The Biodiversity Support Program is a USAID-funded consortium of World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy and World Resources Institute. This paper was made possible through support provided by the Global Bureau of USAID, under the terms of grant number DHR-A-00-88-00044-00. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency for International Development.
Scope of Study
Definitions and Rights
Indigenous Peoples as Subject of International Law
Indigenous Peoples as Targets of Development
Numbers and Significance for Biodiversity
Threats to Indigenous Peoples and Biodiversity
International Policies Regarding Indigenous Peoples
International Environmental Policy
International Conservation Policy
International Development Policy and Projects with Indigenous Peoples
Evaluation of Donor Policies
1. Overview
Indigenous Peoples and Asian Values
Indigenous Peoples and Social Policy
Indigenous Peoples, Forests and the State
Prejudices Against Shifting Cultivation
The Indigenous Peoples Movement in South and South East Asia
2. Local Experiences: Issues and Lessons
Mapping as a Tool for Tenure Reform and Community Management
Problems with Legal Personality
3. Communities and Local and National Government
4. Scaling Up: From Local Innovation to National Change
Broad Acceptance of Collaborative Forestry Options as The Way Forward
Indigenous Peoples and Joint Forest Management in India
Community Forestry in the Philippines
The Struggle for Communal Forests in Thailand
5. Looking to the Future
Peoples, Forests and Reefs Program
Ecuador Indigenous Peoples and Afro-Ecuadorian Development Project
A Critical Review of European Aid to Tropical Forests
The GTZ-Funded "Fomiss" Project in Sarawak
Small Grants for Biodiversity Conservation: the IUCN-Netherlands Experience
Guyana Forestry Commission Support Project
BSP-Kemala Project in Indonesia
Guyana: National Protected Area System Project
Some Basic Data on Indigenous Peoples in Selected Asian Countries
Deforestation in the Asia-Pacific
Dilemmas in Self-Determination
This sector review examines the situation of indigenous peoples and their relationship to biodiversity conservation with the principal aim of providing guidance to future foreign development assistance directed to the sector. It summarises the situation of indigenous peoples in developing countries, with a particular focus on the humid tropics, while setting out the key opportunities, challenges and difficulties confronting these peoples in their relationship to the ecosystems that they have traditionally depended on for their livelihoods.2
International awareness of the rights of Indigenous Peoples has heightened considerably since the 1970s. Their rights are now strongly affirmed in existing and emerging international human rights law. Numerous development agencies have adopted policies to ensure that development projects respect their rights, meet their needs and target them for special assistance. They have been recognised as a 'Major Group' that should intimately participate in programmes to achieve 'sustainable development' according to 'Agenda 21'. The need to secure their traditional knowledge and customary resource management practices has been affirmed by the Convention on Biological Diversity. International conservation agencies have adopted new policies to secure their rights and involve them in the management of protected areas.
The conviction that securing indigenous peoples' rights to their lands provides a viable means of protecting biodiversity now underpins a large proportion of donor assistance projects with indigenous peoples in the tropics and provides the underlying rationale for the Peoples, Forests and Reefs program which commissioned this review (see box next page). At the same time, a number of independent research programmes have begun to assess the validity of these assumptions.3
This review, however, has had a complementary and perhaps more pragmatic orientation, and has been aimed at helping development agencies target their funding more effectively. It sets out to find answers to the following main questions:
What kind of development assistance has really helped indigenous peoples to secure their lands and futures?
How do 'projects', especially small-scale initiatives, with indigenous peoples really contribute to long-term improvements in indigenous peoples' welfare and biodiversity conservation?
How do such projects avoid creating dependency on continuing 'aid'?
How can successful initiatives trigger similar changes in surrounding communities and more broadly?
What are the main legal, institutional and policy obstacles to broad reforms in the sector favourable to indigenous peoples and prudent community-based natural resource management?
What kind of civil society mobilisation has helped create the conditions for these broad policy changes?
How can larger-scale aid programmes or projects contribute to these broader shifts in policy ?
People, Forests and Reefs ProgramThe world's last great remnants of biologically diverse, forests, deserts, grasslands, rivers, coastal areas and reefs are under the stewardship of indigenous peoples. These groups are struggling for a recognition of their rights to sustainably manage and benefit from the biological diversity in their care. The preservation of biodiversity within these regions is critically linked to the physical and cultural survival of these peoples who have lived in these areas for generations. The Biodiversity Support Program's (BSP) 'Peoples, Forests and Reefs' program (PeFoR) is a US$2 million program initiated in 1994 that aims to:
PeFoR focuses on biologically diverse areas where traditional ethnic identities and institutions are still strong. By working with Indigenous Peoples to manage biodiversity, PeFoR supports the rights of Indigenous Peoples and promotes sustainable economic and social development. In critical regions throughout the world, PeFoR promotes low-cost mapping technologies in response to requests for assistance in mapping community lands. PeFoR offers technical assistance to indigenous resource managers, strengthens Indigenous Peoples' capacity to communicate effectively with government agencies, and supports appropriate policy reforms. Lessons learned are shared with hundreds of NGOs and Indigenous People's organizations through apprenticeship programs, workshops and publications. Between 1998 and 2000, BSP has shifted into an analytical phase to gather lessons from the past to provide guidance and recommendations for future initiatives. This sectoral study comprises part of this effort and is aimed at evaluating the methods and results of the PeFoR program in Latin America and Asia. The report includes recommendations to international development assistance agencies, conservation bodies, NGOs and indigenous peoples on possible measures to reverse global trends in the loss of biodiversity and cultural heritage while strengthening the capacities of marginalized groups to manage and benefit from biodiversity.4 |
There is no internationally accepted definition of the term 'Indigenous Peoples'. The term has gained international currency in the context of international debates about the rights of 'ethnic minorities', 'tribal peoples', 'natives', 'aborigines' and 'indigenous populations', who have quite evidently suffered, and continue to suffer, discrimination and marginalisation as a result of colonialism, and post-colonial projects of nation-building, development and modernisation. The term 'Indigenous Peoples' has been adopted by a large number of governments, international agencies and, most significantly, by a broad movement of self-identified peoples as the best catch-all term available to insert consideration for their rights into international law. Despite, or rather because of, growing acceptance of the phrase and a growing recognition of Indigenous Peoples' inherent rights, its use has been objected to by a number of governments, especially in Asia.
Indigenous Peoples as Subjects of International Law
In 1986, the United Nations' Working Group on Indigenous Populations adopted the following working definition to guide its work:
"Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity; as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems."5
Since then the Working Group, which has met annually since 1983, has heard presentations from thousands of indigenous spokespersons from all over the world. Many of these spokespersons are from countries in Asia and Africa that were either never colonised by European powers (such as China, Thailand and Japan) or from which colonial settlers mainly withdrew following decolonisation (such as India and Malaysia). Nevertheless the 'aboriginal' or 'tribal' peoples in these countries, whose territories have been administratively annexed by emerging independent nation states, experience discrimination and a denial of their rights. They thus equate their situation with that of other Indigenous Peoples in settler states and demand the same rights and consideration.6
Summing up the deliberations of years of work, the Chairperson of the UN's Working Group has concluded:
"In summary, the factors which modern international organisations and legal experts (including indigenous legal experts and members of the academic family) have considered relevant to understanding the concept of "indigenous" include:
priority in time with respect the occupation and use of a specific territory;
the voluntary perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness, which may include aspects of language, social organisation, religion and spiritual values, modes of production, laws and institutions;
self-identification, as well as recognition by other groups, or by State authorities, as a distinct collectivity;
and an experience of subjugation, exclusion or discrimination, whether or not these conditions persist."7
The International Labour Organization's Convention #169, adopted in 1989, applies to both Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and thus includes many such peoples from Asia and Africa. It ascribes both the same rights without discrimination. Article 1(2) of ILO Convention # 169 notes:
"Self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply."
The principle of self-identification has been strongly endorsed by Indigenous Peoples themselves and has been adopted in Article 8 of the United Nation's Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Draft Declaration is now being reviewed by another special working group of the UN's Human Rights Commission, with the objective of it being adopted during this current 'International Decade of Indigenous People'. Although disputes between governments about definitions have absorbed a disproportionate amount of time at this Working Group, many international lawyers agree with Indigenous Peoples that there is no need for an external definition of the term 'Indigenous Peoples'. Indeed they note that this is hardly possible as the component term 'peoples', which is fundamental to the constitution of the United Nations, is itself undefined.8
Indigenous Peoples as Targets of Development
In line with this approach, many development agencies have avoided trying to adopt tight definitions, accepting that the concept 'Indigenous Peoples' embraces a very wide variety of human societies in very different national and local circumstances. For example, for the purpose of its operations, the World Bank adopts a broad approach and treats as Indigenous Peoples those "social groups with a social and cultural identity distinct from the dominant society, which makes them vulnerable to being disadvantaged in the development process". Key characteristics used by the Bank for identifying such peoples include:
close attachment to ancestral territories and to natural resources in these areas
self-identification and identification by others as members of a distinct group
an indigenous language, often different from the national language
presence of customary social and political institutions
primarily subsistence-oriented production.
A people need not demonstrate all these characteristics to be considered as an Indigenous People by the Bank. The Bank's inclusive approach thus includes as Indigenous Peoples, the 'tribal peoples' of Asia, Afro-American groups in Latin America and many marginalised ethnic groups in Africa.9
The Rights of Indigenous Peoples
International law recognises that Indigenous Peoples enjoy inherent rights because of their distinctive identities and their connections to their ancestral lands, based on customary law, which precede the creation of nation states or the extension of effective government administration over their areas. Among the most important for the purpose of this study is the recognition of the rights of Indigenous Peoples to the ownership, control and management of their traditional territories, lands and resources. These rights were first set out in the International Labour Organisation's Convention #107 on 'Indigenous and Tribal Populations', of 1957, and were later expanded on, in 1989, in a revised Conventions #169 on 'Indigenous and Tribal Peoples'.10 Articles 14 and 15(1) of Convention #169 state:
Article 14
The rights of ownership and possession of the peoples concerned over the lands which they traditionally occupy shall be recognised. In addition, measures shall be taken in appropriate cases to safeguard the right of the peoples concerned to use lands not exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities. Particular attention shall be paid to the situation of nomadic peoples and shifting cultivators in this respect.
Governments shall take steps as necessary to identify the lands which the peoples concerned traditionally occupy, and to guarantee effective protection of their rights of ownership and possession.
Adequate procedures shall be established within the national legal system to resolve land claims by the peoples concerned.
Article 15
The rights of the peoples concerned to the natural resources pertaining to their lands shall be specially safeguarded. These rights include the right of these peoples to participate in the use, management and conservation of these resources.
The ILO's Conventions broke new ground in that they established the principle that 'aboriginal title' derives from immemorial possession and does not depend on any act of the State. The term land is generic and includes the woods and waters upon it.11
The UN's Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provides even stronger recognition of Indigenous Peoples' territorial rights. Article 26 states:
"Indigenous Peoples have the right to own, develop, control and use the lands and territories, including the total environment of their land, air waters, coastal seas, sea-ice, flora and fauna and other resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. This includes the right to the full recognition of the laws, traditions and customs, land tenure systems and institutions for the development and management of resources, and the right to effective measures by States to prevent any interference with, alienation or encroachment on these rights."
ILO Convention 169 also recognises a number of other important rights relevant to this study. These include rights: to represent themselves through their own institutions; to participate in decisions that affect them; to exercise their customary law. Special protections are invoked to discourage forced resettlement. In addition, the UN's Draft Declaration recognises their right to self-determination.12
This study adopts a pragmatic approach. It accepts the principle of self-identification and interprets people's assertion of their identity as 'Indigenous Peoples' as an assertion of these rights recognised in existing and emerging standards of international law. Peoples choose to identify themselves as 'Indigenous Peoples' in order to secure control of their lands and natural resources, to renegotiate their political relations with Nation States and to overcome discrimination and marginalisation. As anthropologist Tania Li notes:
"Self-identification as tribal or indigenous people is not natural or inevitable, but neither is it simply invented, adopted or imposed. It is, rather, a positioning which draws upon historically sedimented practices, landscapes and repertoires of meaning and emerges through particular patterns of engagement and struggle."13
One of the main reasons that such a diversity of peoples choose to identify themselves as 'Indigenous Peoples' is that international law offers them no other obvious category with clearly recognised group rights.14 A key advantage in interpreting the indigenous movement in this way is that it focuses attention on the political and administrative institutions by which Indigenous Peoples represent themselves and through which the State relates to Indigenous Peoples.
National Definitions and International Standards
International agencies' acceptance of the inclusive approach and of the principle of self-identification can cause problems in their collaboration with developing country governments. For example, only recently have Latin American governments begun to accept that the rights of native Americans should also be conferred on Afro-American groups. The Indian Constitution recognises a class of communities as 'scheduled tribes' but there are many other marginalised, land-based, subsistence-orientated and distinctive groups in India, which either identify themselves as 'Indigenous', or seek classification as a 'scheduled tribe'. Likewise, Indonesian government policy recognises a class of peoples, officially referred to as 'suku suku terasing' or 'masyarakat terasing' ('isolated and alien tribes/peoples'), as requiring special attention in development.15 Government estimates put their numbers at around 1.3 millions. However a civil society movement of self-identified 'Indigenous Peoples', who refer to themselves as 'masyarakat adat' ('peoples governed by custom') embraces a far wider set of peoples, who are 'guesstimated' to number as many as 65 millions. Because acceptance of the term 'Indigenous Peoples' implies acceptance of the civil and political rights that flow from it, many governments are wary of using the term at all in a domestic context and some even oppose its use in international law.
The International Labour Office estimates that there are some 300 million people world-wide whom it considers to be tribal or indigenous. A more inclusive approach, such as that now adopted by masyarakat adat in Indonesia, would result in a much higher total. It is roughly estimated that these peoples represent as much as two thirds of the world's linguistic diversity. Their societies', honed to local environmental, social and political circumstances, embody a very significant amount of vernacular knowledge of natural environments and resources.16
Although the extent to which Indigenous Peoples' historical and actual systems of natural resource management and use are 'sustainable' is disputed,17 the fact is that the great majority of world's relatively pristine habitats are inhabited by Indigenous Peoples. In India, the majority of the country's natural forests extend across the central waist of the country — the same area commonly known as the 'tribal belt'.18 In Central and South America, Indigenous Peoples' traditional territories encompass the majority of the remaining forests.19 The same is the case for much of South East Asia and Central Africa.20 In those parts of the world where Indigenous Peoples' rights are already recognised and protected by national laws, their lands and territories are often extensive and substantially exceed the areas set aside as protected areas. For example, in the Brazilian Amazon, officially recognised protected areas encompass 20 million hectares, while officially recognised indigenous areas embrace 100 million hectares.21 Likewise in the Colombian Amazon over 20 million hectares have been established as indigenous resguardos, five times the extent of protected areas.22 The world's largest tropical forest protected area, the Upper Orinoco-Casiquiare Biosphere Reserve, set up in Venezuela in 1991, encompassing some 8.6 million hectares, was established to protect the Yanomami Indians.23 Over the border, in Brazil, Yanomami territory, which has been legally recognised and demarcated as an 'Indian Park', encloses no less than 9.4 million hectares.24
For all these reasons, special measures to protect Indigenous Peoples' rights to land and to maintain their traditional knowledge have been incorporated into international environmental law and the policies of international conservation bodies (see below).
Many of the pressures that threaten the welfare and jeopardise the rights of Indigenous Peoples, simultaneously pose a threat to biodiversity. Among the most serious direct threats are:
lack of secure property rights
government policies of forced integration and assimilation
agricultural expansion and frontier colonisation
mining and oil exploration
logging and plantation development
infrastructure developments — such as road-building and dams
Underlying these direct threats lie processes encouraging export-oriented economic reforms, rapid modernization, global consumption, unregulated trade and investment, third world debt, structural adjustment, patrimonial political systems and corruption. The webs of causality are complex and differ from one area to another and one country to another.25
International Environmental Policy
The global agreements negotiated at the Earth Summit gave a prominent place to Indigenous Peoples. Not only did an indigenous spokesperson address the final plenary, but, more importantly, the 'Rio Declaration' in Article 22 explicitly noted that:
"Indigenous peoples and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognise and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development."
Indigenous Peoples were also formally accepted as a 'Major Group' for the implementation of the loose programme of action designed to achieve sustainable development, titled 'Agenda 21'. Agenda 21 itself contained a whole chapter on Indigenous Peoples, for example noting that:
"In view of the interrelationship between the natural environment and its sustainable development and the cultural, social, economic and physical well-being of indigenous people, national and international efforts to implement environmentally sound and sustainable development should recognise, accommodate, promote and strengthen the role of indigenous people and their communities."
Indigenous rights were also taken into account in the 'Forest Principles' a non-binding agreement on forests also developed at the Earth Summit. Agenda 21 and the Forest Principles recognise: indigenous rights to land, intellectual and cultural property and to maintain their customary and administrative practices; the need for greater participation; the value of their involvement in forest management and conservation.26
In its follow up to the Earth Summit, the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) has continued to involve Indigenous Peoples and they were again represented at CSD 5 and at UNGASS. Indigenous Peoples, with government support, were able to themselves run a Intersessional Meeting of the InterGovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF), which helped ensure that some of the rights of Indigenous Peoples already recognised in international human rights law, were taken into account in the huge set of 135 'Proposals for Action' on forests put forward to the CSD by the IPF and endorsed at UNGASS. Despite these gains, the effective participation of Indigenous Peoples in intergovernmental bodies remains weak as a detailed assessment by the International Alliance of Indigenous-Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests makes clear.27
In the late 1980s, Indigenous Peoples had made much less progress in getting their rights recognised by the International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO),28 although the ITTO did recommend in its guidelines for the sustainable management of tropical forests that customary rights should be respected in line with ILO and World Bank policies. However, the independent Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), set up by NGOs disappointed by the lack of progress in reforming logging being achieved through the ITTO, has made clear stipulations on indigenous rights. FSC 'Principles and Criteria' #2 and #3 make clear that for forests to be certified under the FSC scheme, Indigenous Peoples' legal and customary rights must be recognised and legally secured. Through its Alliance with the WWF, the World Bank has accepted these principles in its promotion of forest certification.
International Conservation Policy
International thinking about biodiversity conservation has changed dramatically in recent years. Whereas original proponents of in situ conservation through the establishment of protected areas advocated the expulsion of human residents, this 'wilderness approach' to biodiversity conservation finds less favour today.29 Recognition of Indigenous Peoples' rights is not only required on human rights grounds but may actually help conserve biodiversity by providing a front line defence against much more damaging forms of land use. The value of Indigenous Peoples' knowledge about natural resource management has been recognised and increasingly Indigenous Peoples are being actively engaged by conservation agencies to protect and manage biodiversity rich areas. Some of this thinking has already found its way into international environmental law.
Notably, the Convention on Biological Diversity makes provisions relevant to Indigenous Peoples. Article 8(j) obliges States 'as far as possible and as appropriate':
"Subject to its national legislation, [to] respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological resources..."
Similarly, Article 10(c) obliges States, 'as far as possible and as appropriate to:
"...protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements."
The full implications of these provisions have yet to be determined. An intersessional working group has now been set up under the Conference of Parties of the Convention to look into the matter further.30
In 1994, the World Conservation Union adopted a revised set of categories of protected areas which accept that Indigenous Peoples may own and manage protected areas.31 In 1996, following several years of intensive engagement with Indigenous Peoples' organisations, the WorldWide Fund for Nature-International adopted a Statement of Principles on Indigenous Peoples and Conservation, which endorsed the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, accepts that constructive engagement with Indigenous Peoples must start with a recognition of their rights, upholds the rights of Indigenous Peoples to own, manage and control their lands and territories and to benefit from the application of their knowledge.32
The same year the World Conservation Congress, the paramount body of the World Conservation Union, adopted seven different resolutions on Indigenous Peoples.33 These resolutions inter alia:
Recognise the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their lands and territories, particularly in forests, in marine and coastal ecosystems, and in protected areas
Recognise their rights to manage their natural resources in protected areas either on their own or jointly with others
Endorse the principles enshrined in ILO Convention 169, Agenda 21, the CBD and the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Urge member countries to adopt ILO Convention 169
Recognise the right of Indigenous Peoples to participate in decision-making related to the implementation of the CBD
Recognise the need for joint agreements with Indigenous Peoples for the management of Protected Areas and their right to effective participation and to be consulted in decisions related to natural resource management.
In 1999, the World Commission on Protected Areas adopted guidelines for putting the principles contained in one of these six resolutions into practice. The new guidelines, which are considerably weaker than the resolution they are designed to implement, place emphasis on co-management of protected areas, on agreements between Indigenous Peoples and conservation bodies, on indigenous participation and on a recognition of Indigenous Peoples' rights to 'sustainable, traditional use' of their lands and territories.34
A series of four regional conferences being organised by the Forest Peoples Programme and the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, in collaboration with regional Indigenous Peoples' organisations is presently evaluating the extent to which these new principles adopted by conservationists are being put into practice. The two conferences so far held in Latin America and South and South East Asia reveal that application of these principles is still a distant dream. Among the main obstacles to their application are:
National conservation policies and laws framed by the 'old model' of in situ conservation which deny the rights of resident peoples
Lack of training and awareness in national and international conservation agencies in social issues, participatory approaches and joint management
National policies and laws which deny Indigenous People's rights
Lack of secure tenure
International Development Policy and Projects with Indigenous Peoples
Since the 1980s, a number of international development agencies have adopted policies designed to ensure that the special needs and inherent rights of Indigenous Peoples are accommodated by development programmes and projects. The first to adopt such a policy was the World Bank, which published a seminal review of the impact of development projects on 'tribal peoples' in 1981. The publication expounded the principal that 'the Bank will not support projects on tribal lands, or that will affect tribal peoples, unless the tribal society is in agreement with the objective of the project'.36 The actual internal policy guidelines adopted to guide Bank operations were not quite so clear-cut37 and the standards, retitled 'The World Bank and Indigenous Peoples', were revised further in 1991.38 In developing new projects, the current policy, which is again being reviewed, requires Bank operational staff to ensure that:
there is a clear borrower government commitment to adhere to the World Bank's policy
acceptable mechanisms are in place to ensure indigenous participation in the full project cycle
an Indigenous Peoples' component is developed which
makes an assessment of the national legal framework regarding Indigenous Peoples
provides baseline data about the Indigenous Peoples to be affected
establishes a mechanism for the legal recognition of Indigenous Peoples' rights, especially tenure rights
includes sub-components in health care, education, legal assistance and institution building
provides for capacity-building of the government agency dealing with Indigenous Peoples
establishes a clear schedule for fitting actions related to Indigenous Peoples into the overall project, with a clear and adequate budget
Ecuador Indigenous Peoples and Afro-Ecuadorian Development ProjectThe primary goal of this project is to improve the quality of life of indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian peoples by securing better access to land and water resources. It represents the World Bank's first stand-alone investment with the explicit objective of promoting 'ethno-development' and is thus a pilot scheme for the Bank in its movement from a 'do no harm' to a 'do good' approach towards indigenous peoples. The project was designed to promote 'labour-intensive growth', employment and higher incomes for the rural poor, based on the principles of strengthening identity, promoting self-determination and territoriality, and enhancing self-management. The four-year, US$50 million project (World Bank US$25 million, IFAD US$15 million, Ecuadorian counterpart funding US$10 million) commenced in 1998 after a three-year gestation. The Bank notes that a number of conditions contributed to the successful development of the project. Crucial was an appropriate policy environment with a real commitment on the part of the government to secure indigenous land tenure and self-development. Equally important was the prior existence of strong indigenous organisations. These two factors allowed the project to be elaborated through a genuine process of participation with community-level and national-level indigenous institutions. The Bank was able to use its convening power and offer of tangible financial benefits to overcome long-standing confrontational relations between government and indigenous organisations and to diminish the sense of rivalry between the indigenous organisations themselves. The project is now in its first phase of implementation and has made a promising start. Among key elements of the project which Bank staff themselves highlight as contributing to its success are: the relative autonomy of the project; shared decision-making meaning that communities and indigenous spokespersons are genuinely involved in project management; transparent procedures; and flexible operations. A field review of the project carried out as part of this study confirmed that the project was bringing real, tangible benefits to target communities in health, education and community irrigation schemes, where the efforts being made by the project managers are warmly appreciated. The project's 'ethno-development' and 'self-management' approach can be seen to work. Notwithstanding these important gains, the project has not surprisingly also encountered problems. There have been frustrating delays in land regularisation due to the complicated legal processes currently in place and to long delays in the disbursement of land purchase funds from IFAD. Opposition to land reform by land-owning classes has mounted. Owing to galloping inflation and a national balance of payments crisis, the project is not so much relieving poverty as helping attenuate the impacts on the poor of the structural adjustment programme the country is simultaneously enduring in an attempt to resolve the economic crisis. Meanwhile, lowland Indian groups, who were not targeted in the first phase of the project complain of being excluded. National political changes are also frustrating the realisation of the project's goals. Since the project started there has been a change of government and the incoming administration has proved less committed to the project's novel approach than the previous one. New constitutional provisions recognising indigenous 'nationalities' and 'peoples' have provoked highly politicised challenges to the project's ongoing functioning through the pre-existing indigenous organisations and NGOs, contributing to growing schisms in the indigenous movement. Indigenous Ecuadorians note that the gains being made by the project are being simultaneously undone by other World Bank projects directed at macro-economic and structural reforms, which are intensifying pressure on indigenous lands and resources, deepening poverty and attenuating the government's capacity to deliver basic services. Whereas the project itself has had admirable intentions and has closely adhered to the World Bank's policy on indigenous peoples, other Bank interventions in Ecuador have ignored the Operational Directive altogether. Lack of communication within the Bank has compounded this policy schizophrenia.39 |
The World Bank has not carried out an implementation review of its Indigenous Peoples policy for over 10 years; NGOs have recommended it do so, with the full participation of Indigenous Peoples themselves. During the 1980s, the main focus of the World Bank's work with Indigenous Peoples was to try to institute mechanisms to prevent its large-scale investments from doing harm. However, since the mid-1990s, the World Bank has initiated a number of projects in Latin America directly with Indigenous Peoples aimed at building up indigenous institutions and regularising land tenure (see box).
On the whole, adherence by the World Bank to its own policy has been patchy. In practice, the World Bank's policy on Indigenous Peoples is often not applied in Structural Adjustment Loans, agricultural projects, infrastructural and energy schemes and conservation projects. NGOs observe the following main obstacles to effective implementation:
Although the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) limits its lending to Latin America and the Caribbean, it does not have a policy on Indigenous Peoples. Since 1990, the IDB has adopted a systematised process of screening projects for their social and environmental impacts. Pre-projects are reviewed by an Interdepartmental Technical Committee which includes the IDB's Indigenous Peoples and Community Development Units. The screening determines which kind of Social and Environmental Impact Assessment projects require. In addition to screening projects in this way to avoid them doing harm, the IDB has also commenced projects directly with Indigenous Peoples focused on health, education, institutional strengthening and local governance. The IDB also administers the Indigenous Peoples Fund, which was set up with funds from the Spanish government at the time of the quincentenary of Colon's 'discovery' of the Americas.
The IDB is currently drafting a 'strategy' on Indigenous Peoples as an operational guide for IDB staff but some member governments have been very resistant to the adoption of such a strategy and even resist the IDB's use of the term 'Indigenous Peoples'. In general, the IDB is pursuing a poverty alleviation approach to Indigenous Peoples, noting that the majority of Latin American indigenous people are not isolated subsistence-based groups but rural peasants closely linked to the market. However, they also have projects with Indigenous Peoples and with an environmental component in a number of countries including integrated protected area schemes in Guatemala, regional development and land titling in Darien, Panama and social forestry in Nicaragua. Controversial projects which have had negative impacts on Indigenous Peoples include the Yacyreta river development roject, the Bolivia oil and gas pipeline project and the Belize Southern Highways project.
Bolivia-Brazil Gas PipelineThe 3000 km long Bolivia-Brazil gas pipeline project constitutes one of the largest engineering projects in Latin America. The World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank are contributing US$550 million loan to the Brazilian State company Petrobras, towards the cost of the project, most of which is financed by a US$3 billion investment from the private sector. The pipeline cuts through several internationally recognised protected areas in Brazil and Bolivia and traverses the territories of several indigenous groups, in particular the Guarani peoples of southern Bolivia. It was only following intensive advocacy by NGOs and indigenous organisations, that the World Bank enforced the application of its environment assessment procedures and its policy on indigenous peoples. In belated compliance with Operational Directive 4.20, an Indigenous Peoples Development Plan (IPDP) was elaborated, although consultation with indigenous peoples in the preparation of the plan was perfunctory. It required direct action by indigenous peoples, who blocked an access road to the pipeline construction area, to ensure they were taken seriously in project implementation. Heavy pressure from USAID, which was also funding a management plan for the Gran Chaco protected area that the pipeline traverses, was also important to ensuring World Bank and IDB compliance. Eventually an agreement between the indigenous organisations, the World Bank, IDB and the pipeline companies was signed in late 1997, which gave the indigenous peoples a clear role in monitoring and overseeing project implementation. Implementation of the IPDP in Bolivia has not been a marked success, mainly because it was developed as an after-thought, rather than before the main project - as the World Bank's policy actually requires. According to indigenous spokespersons interviewed for this review, construction works, such as schools and clinics, contracted to third parties under the project have been sub-standard and tardy. Lack of control over project funds has instilled a feeling of powerlessness and frustration. Land regularization has been very slow, owing to the extremely complicated procedures in place in Bolivia, which the overall project did not seek to revise. Participation in the IPDP is partial and usually restricted to village meetings during which consultants 'extract' information about development needs. Pipeline companies and government officials are felt to be imposing their ideas and repeatedly delaying the execution of agreed actions. Transparency in information flow has not been achieved, especially regarding the 'big picture' in which the project components are implanted. Although direct impacts of the pipeline have, so far, not been serious there is a general concern that access roads and improved communications will intensify resource exploitation in the area in the longer term, as pressure from colonists on indigenous lands in Bolivia remains a major problem. The pipeline companies admit that, in Brazil, wildlife poaching along the pipeline has already increased. The IPDP in Bolivia, however, is to be wound up in 2000. Problems for indigenous peoples are already emerging along a 224 km branch pipeline being constructed by Enron-Shell with support from the US Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Attempts by indigenous peoples to hold up the construction until their lands were titled were unsuccessful and the Indians were forced to accept a US$2 m IPDP, which is now even more strongly criticised than the original one and gives them even less say in decision-making. The World Bank is now preparing a stand-alone indigenous development project in Bolivia like its project in Ecuador (see above). Bolivian indigenous peoples point out, however, that while such a project may be locally welcomed, it would be better if the World Bank ensured that indigenous peoples' rights and interests were addressed in the Bank Country Assistance Strategies, macro-economic planning and sectoral adjustment programmes. New policies, laws and institutions introduced as part of World Bank structural reforms and privatization and liberalization initiatives, are further limiting indigenous control of land and water and intensifying pressure on their resources. These programmes are developed with minimal public participation, little if any provision of information to indigenous peoples and no attempt to apply OD 4.20. The Bank is undoing with one hand what it seeks to accomplish with the other. There is a feeling that token projects with indigenous peoples are designed more to mollify indigenous critics than address fundamental problems caused by the World Bank's overall project portfolio.41 |
In November 1998, the European Commission also passed a resolution on Indigenous Peoples within the Framework of the Development Co-operation of the Community and Member States. Like the World Bank publication of 1981, the resolution commits the EC and the 16 member states to accept that:
"indigenous peoples have the right to choose their own development paths, which includes the right to object to projects, in particular in their traditional areas."
The resolution also recognises the importance of respecting Indigenous Peoples' rights in the field of biodiversity conservation and endorses the rights of Indigenous Peoples to have access to the natural resources they customarily depend on. The resolution accepts Indigenous Peoples as full participants in the development process not only in projects but also at the policy-making level. Specifically the resolution states:
"The Council acknowledges that development co-operation should contribute to enhancing the right and capacity of indigenous peoples to their "self-development". This implies integrating the concern for indigenous peoples as a cross-cutting aspect at all levels of development co-operation, including policy dialogue with partner countries."
In addition, the resolution endorsed a Working Document of the Commission on Support for Indigenous Peoples in the Development Co-operation of the Community and the Member States. This working document was drawn up in consultation with Indigenous Peoples and broadly reflects their main concerns, particularly the importance of recognising their collective territorial rights as a basis for their self-development.
The EC has a number of budget lines, which can be used to promote indigenous rights and biodiversity conservation. In line with the new EC resolution, the human rights budget line has recently provided a package of assistance to various NGOs and Indigenous Peoples organisations to develop their capacity to bring local concerns and human rights abuses to international attention. However, EC-funded development and environment projects with Indigenous Peoples in developing countries have been much less successful, principally because finances which have been channelled through developing country government agencies have not been effectively used to benefit Indigenous Peoples (see box). In the light of this experience, EC consultants have recently been contracted to propose improved mechanisms for delivering their assistance more directly to Indigenous Peoples. They have proposed the establishment of a small grants fund as the most agile and appropriate mechanism to this end. Despite encouraging precedents of NGO-run small grant programmes in Europe (see boxes: IUCN-NL / BSP), for constitutional reasons the EC has decided it is unable to channel these funds through European NGOs. The EC has consequently recently reached an agreement with the UNDP office in Bangkok for it to administer an EC-funded small grants fund for Indigenous Peoples in Asia.
A Critical Review of European Aid to Tropical Forests42The European Commission is one of the largest multilateral donors. However, unlike the multilateral development banks, the EC's aid programme has not been overhauled in recent years to make it more transparent, participatory and environmentally sensitive. EC aid is delivered through a number of 'Directorate Generals' and 'budget lines', which are poorly coordinated and hardly accountable. The main funding mechanism, the European Development Fund is not subject to scrutiny by the European Parliament. Based on a careful investigation of a wide sample of EC projects in Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Pacific, the Rainforest Foundation has concluded that the 'EU's aid programmes have often led to environmental damage and the disruption of traditional societies'. Projects have led to: forced expulsions of local people; the banning of indigenous forest management systems; roads being built through forests that have increased poorly regulated logging, the bushmeat trade and poaching; forest destruction by oil palm plantations; and inadequate participation. Although EC procedures now require that projects take into account certain social and environmental issues, they are very narrowly focused and do not take into account their wider context. Some EC projects directed at promoting forest conservation are being undermined by simultaneous projects such as infrastructure projects, which are destroying the same forests. Information about EC projects is routinely withheld. Consultations with local communities in project planning are rarely carried out. Environmental Impact Assessments, while required by EC procedures, are very rarely conducted and even those carried out are of poor quality. Procedures for monitoring and evaluation are inadequate. The Foundation concludes that 'the expenditure of hundreds of millions of ECU on Third World schemes is, at present, almost totally beyond the control of any elected or accountable European institution.' Bureaucratic inertia, rivalries between different departments, lack of expertise and trained staff, and poor coordination between Member States have frustrated internal initiatives to improve performance. The Rainforest Foundation recommends a number of reforms to address these problems: project procedures and policies need to be overhauled; staff need to be re-trained and their numbers increased; smaller more modest projects should be given greater priority; donor coordination should be improved; bureaucratic duplication should be eliminated; new policies and procedures should be adopted to make information about projects generally available; participation in project planning and implementation should be made routine; all EC aid budget lines should be subject to public scrutiny and parliamentary oversight. |
Adoption of the EC resolution obliges member states of the European Union to incorporate these standards into their bilateral aid programmes. Indeed some member states had already adopted national legislation and standards on Indigenous Peoples and were the main protagonists of the resolution. Denmark and the Netherlands have both adopted ILO Convention 169 into national law and recognise that the standards set out in the Convention should apply to their foreign aid programme.
The German Ministry for International Co-operation BMZ, adopted a policy, titled Promotion of Indigenous Forest-Dwelling Peoples within the scope of the German Federal Government's Tropical Forest Programme, in November 1997. The paper makes a number of key provisions including the following:
"all affected individuals must be comprehensively informed and consulted at an early stage and in a form they can understand, as soon as action is taken on relevant project applications… the affected people must be bindingly incorporated into the decision-making process..."
With respect to land rights the policy notes that:
"Traditional land and/or utilization rights must be surveyed and, to the greatest possible extent, respected."
The policy also takes account of the politically sensitive nature of projects with Indigenous Peoples. It notes the difficulty of:
"gaining approval for and acceptance of the seemingly nomadic way of life of many forest-dwelling peoples, their relative isolation from national administrative structure, and, also importantly, differing notions of land ownership and control both between administrations and forest-dwelling peoples and within forest-dwelling peoples themselves."
Finally, like the World Bank policy, the BMZ policy stresses the need for quality control of projects that may harm Indigenous Peoples. The policy notes:
"Just as important as promoting forest-dwelling peoples is reviewing and, if necessary, modifying or even preventing proposed projects if they threaten to violate elementary interests of forest-dwelling peoples."
The Dutch Foreign Ministry, which controls the aid agency DGIS, adopted a policy on Indigenous Peoples in 1993.43 According to the policy:
"The Government considers legal protection or the protection of human rights as one of the most important priorities in its policy on indigenous peoples, together with reinforcing the identity of these peoples and increasing their participation and representation within national and international frameworks."
The policy recognises 'the right of internal self-determination', though this 'does not imply the right of secession', and notes that:
"Overriding importance must be attached to those rights which are important or essential to subsistence, continuity, sustainability and cultural identity, i.e., rights relating to land, hunting, property etc."
In accordance with Agenda 21, the policy stresses the importance of securing indigenous land rights, institutions, knowledge and intellectual property in promoting sustainable development.
The GTZ-Funded "Fomiss" Project in SarawakRunaway logging in the Malaysian state of Sarawak has been a major concern for environmentalists since the mid-1980s. The issue gained international prominence in 1987, when indigenous Dayaks, their patience exhausted after decades fruitlessly demanding recognition of their land rights, erected barricades across logging company roads to halt the destruction of their forests. When the government reacted with mass arrests and the detention of activists without charge or trial using colonial security laws, international campaigns in solidarity with the Dayaks were launched world-wide making the forest destruction in Borneo second only to the Amazon in terms of public profile. Technical evaluations by the ITTO and the World Bank confirmed the unsustainable rates of harvesting of tropical timbers in the State and while the ITTO recommended a substantially reduced level of extraction and the freeze of logging in disputed areas, the World Bank recommended measures to recognise indigenous land rights. Due to massive corruption, however, these recommendations were almost wholly ignored by the Sarawak and Malaysian governments. Nevertheless, building on the ITTO's recommendations, GTZ developed a technical assistance project with one of the largest timber companies in the State to carry out an experimental, low impact logging operation. The project has run into a barrage of criticism from both local and European NGOs concerned about its likely impact on the indigenous Penan, Kenyah and Kelabit peoples who inhabit the project area. They have criticised the project, in its original conception, as a technical logging operation which will seriously impact primary tropical forests and which fails to give priority to the needs and rights of indigenous peoples. Their main concerns are:
After a heated correspondence, during which GTZ at first tried to deny these problems, GTZ has entered into a more constructive dialogue with NGOs and in late 1999 sent an independent consultant to the area to review the socio-economic component. The consultant's report substantially endorsed the NGO position and recommended measures to address the main concerns they had raised. The Sarawak government and the company, Samling Timbers, have proved reluctant to accept the revised project, however, and it is not clear that the project will continue. |
Noting that large-scale development schemes can have serious impacts on Indigenous Peoples, the policy notes the importance of participation and the need for institutional support and advances the principle that 'indigenous peoples should have the right of appeal' against projects which threaten them. With regard to development schemes directed at Indigenous Peoples themselves, the policy also stresses that:
"Development activities must be welcomed by the indigenous community for which they are intended, they must dovetail with the needs formulated by that community, they must be compatible in substance and structure with the community culture, and the community or its representatives must be allowed to participate in decision-making on activities and their implementation and evaluation."
Noting that Dutch development cooperation projects used to have a socio-economic focus, the revised policy articulates the need for a greater emphasis on measures to secure cultural identity and cultural rights. Implementation of this policy has included ratification of ILO Convention 169 and the establishment of intersectoral coordination through a 'contact group' within the ministry, which incorporates development, environment and human rights specialists.
In 1998, DGIS carried out a 5 year review of its activities related to Indigenous Peoples, which has included support for international advocacy by Indigenous Peoples and forest management projects in Cameroon, Malaysia, Indonesia and Gabon. One of the principal conclusions of this review was that for projects to succeed, Indigenous Peoples should control their own development. Adherence to this principle can create difficulties for the Dutch government in its relations to developing country governments. Therefore, because of the political delicacy of work in this sector and although the DGIS does fund a number of projects directly with Indigenous Peoples, the great majority of DGIS funds used for the support of indigenous rights are channelled through Dutch development and environment NGOs, notably Novib, SNV, ICCO, Bilance, IUCN-Netherlands and WWF-Netherlands.
Small
Grants for Biodiversity Conservation:
|
Guyana Forestry Commission Support ProjectLogging only emerged as a major threat to Guyana's forests in the late 1980s, when the country's protective policies of 'cooperative socialism' were replaced by new policies of economic and political liberalization under IMF and World Bank tutelage. Within a few years, the government had given out concessions to almost half the country's forests, mainly to South East Asian timber companies with questionable track-records. The policy was openly opposed by the country's indigenous peoples, whose rights were being completely ignored in this bonanza. They called for a moratorium on aid to develop the interior of Guyana until their rights were recognised. These calls, supported by a broad coalition of national churches and trades unions and international environmental and human rights groups, were made just as the British international development agency, DFID, began elaborating a £5 million 'Forestry Comission Support Project' to strengthen the capacity of the Guyanese government to oversee the expanding timber sector. The project was designed to counter the runaway logging by building up the capacity of the Guyana Forestry Commission and revising the revenue gathering system. Under NGO pressure, an agreement was reached with the Guyana Government that no further logging concessions would be handed out until the Forestry Commission had been strengthened to the DFID's satisfaction. Measures were also, notionally, introduced into the project to address the Amerindians' concerns. A DFID-funded study by the University of Guyana, confirmed that the 60,000 Amerindians in the country's interior are desperately poor, have insecure land rights, suffer wholly inadequate health care and have been very adversely affected by logging companies moving in on their ancestral forests. However, the foresters running DFID's project were at a loss on how to follow up on these findings. Pressed to give priority to the Indians' rights local DFID staff explicitly rejected adopting what it called a "confrontational approach based on 'land rights'". Lacking a policy that directs staff to attend to indigenous rights, DFID foresters felt unable to insist on measures to secure the Amerindians' welfare and meanwhile helped draft laws that extend the area to be opened up to logging. No measures were contemplated to ensure that the Amerindians' needs were first secured before the loggers got their concessions or exploratory leases. 'This is a formula for further conflict' noted Jean La Rose of the Amerindian Peoples Association. 'The DFID is helping foreign loggers take over our lands, when what we want is to develop our communities based on our own traditions and knowledge of the forests.' After further NGO complaints, DFID despatched a social forestry specialist to Guyana to look into the Amerindians' concerns. The study endorsed many of the NGOs findings and pointed out that DFID's lack of a policy on Indigenous Peoples was indeed one of the reasons that the project was not addressing their needs and rights. Subsequent efforts to reform the project have been only partially sucessful. Language was introduced into a new Forestry Act prohibiting the hand out of concessions in areas claimed by indigenous people, but disputes continue about the extent to which the project is really addressing the needs of Amerindians who make up the majority of the population in the sparsely inhabited interior. A review of the reformed project carried out for DfID in 2000 confirmed that the project was still failing to ensure effective Amerindian participation and further reforms in the project are now underway. |
Britain's Department for International Development (DFID) has resisted adoption of a specific policy on Indigenous Peoples, preferring instead a broader approach towards 'vulnerable groups' in general. Instead, non-binding 'guidance' on 'ethnicity' has been issued to project staff. Historically, the agency has tended to separate 'environmental' projects from 'poverty alleviation' projects and has only recently been combining the two objectives into a single framework. DFID policy reform and standard setting is complicated by the relative autonomy of regional desks which has meant that lessons learned in one region do not get imparted to other regions. For example, regional desks in Latin America and Southern Africa have begun a process of adopting policy guidance for projects with Indigenous Peoples but these lessons have not filtered through to the Central America and Caribbean regional desk. However, the regional experience may now provide the basis for a general policy on Indigenous Peoples that needs to be adopted to bring the UK into compliance with the EC resolution.44
Some Lessons from IndonesiaBetween 1991and 1999, DfID's main support to Indonesia's forestry sector came in the form of the so-called KPHP project.45 The project was designed to develop through field experiments a rationalised model of timber harvesting using improved silvicultural and felling systems, enlarging the size and duration of forest concessions and training government forestry staff in improved forest management techniques. Social components were built into the project as it moved into the experimental phase in the field but were not central to the project's original conception. The KPHP project suffered the major detraction that it did not seek to address directly the power imbalances in forests. The project was 'adapted to the systems, government apparatus and political culture' prevalent in Indonesia and the Ministry of Forests and Plantations (II:266).46 As such the project implicitly endorsed and even entrenched a basically poverty-creating model of forest development in which 10 companies control 43% of Indonesia's forests and where industrial capacity is about 3 times official estimates of sustained yield of timber of the forests. Illegal timber extraction, estimated at 30 m m3/year, exceeds legal extraction rates (I:6-7). Under Indonesian law, forest dwellers are effectively disenfranchised (II:216). Local rights and aspirations are overridden by central government and current laws (II:217). Consequently, local communities have insufficient land for their subsistence and development needs (II:253). In the ensuing conflicts of interest between forest-dwellers and the government/industry nexus 'business interests are always dominant' (II:253). Belatedly, in 1995, the project officially recognised forest dwellers as 'major stakeholders'. To reduce conflicts and meet the needs of the poor, the KPHP project attempted to introduce processes for zoning customary land in forestry concessions and provide mechanisms for benefit sharing. However, these attempts to resolve land use conflicts failed because they relied on existing power structures and institutions without genuine engagement of the primary 'stakeholders' (I:14). A finding of the KPHP project was that, because the present mechanisms of decision-making about forests favour business interests at the expense of forest-dwellers, experiments in benefit sharing were ineffective because they were not accompanied by tenure reforms or changes in power-sharing. Surveys showed that communities targetted for benefit-sharing by the project were no better off than those not so targetted. Most benefits were siphoned off by more powerful players (II:254). Participation processes introduced into the project were not effective, although well received at the level of rhetoric. Implementation was still top-down: '...various development projects have been undertaken by the government but in a top-down fashion so that [they] have not been effective or have failed due to lack of support from the community. The participation of the community did not occur' (II:265). Owing to communities having no rights and thus a 'very weak bargaining position' (II:266), participation was weak and current models of decision-making by official functionaries predominated. 'Community representation on the project promoted functional team has been very limited or non-existent' (II:267). The KPHP project report concludes that major reforms in the 'rights of access' of forest-dwellers are required if forest development in Indonesia is to become sustainable and equitable(I:32). 'Further regulation is required to ensure the recognition of customary rights to forests, the development of forest communities, and the support of local systems of forest management and conservation, which preceded the current laws and date back to the original habitation of the forest areas' (II:258). 'Without such reforms no progress can be made in forest sector development' (I:32). The project concluded that procedures for zoning the lands and forests used by forest resident communities should be 'legally formalised' and new procedures introduced to formalise participation (I:40-1). Judged in terms of DFID's renewed commitment to a 'rights-based approach' to poverty-alleviation, the KPHP project was essentially a failure. It neither secured rights nor alleviated poverty. It failed because it worked through existing (corrupt) power structures and did not promote tenure reforms. The failure does, however, teach important lessons for future assistance programmes in Indonesia's forest sector and the candid final report is both refreshingly self-critical and draws useful conclusions. The lessons learned from KPHP can be seen as justifying the new DfID forest project agreed on 18 July 2000, which is explicitly aimed at improving community participation in forest policy reforms.47 NGOs have, nonetheless urged that still greater attention to tenure issues is required. |
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) does not have a policy on Indigenous Peoples nor make them an express target in its grant-making. Projects are screened through a normal EIA procedure which is meant to ensure that USAID projects at least do no harm to Indigenous Peoples. The promotion of policy reform is an objective of USAID assistance and the agency stresses the need for linkages between natural resource management, equity and governance objectives. To this end USAID has funded a number of major national natural resource management projects aimed at policy reforms, which include community-based forest management, for example in the Philippines. It has found these kinds of projects hard to implement successfully because of the political difficulties of working with governments to address the interests of marginalized groups. In USAID's experience, involving NGOs can be an important way around this difficulty, especially if large grants can be funnelled through such NGOs. However, USAID still requires local government approval for its grants to NGOs. It also notes that the larger US-based NGOs themselves tend to work very closely with developing country governments and thus work under many of the same constraints as USAID itself. Although there is interest in USAID for continuing the kind of people-based conservation that the Biodiversity Support Program has carried out, in general funding for biodiversity conservation by the agency is being reduced.
BSP-Kemala Project in IndonesiaOne of the most damaging legacies of colonialism in Indonesia has been centralised government control over forests. Over 70% of Indonesia is under the jurisdiction of the Forest Department in Jakarta. Community rights in these forests are very limited in national law and most of the 65 million people living in forests are treated as squatters or poachers. The government's failure to accommodate these communities' priorities, combined with ill-considered large-scale colonisation, plantation and agricultural development schemes, massive corruption and continuing overharvesting of timber by an ill-regulated and politically protected industry has resulted in rapid deforestation at a sustained rate of over 1.2 million hectares per year. Indonesia has lost over half its forests in the past 50 years. Commencing in 1997, USAID has been funding a 5-year, US$20 million Natural Resources Management Project (NRMP) in Indonesia with the aim of promoting conservation, community based natural resource management and the democratisation of policy development. Half the funding is channelled through EPIC, a specialist Indonesian NGO consortium put together to provide policy advice to the Indonesian Government. The rest, US$10 million, is being channelled through the WWF-US administered Biodiversity Support Programme to promote community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) through a locally incorporated consortium named 'BSP-Kemala'. Though created to carry out the CBNRM component of the USAID's NRMP, 'Kemala' has grown out of the portfolio of projects in Indonesia developed by BSP's Peoples, Forest and Reefs (PeFoR) programme over the previous years. Like PeFoR, Kemala supports a number of small, NGO and indigenous-run initiatives promoting community mapping and conservation, with the aim of creating institutional capacity at the community-level for forest-dwellers to administer and control the lands and resources they depend on. By providing small grants, often for only a few thousand dollars, to a wide variety of local level initiatives in five regions selected initially as 'biodiversity hotspots' — West Kalimantan, East Kalimantan, North Sulawesi, Central Maluku and West Papua - Kemala hopes to build up a 'critical mass' of mobilised communities. Once and if policy reforms are enabled, Kemala hopes that its projects will fill the institutional vacuum being created by decentralization policies which are already underway. Kemala places a strong emphasis on the build up of management capacity at the local level, and thus provides personnel training to CBOs and NGOs in monitoring and self-evaluation, financial management and accounting, conflict resolution and decision-making. Following the practices established by PeFoR, Kemala emphasises the value of experience sharing, the documentation of projects and lessons learned. To this end, Kemala also supports national and sub-regional conferences, networking programmes, communications initiatives and experience sharing trips between villages. These have proved valuable in getting the lessons learned in one locality or village to spread to neighbouring villages and districts. The effectiveness of this approach is tangible. Whereas in its early stages, Kemala had to hunt about for CBOs and communities interested to participate in the programme, today it is able to cherry-pick from a very wide array of eager potential project partners. A transparent and well-advised project selection panel has ensured the build up of a broadly successful array of initiatives. As a consequence, Kemala has earned itself a very good reputation in Indonesia. Bizarrely, given such notable progress in so short a time, both BSP and PeFoR are to be wound up in 2001. |
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) does not have a specific policy on Indigenous Peoples. A set of Guidelines for Support for Indigenous Peoples was drafted in 1995 but was not adopted due to staff changes in the institution. Recently, however, this drafting process has been revised and a new 'corporate strategy' is being discussed with Indigenous Peoples. The 'strategy' would become part of the UNDP's 'Programme Manual' and would include adoption of a policy statement and operational guidelines on Indigenous Peoples and the design and financing of a Programme of Support for Indigenous Peoples. In the meantime, the UNDP has already stepped up its support for Indigenous Peoples though a number of departments. This has included support for the Indigenous Peoples Biodiversity Network which has promoted indigenous participation in the CBD and the International Alliance for Indigenous-Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests, which has focused on strengthening the communications among indigenous organisations regionally and inter-continentally. The UNDP emphasises that its development approach is 'government-led' and its comparative advantage lies in its having 135 country offices which have considerable convening power and moral authority. However, the UND notes that its primary allegiance to governments can put it into an awkward relationship with Indigenous Peoples and even its mini-grants programme is subject to government approval. In late 1999, the UNDP took on the administration of a small-grants fund for Indigenous Peoples in South and SouthEast Asia to be administered through its Bangkok office.
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is the main funding channel for Northern countries' contributions under the Convention on Biological Diversity. It is jointly administered by the World Bank, UNDP and UNEP although the lion's share of funding, the chair and most of the administration is carried by the World Bank, which also has responsibility for administering the medium-scale project fund which can pass monies to NGOs subject to government approval. GEF projects identified through UNDP country offices are administered by the UNDP, which also has responsibility for the GEF's small grants programme with NGOs. UNEP administers the Scientific and Technical Panel which screens large projects for quality. GEF projects administered by the World Bank are subject to the World Bank's policy on Indigenous Peoples, but GEF projects handled by the UNDP are not subject to any specific policy though this may change if the UNDP does adopt a 'corporate strategy' as planned.
GEF funds are only available to pay for the 'incremental costs of global benefits'of biodiversity conservation initiatives, meaning that the costs of securing any 'national benefits' of GEF-funded projects are supposedly borne by others.48 This is one of the main reasons why the majority of GEF funds are disbursed as component projects linked to World Bank loans. UNDP projects under the GEF tend to seek counterpart funding from other aid agencies to provide for the livelihood components of conservation projects. Maintenance of the fiction that it is possible to distinguish between the 'national' and 'global' benefits of biodiversity conservation has wasted a large amount of staff time in both the World Bank and the UNDP and senior staff in both institutions admit, when pushed, that the process is a fudge. The fiction is only maintained to secure the 'additional' financing that donor country treasuries make available to the GEF outside their regular appropriations to aid budgets.
Guyana: National Protected Area System ProjectGuyana is one the only country in the western hemisphere lacking protected area legislation and institutions. Its only protected area, the tiny - 11,600 hectare - Kaieteur National Park, was originally established as a site of scenic beauty and not for biodiversity conservation purposes. This protected areas system project, originally conceived as a component of a wider World Bank Natural Resources Management Project, is designed to establish a fully developed protected area system with legislation and institutional underpinings and provide infrastructural support for an expanded Kaieteur National Park. However, six-years since its inception, this joint project being developed with funding from the GEF, European Commission and the German financial assistance agency, KfW, and managed by the World Bank, still languishes in the doldrums. The Government of Guyana has raised difficulties about almost all aspects of the project. First, it rejected the broader Natural Resources Management Project of which is was to be only a part. It then sought to delay the definition of any protected areas until after the mineral resources had been first surveyed. It then refused to authorise the establishment of a protected area agency with independent authority. Currently the Government is also refusing to recognise indigenous rights or establish a means for the resolution of Amerindian land claims. Although all three donor agencies have clear policies on indigenous peoples, little effort was made at the inception of the project to ensure that the indigenous peoples were involved in planning. In further violation of the World Bank's Operational Directive 4.20 on Indigenous Peoples, staff failed to introduce a separate Indigenous Peoples Development Plan into the project. World Bank consultants' reviews showed clearly the need for reform of the Guyana government's policy on indigenous peoples but no efforts were made in the project's early stages to inform the Government of the need for policy reform in order for the project to comply with Bank conditions. Measures to secure the land rights of the indigenous peoples in protected areas were omitted. It was not until Amerindian organisations pointed out these deficiencies that the Bank had belatedly to inform the Guyana government of its legal obligations vis a vis indigenous peoples. The suggestions were ignored by the government, which proceeded to unilaterally extend the boundaries of the Kaieteur Park and curtail the rights of any residents, without consulting either the Patamona people in whose ancestral territory the park lies, or the funders of the proposed project. The action caused an uproar and President Jagan was obliged to make a public commitment to amend the Act establishing the park in order to safeguard the Patamona's prior rights. Now nine-months later the government has failed to fulfil this promise, prompting the Patamona to authorise their lawyer to initiate legal proceedings against the government. The future if the NPAS project is now in severe doubt. Although the Government has proved the main obstacle to the project, tardy and insufficient adherence by World Bank staff to their own policy has been a large part of the problem. For their part the indigenous peoples have repeatedly made clear that they welcome the additional protection that protected areas may give their territories, as long as their ancestral rights are first adequately secured. |
For Indigenous Peoples, the GEF's 'incremental costs criterion' presents them with a quandary. Notionally, they can only tap GEF funds if they claim projects with them will not bring 'national benefits', placing them in an invidious relationship with national governments. On the other hand there is clear evidence that World Bank Task Managers have steered GEF funds away from dealing with Indigenous Peoples and livelihood issues and towards conventional protected area schemes explicitly in order to comply with the criterion.49
The UNDP-administered small grants scheme, which provides small-scale financing to NGOs and community organisations, has been able to ignore the 'incremental costs criterion'. The projects address livelihood issues, jobs and income generation needs of poor groups including Indigenous Peoples. Key lessons that have been learned from this experience are: that projects should be initiated locally and not imposed; adequate capacity building is crucial for long term continuity; local cash or in kind contributions promote a sense of real ownership; long term environmental benefits must be matched with short term benefits to livelihoods.
The FAO does not have a policy on Indigenous Peoples and has trouble accepting the concept on definitional grounds. However, many FAO programmes and projects do deal with local communities including Indigenous Peoples. These include programmes in Wildlife and Protected Area Management, Community Forestry and Non-Timber Forest Products, as well as the Forests, Trees and People network and newsletter. All these programmes promote community management options in line with the Peasants' Charter adopted by the FAO in 1979. The Forestry Department itself is now putting an increasing emphasis on 'pluralistic' forest management approaches. Underlying this tendency is a growing recognition of the weakness of the State's outreach both in protected areas and forests and the need therefore to involve local communities directly in managing and defending the resources they depend on. The FAO is cautious of promoting communal forest management as a panacea. It prefers to advocate a broader range of institutional arrangements for natural resource management under the rubric of 'community-based' or 'collaborative management'. The FAO considers the 'myth' that traditional systems are all equitable to be quite dangerous, noting that clan, caste and gender divisions are common in traditional systems.
Although the FAO does not have a programme for addressing the issue of indigenous tenure rights, it stresses the importance of secure tenure for successful community-based management and to ensure that benefits really accrue to communities. The FAO is also in the middle of a review of its promotion of 'Farmers' Rights', which Indigenous Peoples have found hard to accept as it originally favoured a trusteeship mechanism for returning profits made on the use of indigenous knowledge to local communities. The FAO is also quite critical of the representativity and capacity of NGOs noting that many are really little more than consultancies driven by profit motives while others any be so sectorally focused that they ignore wider social realities and constraints. Many NGOs, the FAO notes, have very poor links with rural communities.
The FAO is mandated to address the needs of less favoured sectors of society. Its effectiveness derives from its intergovernmental mandate and its capacity to convene fora, network organisations including NGOs and act as an information clearinghouse. Its field programme is diminishing. As an intergovernmental organisation, the FAO notes that it may be hampered from addressing the problems of marginalised groups which derive from their difficult relations with governments. On the other hand, the agency stresses the importance of promoting solutions through dialogue between civil society organisations and government agencies, especially as the private sector becomes an increasingly autonomous force which, for it to be contained, requires institutional arrangements that promote synergies of the different strengths of both.
The International Fund for Agricultural Development does not have an institution-wide policy on Indigenous Peoples. However, IFAD's regional Asian and Latin American desks have explicit regional strategies and active programmes that directly target indigenous and tribal peoples. IFAD has a hybrid financing programme making hard loans to governments, like the multilateral development banks, and in addition providing grants for innovative and more experimental projects including projects with IGOs, NGOs and other citizens groups like indigenous organisations. IFAD support for NGO projects is subject to national government approval. IFAD's projects are all strongly focused on targetting very poor and marginalised groups. Its focus on poverty alleviation means that it has worked more with indigenous peasantries rather than the smaller, more endangered groups in forested areas.
IFAD directly funds agrarian reforms in all aspects except land acquisition and stresses the need for projects which provide secure tenure as well as cultural revalidation and land use planning. It admits that its approach to Indigenous Peoples has changed over the years. Initially IFAD pursued an assimilationist approach to Indigenous Peoples but it now stresses the importance of ethnic diversity and cultural strength. In IFAD's view, securing indigenous rights is not a matter of privileging one sector but of correcting historical inequalities and recognising inherent rights. It sees Indigenous Peoples as important elements of national societies with technologies and knowledge vital for maintaining biodiversity. Those who are sceptical about reserving large areas of land for small numbers of people need to realise that the intensity of land use needs to be related to its potential not its dimensions.
IFAD's projects with Indigenous Peoples have taught it a number of lessons. Land tenure reforms need to be based on customary systems and should secure communal and untransferable title where this is appropriate. Unlike other agencies, IFAD does not see such titles as barriers to development, stressing that rather than using land as collateral for bank loans, communities are far better served by micro-credit schemes. A recent review by IFAD of its poverty alleviation projects stresses the importance of micro-credit schemes, which the major donor agencies like the IDB and World Bank neglect. IFAD emphasises the importance of direct indigenous participation in project management through joint project management committees, the adoption of which it now makes a condition of its projects enforceable through project agreements. It also notes that as far as possible participation in projects should involve community-level institutions to avoid the manipulations of indigenous elites. Effective projects should address environmental, human rights and community development objectives simultaneously. Typically IFAD projects with Indigenous Peoples include alfabetization and health components, and explicitly address gender issues. IFAD has also grown wary of 'model' projects, stressing that projects need to be tailored to local circumstances and need to build on existing institutions.
As a relatively small donor, IFAD accepts that it does not have great leverage with governments and it is thus not well placed to push for policy reforms, for example in indigenous tenure. For this reasons successful projects can only be developed in countries where a favourable policy environment already exists either due to the leverage of larger agencies or the advocacy efforts of civil society groups.
The donor experience teaches the following lessons:
Having an explicit policy or strategy on Indigenous Peoples both improves standards of aid delivery and focuses operations more appropriately on Indigenous Peoples as target groups.
There are considerable obstacles to adherence to these policies within the aid agencies: retraining may be part of the answer but giving greater time, resources and incentives for project staff to adhere to the policies is even more important.
Projects aimed at assisting Indigenous Peoples directed through southern Governments have been highly problematic owing to a history of institutionalised discrimination and marginalization.
Bilateral or multilaterally funded projects aimed at assisting indigenous peoples are rarely successful in countries where government policies remain unreformed and indigenous rights are poorly recognised in law. Changing social policy through aid conditionality is rarely effective.
Successful projects have a long time frame and flexible objectives. They have an integrated approach including human rights, environment and development objectives. Components to secure indigenous land rights, build up indigenous institutional capacity, promote income generation, secure the role of indigenous women and make provisions for culturally appropriate education and health programmes should be prioritised.
Projects directed through NGOs have been more successful. In some countries they provide the only available means of ensuring that external financing promotes reforms and reaches target groups. However the quality of the partnership between the NGO and the Indigenous People then becomes a major determinant of project success.
The most successful projects give the most initiative to the local communities but mechanisms of accountability are crucial.
These conclusions are neither new nor surprising. What is surprising is how few of the aid agencies are able to target their aid to Indigenous Peoples appropriately — and many lack a basic policy to achieve this. Even among those agencies which have adopted policies on Indigenous Peoples, there are all too frequent failures in compliance.
While not wanting to play down the complications in defining Indigenous Peoples as a target group, the review finds that many agencies hide their lack of an effective policy on Indigenous Peoples behind a pretended confusion about definitions.
A number of agencies expressed a reluctance to identify indigenous peoples as target groups on the grounds that this would privilege them and disadvantage other marginal sectors. These agencies seem to be misunderstanding the nature of indigenous rights — they are inherent rights which pre-exist the imposed laws of nation states — and they fail to recognise that Indigenous peoples are engaged in a distinctive project: to renegotiate their relations with nation-states as collectivities, an agenda not necessarily shared with other marginal sectors.