutrition prevents access to education, increases infant mortality, infectious diseases, pathologies, and worsens the chances of access to treatment; (3) lack of opportunity is exacerbated by the unfairness of the international food market and makes people more susceptible to geo-economic interests of countries in the global north or international events, such as the War in Ukraine; and (4) increasing difficulties for survival increases resentment toward Western forces, exacerbating those feelings that are the result of international geopolitical dynamics.

FROM ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE TO THE RISE TO POWER OF REPRESSIVE REGIMES

According to Paulo Freire ²³ nondemocratic forms of government originate from an act of violence that causes one group to become the sole legal holder of power. Through this power, the dominant group, characterized by a possessive consciousness, transforms everything around it into objects to be placed under its domination with the aim of “having more” even at the cost of one group having less. In this way, the dominant group establishes what is deemed right to promote and consolidate its goals. A dynamic of oppressors and oppressed is determined. Within the latter group, the categories to suffer most are the vulnerable ones: women, children, minorities, or Queer.

Indeed, oppressors can arise among the oppressed who, exercising horizontal violence, attack their fellow human beings because they want to participate in the oppressors' way of life and be part of what the oppressors consider right. Essentially, repression is a mechanism of control that allows certain segments of the population to be excluded or marginalized. Those who are most affected are those who are most vulnerable and cannot defend themselves.

On this issue The Working Group II contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report ²⁴ states that some of the factors that increase the risk of violent conflict within states are sensitive to climate change, that people living in places affected by violent conflict are particularly vulnerable to climate change, and that climate change will lead to new challenges to states and will increasingly shape both conditions of security and national security policies. ²⁵ Among other factors, according to IPCC, it should be noted that increases in food prices due to reduced agricultural production and global food price shocks are associated with conflict risk and represent a key pathway linking climate variability and conflict ²⁶ and that structural inequalities play out at an individual level to create gendered experiences of violence. ²⁷

For example, Boko Haram exploits frustration, resentment toward the government, public outrage, social marginalization, and unemployment to recruit new men into its ranks. The deep origins of Boko Haram's success should, therefore, be found in a widespread “feeling of revenge” toward Western colonialism. ²⁸ At this point we should note that the place where Boko Haram operates most and has the most control is the Lake Chad region, ²⁹ a symbol of the climate crisis. In 2017, food commodity prices in most markets had increased from the previous 5-year average. Contributing to rising commodity costs were insecurity in the region, rising transportation costs, and difficulties associated with cultivation. All of this only increases frustration, resentment, and social marginalization, conditions that Boko Haram exploits to recruit new members. ³⁰

Here the terrorist organization offers engagement sums of up to $500 to recruit unemployed “hopeless youth” and men who want to regain their dignity by being able to feed their families. Through this mechanism Boko Haram has taken control of trade networks, supplies, access to resources, and destroys villages and markets. ³¹ The organization from here organized attacks against schools accused of proposing Western ideology causing numerous casualties. ³²

Between 2009 and 2015, the terrorist organization attacked and destroyed >900 schools, kidnapped women to enslave them or give them in marriage to militiamen, and used children as Kamikaze. ³³ In the 2022 report of the Small Arms Survey and the UN Development Programme, ³⁴ hardship and deprivation were highlighted as the greatest challenges for the regions bordering the Sahel. In addition, discrimination and marginalization along ethnic, tribal, or religious lines were most strongly felt in Nigeria. Moreover, the report continues, communities there are not sure that the state is able to provide justice and security.

With reference to Nigeria, it can be pointed out that the country has suffered the greatest impact of climate variability on agriculture, a sector that contributes about 20% of the national gross domestic product and is the second most important economic pillar after oil extraction. ³⁵ Added to this, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN estimates that 66% of the labor force in Nigeria is engaged in agriculture. ³⁶ In a nutshell, therefore, it should be noted that agriculture plays a crucial role in the survival of many households living in rural settings, thus leaving them highly dependent on climatic and environmental variables.

As witnessed in the study of Ebhuomaa and Simatele, ³⁷ in Nigeria, changes in temperatures, increased randomness of rainfall and hazardous seasonal flooding have been observed to undermine the livelihoods of people living in socio-environmentally fragile territories. It should also be noted that these communities are not involved in climate change adaptation processes. If key decisions in the climate change fight were not taken at the international level, the situation would be even more critical in the future because >46.5% of the Nigerian population is in a condition of extreme poverty and Nigeria scored 47.03 in achieving the sustainable development goals. ³⁸ In the writer's opinion the Intervention programmed by the UN and international partners should consider the broader nexus of humanitarian risks, development, environment and peace, taking into account contextual specificities and supporting target communities.

In this context, public spending should create economic opportunities for communities impacted by climate change through a long-term development vision that incorporates environmental needs. This would, on the one hand, foster sustainable development of communities, and on the other hand, break the need for them to side with Boko Haram. In addition to this, Nigeria should ensure a transparent and equitable allocation of resources by also implementing basic services responsive to the needs of the populations affected by climate change. These actions should also be implemented with a focus on remote and border areas where communities feel marginalized and can become vulnerable to the exploitation, narratives, and propaganda of violent extremist groups.

A similar situation can be found in Afghanistan, a country at war for >40 years. Because most of the Western military presence in the country was concentrated in the cities, with little penetration into the villages and almost zero contact with the more isolated villages, the Taliban for the past 20 years have remained relatively undisturbed. These over the years have used this opportunity to reorganize, camouflage themselves among the population, and exploit the population's hatred of Western contingents, perceived as outright occupiers. Afghanistan is often ranked among the most vulnerable countries to climate change due to a combination of low adaptive capacity and high exposure to climatic variables. ³⁹

This is a consequence of the armed conflict, which destroyed the country's infrastructure, institutions, and led to widespread poverty and poor development dynamics, which together are at the root of Afghanistan's vulnerability and lack of adaptability to climate change. ⁴⁰ Even in this context, people and the economy are almost completely dependent on agricultural production, particularly subsistence farming, and key sectors, including water, energy and agriculture, are among the most vulnerable to climate change. ⁴¹ In this regard, it should be noted that the average annual temperature is expected to rise significantly: in both a low-emission scenario and a business-as-usual scenario, it is expected to rise by >2°C with dramatic consequences for the country. ⁴²

As in the case of Boko Haram, climate change can also be said to have aided the strengthening of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The country's rural areas have been rocked by a cycle of floods and droughts that have destroyed crops and increased the challenges people face in surviving. ⁴³ On this point, the IPCC notes that the social impacts of climate change, such as mortality caused by floods, droughts, and storms, are much higher in regions of countries with high vulnerability such as Mozambique, Somalia, Nigeria, Afghanistan, and Haiti. ⁴⁴ The average mortality rate for these phenomena is 15 × higher in countries and regions with low vulnerability to climate change, for example, Canada, Italy, and Sweden. ⁴⁵ The research conducted by Iqbal et al. ⁴⁶ on the situation of farming households in Herat Province indicates the many negative economic, social, and environmental impacts of drought.

The study highlights how it has reduced the labor supply of unskilled workers, impacting their standard of living and financial situation. This results in resource-grabbing conflicts, on the one hand, and increased migration, on the other hand. In addition, according to the UN Environment Programme Vulnerability and Adaptation report, ⁴⁷ climate change will increase pressure on health care in Afghanistan. Higher temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns may increase the incidence of bacterial diseases such as cholera and typhoid fever, as well as vector-borne diseases such as malaria and leishmaniasis. In general, climate change will increase the prevalence of infectious diseases in a health system already strained by armed clashes and malnutrition. ⁴⁸ To date, only half of the population is within an hour's travel time of a health facility, whereas, in general, the health service often suffers from poor competence and limited supplies. ⁴⁹

In the writer's opinion, as in the case of Boko Haram, climate change can also be said to have helped strengthen the Taliban's position in Afghanistan. The country's rural areas have been rocked by a cycle of floods and droughts that have destroyed crops and increased the challenges the population faces to survive. Much of the Afghan population depends on agriculture, and many of the conflicts are related to access to natural resources, which are becoming increasingly scarce due to environmental degradation. ⁵⁰

Again, increased poverty has been followed by increased anger toward perceived occupying forces and increased support for Taliban guerrillas, who have largely exploited the situation to their own advantage. In the specific case of Afghanistan, there is a need to implement climate change adaptation and natural disaster risk prevention plans through the participation of rural communities. In addition, support mechanisms should be implemented for families living in the most fragile contexts and infrastructure should be built to respond to the current environmental challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

In the writer's opinion it is possible to say that, in both cases analyzed, the high level of poverty, lack of livelihoods and income-generating opportunities, chronic health problems, the poor state of infrastructure, and very limited knowledge of probable dangers and risks all contribute to increasing the vulnerability of populations living in fragile territories to environmental degradation phenomena. Poverty and environmental degradation have a mutually reinforcing relationship: the economic situation of families affected by environmental degradation phenomena has worsened due to loss of income sources or damage to homes. Households have difficulty responding to the impact of environmental degradation and tend to have fewer opportunities to access facilities and services provided by the government. This results in a vicious cycle: poor households that experience environmental degradation become even poorer, becoming less and less able to respond to or find a solution to the degradation that has exacerbated their poverty.

As we have seen, the issue of environmental justice connects human rights with the capabilities of individuals to highlight the need to achieve a useful approach to safeguard the rights of the vulnerable, to share the burdens and solutions to climate change fairly and equitably, and to manage global environmental and financial resources equitably. In this regard, the lack of an adequate financial mechanism to address climate-induced loss and damage cannot go unnoticed. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change currently only facilitates climate finance flows to address adaptation and mitigation. There is still no UN system to provide climate finance to those suffering climate-induced loss and damage, to be able to pick up the pieces in the aftermath of climate disasters. This lack of funds means that there is no systemic approach to intervene, respond, rebuild, and recover.

The climate inaction of individual states and the difficulties that often arise during climate negotiations risk making the least climate-responsible nations poorer and communities within them more exposed to human and environmental rights violations or subject to forced migration. Although the definition of environmental refugees is still problematic, there is no doubt that climate injustice turns out to be a multiplier of injustices. As it has been possible to analyze, if multiple human rights are interconnected with the environmental situation, the environmental crisis can only exacerbate inequality, discrimination, and violence.

It is increasingly urgent to adopt systematic and cooperative approaches that match the needs of individual communities affected by climate change, including by listening better to them in climate negotiations. In conclusion, it can be said that environmental degradation can give rise to persecution and situations in which the right to life and dignity of human beings are endangered with increasing difficulty depending on the vulnerability of individuals. At this point, it is necessary to take action to make the fight against climate change and environmental degradation more decisive and, in the meantime, to establish appropriate instruments to protect people endangered by the environmental crisis.