Addressing multi-dimensional injustice in indigenous adaptation: the case of Uganda’s Batwa community

ABSTRACT

Indigenous peoples, who depend on their environment for livelihoods and are often subject to poverty and socio-economic marginalization, are some of the most vulnerable to climate change. While the rights of Indigenous peoples are recognized internationally, these are not translated into adaptation responses. Using insights from theories of environmental justice in the case of Uganda’s Batwa community, we assess how justice-related factors impact their adaptive capacities and whether these are incorporated in the design and implementation of adaptation responses. Our findings reveal a multi-dimensional range of systemic injustices experienced by Batwa, resulting from their continued social-economic, cultural and political marginalization. Additionally, a variety of projects are happening locally in relation to ‘adaptation’ but not labelled as such, suggesting how Batwa's vulnerability is rooted in wider aspects of livelihoods and development. Most projects tend to focus on distribution of material benefits, while less attention is paid to the more intricate issues of compensation, political discrimination and uneven participation. This depoliticized and compartmentalized approach suggests a slow and incomplete way of operationalizing justice. Hence, we call for sincere efforts to address recognition, rights, and disproportionate levels of disadvantage for Indigenous communities, including their constitutional recognition, financial redress and participation in decision-making.

KEYWORDS:

• Climate adaptation
• indigenous peoples
• multi-dimensional injustice
• distributive justice
• recognition
• participation
• procedural justice
• Batwa
• Uganda

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the individuals interviewed and Batwa community members who participated in our focus group discussions. We also thank David Mwayafu and Joy Bonjyereire for their support during the fieldwork. Finally, we appreciate the comments from the editor and two anonymous reviewers which were useful in refining the earlier draft of the paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 According to IPCC (2018), adaptive capacity is ‘the ability of systems, institutions, humans, and other organisms to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences’.

2 The capability approach is usually defined as a normative framework for the evaluation of human well-being (Byskov, 2018; Nussbaum, 2011; Robeyns, 2016, 2017). Capabilities are the real, or substantive, freedoms or opportunities that we have to do or be certain things, such as being adequately nourished, having access to health care, and being sheltered; functionings are simply the capabilities that have been realized – e.g., actually being well-nourished versus having the opportunity to eat – whether by choice or by chance. Defining capabilities as ‘real, or substantive, freedoms’ means that they are distinguished from mere formal freedoms, such as rights: for example, someone may have the right to adequate housing (a formal freedom), yet not have the capability to exercise this right if they lack access to the necessary or adequate materials, if they lack the skills or capacities to build a house (e.g., due to disability), or cannot afford someone else to build the housing for them.

3 In fact, the politics of who is an Indigenous group have always been a contested issue in Uganda and other countries of Africa, due to complex ethnic politics and power dynamics. For example, Article 36 of Uganda’s Constitution states ‘minorities have a right to participate in decision-making processes and their views and interests shall be taken into account in the making of national plans and programmes’. While constitutional measures guarantee the rights of some vulnerable groups, particularly women and children, there are no specific provisions for Indigenous communities. In short, in public discourses and national policies and practices, it is generally the principle of equality that becomes a dominant approach while the specific needs and rights of Indigenous communities such as Batwa do not get the priority.

4 For example, Uganda is part of African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and signatory to UNDRIP but has not ratified the ILO-169. Even if some provisions (e.g. FPIC, equitable benefit-sharing) are mentioned in respective policies (e.g. the Uganda National Culture Policy developed by the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development), there are gaps in implementation.

5 In 2007, Uganda formulated medium-term national policies and strategies for climate adaptation via National Adaptation Programme of Actions (NAPAs), which sets out country-specific aims and activities to synchronize adaptation measures across different sectors (Hove et al., 2011; Few et al., 2015; Verburg et al., 2010). The country is now in the process of updating NAPA to produce National Adaptation Plan (NAP), which reflects a more concrete commitment to specific adaptation initiatives. Additionally, some aspects of climate adaptation have also been incorporated and fit with the National Development Plan-II (2015/16-2019/20) and the Vision 2040 (Few et al., 2015).

6 Land tenure and adaptive capacity are closely linked and the benefits of owning land are greater, particularly for smallholder farmers and poor households in Uganda as land constitutes between 50-60% of their asset endowment (Below et al., 2012; World Bank, 2003, 2013).

7 This is necessarily a loose trichotomy: as noted in the introduction it is not always easy to separate climate adaptation interventions from other development interventions, since the latter often have an impact on adaptive capacity even if that is not the explicitly stated aim of the intervention. Many supposedly ‘development’ activities do contribute to reducing climate vulnerability of Batwa through provision of housing, land, capacity building, income generation and livelihood support.

8 As the Chief Administrative Officer of Kisoro district explained:

We need more coordination … We need to make sure that we are not competing, but all working together for the same purpose … . Some people are buying land here, others there, planting bamboos here and there in the name of Batwa. We should avoid such duplications (Nature Uganda workshop).

9 For example, the revenue sharing of 20% of gate fee, plus the additional 1% of gorilla permits raised from protected areas that goes to Batwa is considered inadequate as it fails to reach those Batwa households living in poverty.

Additional information

Funding

This study was part of the Remedying Injustice in Indigenous Climate Adaptation Planning project in the Department of Politics and International Studies at the University of Warwick. The project was funded by a grant from the British Academy’s Tackling UK’s International Challenges Programme 2018 [grant number IC2_100139].

Notes on contributors

Poshendra Satyal

Poshendra Satyal is a research fellow with the Interdisciplinary Ethics Research Group of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick and works with the Policy Team of the BirdLife International.

Morten Fibieger Byskov

Morten Fibieger Byskov is a research fellow with the Interdisciplinary Ethics Research Group of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick.

Keith Hyams

Keith Hyams is Reader in Political Theory and Interdisciplinary Ethics at the Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick.