7. MARCO TEÓRICO
7.2 Estandarización de localidades
2.4.1 Background to environmental justice
The environmental justice movement can be traced back to the 1982 protests in the USA against the disposal of toxic waste in the poor, majority African-American, community of Warren County, North Carolina (Lee, 1992). This highlighted a concern that minority and low income groups were facing disproportionately higher environmental risks than other more well-off groups, and that this was linked to other social and economic injustices that marginalised communities face (Schlosberg, 2003). This ‘first-generation’ of environmental justice research challenged conventional conceptions of environmentalism (Martin et al., 2013). It highlighted the limitations of conceiving the environment as ‘wilderness’, or nature detached from everyday life (Schlosberg and Collins, 2014), by defining the environment much more broadly as where we live, work, and play (Novotny, 2000). This expanded environmentalism into concerns about the relationship between the conditions of everyday life and the natural world (Schlosberg and Collins, 2014). In recent decades environmental justice has extended its influence not only globally in terms of new places and spatial analysis from local to global (Sze and London, 2008), but also into a growing
27
range of environmental issues such as land use, access to natural resources, food security and climate change (Schlosberg, 2013). Attention has been increasingly given to other forms of social difference, including poverty, age, disability and gender (Walker, 2009).
Schlosberg (2013) goes even further by extending the discourse of environmental justice beyond individual human beings and into considerations of community-level justice, as well as justice beyond the human and into the non-human realm. These recent developments have broadened the scope and understanding of what environmental justice constitutes (Walker and Bulkeley, 2006), and provide a useful grounding to the study of SES because of the inherent links between social and ecological aspects.
Alongside the broadening scope of the environmental component of environmental justice has been a reflection on our understanding of what constitutes justice (Schlosberg, 2013). Walker (2009) argues that much “first-generation”
environmental justice research has been too narrowly focused on the distributional aspects of environmental risk. Schlosberg (2003) claims this to be problematic as it can mask the structural causes of inequities in distribution. A broadened understanding of environmental justice in different contexts means that simplistic, distributional analyses are insufficient and inadequate (Martin et al., 2013). What is required is a move away from simply describing and documenting inequity, into a richer, multidimensional understanding of the underlying processes that shape, sustain and reproduce inequalities (Schlosberg, 2007).
Walker (2009) integrates theoretical perspectives of justice to demonstrate how distribution, recognition and procedure are core components of environmental justice and can help us to understand the processes underlying distribution. Each of these components will now be discussed to demonstrate how they represent a move away from simple descriptions of inequity into a thorough analysis of the underlying reasons for that injustice (Schlosberg, 2013). Analysing adaptive capacity through an environmental justice lens allows us not only to uncover the processes that shape the distribution of adaptive capacity, but also to understand who, how and why some people gain from SES change while others lose.
2.4.2 Distributive justice and adaptive capacity
Distributive justice is concerned with benefit and burden sharing, i.e. who gets what and who has to live with what (Walker 2012). In political theory, justice is almost entirely a question of equity in the distribution of social goods (Schlosberg, 2003). For example, Rawls
28
(1971) refers to justice as “…a standard whereby the distributive aspects of the basic structure of society are to be assessed….defining the appropriate division of social advantages” (p9). In this sense, justice as distribution focusses on socio-economic factors and argues for a universal principle of social equity. Walzer (1983) moves away from universal principles to consider the history and culture of specific places, arguing that different individuals have different sets of values, and that the very criteria for distribution will differ according to these values. Miller (2001) proposes a pluralist account of social justice, arguing that there can be no single measure of justice, and presents three principles of distributive justice, namely: need, desert, and equality. Need is a claim that basic necessities must be met so that individuals or groups are free from the danger of harm and that their capacity to function is not impeded. Desert is the claim that reward should be based on an individual or group’s contribution, that superior contributions should attract superior rewards. Equality is an ideal that society regards and treats its citizens as equals, and that benefits such as certain rights should be distributed equally. Although this approach to justice considers the complexities of the real world, it still remains tied to the concept of justice as purely distributional (Schlosberg, 2003).
Distributional justice raises a number of concerns relating to the spatial and temporal distribution of adaptive capacity (Jamieson, 1994). First, it has been noted that adaptive capacity is unevenly distributed among and within societies (Smit and Wandel, 2006). This can lead to marginalised sections of society being disproportionately burdened with the costs of SES change, while groups with more adaptive capacity secure the benefits (McDermott et al., 2013). Research suggests that SES changes can reduce the vulnerability of the wealthy and vested interests at the expense of the marginalised, with reactive responses in particular reinforcing inequality (Adger et al., 2006). Second, poor households in NRDC often rely on the collection of ecosystem provisioning goods as a strategy for responding to and coping with disturbance (Kabala et al., 2013). Hence, alterations in the access to and distribution of these provisioning goods due to SES change can negatively impact the adaptive capacity of those with greatest dependence on natural resources.
Third, the unequal distribution of the costs of SES change raises concerns for sustainability and intergenerational justice, with the degradation and over exploitation of natural resources negatively impacting the distribution of adaptive capacity for future generations (Dobson, 2007). Any assessment of adaptive capacity therefore requires the identification and recognition of all groups and how and why adaptive capacity is distributed between
29
them the way that it is at different points in time. In Vietnam, far reaching political and economic reform has resulted in the appropriation and exploitation of natural resources by powerful actors, and subsequent high concentration of wealth among these actors. This study analyses whether such changes have altered how mangrove goods and services are distributed in MRDC in order to understand the environmental justice aspects of adaptive capacity in MSES.
2.4.3 Recognition justice and adaptive capacity
Recognition as a form of justice has its origins in the work of Young (1990) who suggested that injustice is not solely an issue of inequitable distribution, but also involves a lack of recognition of group identity and difference. Young built on the traditional theory of distributive justice by directing attention to institutionalised dominance and oppression, particularly of those who represent “difference” in race, gender and sexuality. Young argues that “…where social group differences exist and some groups are privileged while others are oppressed, social justice requires explicitly acknowledging and attending to those group differences in order to undermine oppression” (p3). Misrecognition through insults, degradation and devaluation represents injustice not only because it constrains and harms people, but also because it impairs people’s understandings of themselves, which is equally as detrimental as a lack of adequate distribution of goods (Schlosberg, 2003). Honneth (1995) poses disrespect as a form of injustice whereby an individual or group may be the subject to structural, institutional or cultural exclusion from the possession of certain rights within society and the denial of self-esteem. A lack of recognition can also cause resentment to grow not just within individuals, but throughout society (Connelly, 1993).
Hence, a lack of recognition is a structural and institutional form of injustice that requires institutional analysis and change (Schlosberg, 2003).
Recognition justice reflects the social, economic and political disenfranchisement that is embedded within the larger struggles of different groups against oppression and discrimination (Schlosberg, 2013). Central to environmental justice is an engagement of issues relating to recognition through cultural meaning and identity (Whyte, 2011). Identity is the amalgamation of cultures, perceptions and ways of life that are connected to the physical environment (Figueroa, 2010) and encompasses values, practices and places (Whyte, 2010). There are often considerable differences in culture and identity between natural resource stakeholders and views of what constitutes just distribution (de Jong,
30
2011). Hence, recognition in environmental justice is about being reflexive regarding whose culture is privileged and respected (Walker, 2012), and provides an approach to resolving tensions between social and ecological values (Martin et al., 2013). If this does not happen it could result in the exclusion and erosion of potentially valuable alternative social and ecological perspectives, and a subsequent reduction in the cultural diversity that some argue is positively correlated with biodiversity (Maffi, 2001). A lack of recognition can result in reduced levels of adaptive capacity for certain groups who are less connected to certain social networks. In this respect, recognition is related to capability approaches (Sen, 2007) that focus on the variety of activities that people need in order to fully flourish, such as social affiliation (Schlosberg, 2007). Nussbaum (2006) presents affiliation as the opportunity for individuals and groups to form attachments, bonds and relationships, build social capital and live in a society that respects and treats them as dignified beings. Hence, more affiliated individuals and groups have greater recognition and opportunity to draw on these social networks in times of shock or stress. Failure to be recognised as being legitimately affiliated or recognised within certain networks leads to further exclusion and less network access that effectively limits adaptive capacity. In Vietnam, rapid MSES change resulting from far reaching political and economic reform, particularly integration into domestic and international markets, will impact the social networks of MRDC. This study analyses recognition by examining the association between different levels of aquaculture activity and social network structure in order to understand the environmental justice aspect of adaptive capacity within MSES.
2.4.4 Procedural justice and adaptive capacity
Distribution and recognition are two crucial components of justice. A third critical component is procedural justice (Schlosberg, 2007). Procedural justice relates to how decisions are made and who is included in these processes, encompassing issues such as participation and power (Paavola, 2006). Participation provides a way to address power and the role of social and cultural institutions with regard to both distributional equity and political recognition (Schlosberg, 2007). Hence, procedural justice, and its demand for broader and more authentic public participation, is often seen as a tool to achieve both distributional equity and political recognition (Fraser, 2009). Young (1990) suggests that the concept of justice must focus on the elimination of institutionalised domination and oppression by focusing on political process to address distributional and recognition injustices. For Young, the central focus in addressing these two components of injustice
31
should be on decision-making structures, arguing for “…democratic decision-making procedures as an element and condition of social justice” (p23). Honneth (1992) articulates the link between a lack of recognition and reduced participation, whilst Gould (1996) proposes that participation should be increased in a variety of social and cultural institutions, as well as the more specific context of politics and government. Analysis of procedural justice, then, incorporates different notions of justices into one approach.
With regard to adaptive capacity in SES, procedural justice refers to participation in the institutions and processes that allocate resources and resolve disputes (McDermott et al., 2013). Matters relating to procedure typically occur in environmental policy documents as commitments to local community consultation, participation and in securing informed consent (Martin et al., 2013). However, criticism has been levelled at such procedures as they tend to favour economic concerns and existing hierarchies and power structures that can serve to exacerbate underlying inequalities in natural resource distribution (McAfee and Shapiro, 2010) and in recognition. Therefore, equity in the context of adaptive capacity to SES change is about more than simply ensuring that the most vulnerable are treated fairly and buffered from disturbance. Thomas and Twyman (2005) suggest that it should also incorporate a wide range of issues, including: decision-making processes, who decides, who responds; frameworks for taking and facilitating actions on natural resource issues;
and the link between the impacts of SES change and the factors that shape the distribution of livelihood opportunities. Hence, equity in the context of SES change has a strong procedural dimension regarding the institutions and processes that shape the distribution of adaptive capacity (Paavola and Adger, 2002). Vietnam is a country undergoing significant change: moving from a ‘command-and-control’ economy, to a ‘socialist-oriented market’
economy; and the devolution of land management from central government to households, and decentralisation of land allocation authority to local government. This study will analyse how these changes have shaped procedural processes and the level of community participation in natural resource management in order to understand the environmental justice aspect of adaptive capacity in MSES. Integrating analyses of livelihoods (distribution), social capital (recognition) and institutions (procedure) allows us to understand the different components of the environmental justice aspects of adaptive capacity in MSES. This is further unpacked in the following sections.
32