indigenous peoples/ethnic minorities · 2014-12-03 · indigenous peoples/ethnic minorities and...

Roger Plant

EnEnEnEnEnvironment and Social Safeguard Divisionvironment and Social Safeguard Divisionvironment and Social Safeguard Divisionvironment and Social Safeguard Divisionvironment and Social Safeguard DivisionRegional and Sustainable Development DepartmentRegional and Sustainable Development DepartmentRegional and Sustainable Development DepartmentRegional and Sustainable Development DepartmentRegional and Sustainable Development Department

Asian Development Bank, Manila, PhilippinesAsian Development Bank, Manila, PhilippinesAsian Development Bank, Manila, PhilippinesAsian Development Bank, Manila, PhilippinesAsian Development Bank, Manila, PhilippinesJune 2002June 2002June 2002June 2002June 2002

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES/ETHNIC MINORITIES

ANDANDANDANDAND

POVERTY REDUCTION

REGIONAL REPORT

© Asian Development Bank 2002

All rights reserved

Published June 2002

The views and interpretations in this report are those of the authorand do not necessarily reflect those of the Asian Development Bank.

ISBN No. 971-561-438-8

Publication Stock No. 030702

Published by the Asian Development BankP.O. Box 789, 0980, Manila, Philippines

This publication was prepared in conjunction with an Asian Development Bank (ADB)regional technical assistance (RETA) project on Capacity Building for Indigenous Peoples/Ethnic Minority Issues and Poverty Reduction (RETA 5953), covering four developing

member countries (DMCs) in the region, namely, Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines, and VietNam. The project is aimed at strengthening national capacities to combat poverty and at improvingthe quality of ADB’s interventions as they affect indigenous peoples. The project was coordinatedand supervised by Dr. Indira Simbolon, Social Development Specialist and Focal Point forIndigenous Peoples, ADB.

The project was undertaken by a team headed by the author, Mr. Roger Plant, and composedof consultants from the four participating DMCs. Provincial and national workshops, as well asextensive fieldwork and consultations with high-level government representatives,nongovernment organizations (NGOs), and indigenous peoples themselves, provided the basisfor poverty assessment as well as an examination of the law and policy framework and otherissues relating to indigenous peoples. Country reports containing the principal findings of theproject were presented at a regional workshop held in Manila on 25–26 October 2001, which wasattended by representatives from the four participating DMCs, NGOs, ADB, and other financeinstitutions. This report integrates the project’s main findings and recommendations, togetherwith elements of a proposed regional action plan.

The report is one of a series of documents produced by the project. They comprise fourcountry reports (on Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines, and Viet Nam, respectively), a regional reportcovering these four countries, and the proceedings of the regional workshop, which resulted inrecommendations for a regional action plan for indigenous peoples/ethnic minorities. In addition,a regional report on the subject in Pacific DMCs was prepared under a separate consultancy.

It is hoped that the information in this publication series on the issues and concerns of indigenouspeoples/ethnic minorities will help guide national governments and development partners inimproving future interventions to recognize, promote, and protect the rights of these peoples.

ROLF ZELIUSChief Compliance Officer and

Deputy Director-GeneralRegional and Sustainable Development Department

FOREWORD

Thanks are due to the many government officials from Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines,and Viet Nam, who have cooperated in this project. Particular thanks are expressed toYusril Ihza Mahendra, Minister of Justice and Human Rights, Indonesia; Ly Thuch, Minister

of Rural Development, Cambodia; Tran Luu Hai, Vice Chairman, Committee for Ethnic Minoritiesand Mountainous Areas (CEMMA), Vietnam; Hafid Abbas, Director of Human Rights, Indonesia;Trinh Cong Khanh, Deputy Director, Department of Mountainous Areas Policies, CEMMA, VietNam; Seng Narong, Permanent Secretary of the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Ethnic MinoritiesDevelopment Program, Cambodia; Howard Dee, Presidential Advisor for Indigenous PeoplesAffairs, Philippines; and Evelyn Dunuan, Chair, National Commission on Indigenous Peoples,Philippines.

Special thanks also go to Asian Development Bank (ADB) President Tadao Chino for hissupport to this program, in particular for making the opening address at the October 2001 RegionalWorkshop; and to other senior ADB officials who gave generously of their time at this workshop,including Rolf Zelius, Anita Kelles-Viitanen, S. Nishimoto, and K.H. Moinuddin. The assistance ofJay Maclean in editing and of Anita L. Quisumbing and Lily Bernal in production is acknowledgedwith thanks.

Much of the material in this regional report is drawn from the individual country reportsand, thus, I warmly thank my colleagues in the consulting team who prepared them andcontributed to this report: Hean Sokhom and Tiann Monie, Cambodia; Myrna Safitri and RafaelEdy Bosko, Indonesia; Daisy Morales and Raymundo Rovillos, Philippines; and Bui The Cuong,Duong Bich Hanh, and Thu Ba Huynh, Viet Nam.

Thanks are also expressed collectively to the many other stakeholders who havecollaborated in this project, including the representatives of indigenous peoples and ethnic minorityorganizations, other nongovernment organizations, academic and research institutions,representatives and staff of ADB resident missions, and many others.

Roger Plant

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

CONTENTS

Foreword ......................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................... iv

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ vii

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1

2. The Target Groups and their Lifestyles.......................................................................... 5

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5

The Asian Development Bank’s Definition of Indigenous Peoples and its

Operational Implications ............................................................................................................... 6

National Definitions and Main Characteristics in the Participating Countries .......................... 7

3. State Law and Policies: A Comparative Review .......................................................... 19

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 19

Cambodia: Addressing the Needs of Small Minority Groups .................................................... 20

Indonesia: Toward a Coordinated Policy? .................................................................................. 21

The Philippines: Taking the Lead? .............................................................................................. 22

Viet Nam: Ethnic Minorities and Policy Reform in a Transitional Economy ............................ 25

4. Poverty Trends: Quantitative Indicators

and Measurement ................................................................................................... 29

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 29

Cambodia and Indonesia ............................................................................................................. 30

Philippines .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30

Viet Nam ............................................................................................................................ 32

5. Perceptions of Poverty: Qualitative Assessment ......................................................... 35

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 35

Cambodia ............................................................................................................................ 35

Indonesia .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 37

Philippines ............................................................................................................................ 39

Viet Nam ............................................................................................................................ 42

6. The Role of International Assistance .......................................................................... 47

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 47

Indigenous Peoples/Ethnic Minorities and Poverty Reduction: Regional Reportvi

Regional Support for Policy and Program Development: The United Nations Experience ..... 48

Other United Nations Activities: Cambodia, Philippines, and Viet Nam .................................. 49

Nongovernment Organization Initiatives ................................................................................... 50

Experience of the Asian Development Bank .............................................................................. 51

7. Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 59

Ethnicity and Poverty Reduction: The Case for Differentiated Treatment ................................ 59

The Law and Policy Framework ................................................................................................. 60

Poverty Indicators and Measurement ......................................................................................... 60

Land Tenure and Resource Management .................................................................................. 61

Consultative Mechanisms and Traditional Institutions ............................................................. 61

International Assistance .............................................................................................................. 62

8. A Regional Action Plan: Proposed Elements ............................................................... 63

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 63

Issues of Definition and Identity ................................................................................................. 64

Overall Law and Policy Framework ............................................................................................ 65

Policy Coordination and Consultative Mechanisms .................................................................. 66

Monitoring Poverty Trends and Characteristics ......................................................................... 67

Land Rights and Resource Management .................................................................................... 68

Indigenous and Ethnic Minority Concerns in Basic Social Services ......................................... 70

Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 71

Ethnicity and Poverty vii

ADB – Asian Development Bank

AMAN – Indonesian Alliance of Adat Communities

CAR – Cordillera Administrative Region

CEMMA – Committee for Ethnic Minorities and Mountainous Areas(Viet Nam)

CHARM – Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resource Management(Philippines)

CSP – country strategy and program (ADB)

DENR – Department of Environment and Natural Resources(Philippines)

DMC – developing member country (ADB)

GDP – gross domestic product

HPP – Highland Peoples Programme (UNDP)

IFAD – International Fund for Agricultural Development

ILO – International Labour Organization

IMC – Inter-Ministerial Committee for Highland PeoplesDevelopment (Cambodia)

INDISCO – Inter-Regional Programme to Support Self-Reliance ofIndigenous and Tribal Communities Through Cooperativesand Self-Help Organizations (ILO)

IPRA – Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (Philippines)

Lao PDR – Lao People’s Democratic Republic

NCIP – National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (Philippines)

NGO – nongovernment organization

RETA – regional technical assistance (ADB)

UNDP – United Nations Development Programme

VLSS – Viet Nam Living Standards Surveys

WHO – World Health Organization

ABBREVIATIONS

I n the course of 2001, the Asian Development Bank(ADB) implemented a regional technicalassistance project for capacity building for

indigenous peoples/ethnic minorities and povertyreduction. The project was undertaken in four countriesof the Southeast Asian region, Cambodia, Indonesia,Philippines, and Viet Nam.

The regional technical assistance represents thefirst major regional activity on this subject undertakenby ADB since it adopted its Policy on Indigenous Peoplesin 1998. Under this policy, ADB has pledged to work withborrowing member countries as appropriate andnecessary to support and assist the development ofcapacities for addressing indigenous peoples’ matters.As appropriate and necessary, specific institutionaldevelopment and capacity-building support would beprovided to both indigenous peoples’ communities andto governments, consistent with ADB’s policies andapproaches addressing institutional development andcapacity building.

This regional technical assistance was endorsedby the First Indigenous Peoples Forum, which wasconducted in Thailand in conjunction with the 33rd

Annual Meeting of ADB’s Board of Governors. It has twogeneral objectives: first, to strengthen ADB’s Policy onIndigenous Peoples with a poverty assessment of thissector in selected developing member countries (DMCs);and second, to develop, using participatory methods,an appropriate agenda for action to ensure povertyreduction for indigenous groups.

Its more specific objectives have been threefold,namely: (i) to conduct a poverty assessment ofindigenous peoples/ethnic minorities and examine ineach of the participating countries the relevant nationalpolicies and legislation, programs, projects, andinitiatives pertaining to indigenous peoples and ethnicminorities as these address the multifaceted dimensionsof poverty; (ii) to evaluate and assess the impact of ADB’sinterventions that address the vulnerability and poverty

of indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities in thecountries concerned; and (iii) to provide capacitybuilding for governments, nongovernment organizations(NGOs), and indigenous and ethnic minority groups sothat they can participate actively in the formulation ofaction plans and ADB-sponsored programs and projects.

The importance of this study has been increasedby recent developments and initiatives, both within ADBand within the Southeast Asian region as a whole. ADBhas unambiguously declared poverty reduction to be itsoverarching goal. There are increasing concerns tochannel its loans and other interventions to the poorestsectors in its DMCs, and also to finance new projects ingeographical areas where the incidence of poverty isthe most serious. As ADB’s poverty interventions grow,there are clear signs that more and more projects arebeing implemented in areas of traditional indigenous orethnic minority habitation. A basic reason for this isthat—in Southeast Asia, as in other developing regionsof the world—these peoples often bear the most seriousburden of material poverty. Very often, they live inremote areas where the provision of basic services hasbeen weak or nonexistent. Of equal importancemoreover, their access to the lands, forests, and othernatural resources that have been the source of theirtraditional livelihood is being threatened by theprocesses of development and modernization, as theirtraditional land areas are opened up for settlement bynonindigenous groups and outside investment. In eachof the countries participating in this study, some similarprocesses have been detected. The penetration of theseonce isolated areas by new commercial anddevelopment interests is now causing some of thegovernments to rethink their policies. As will bediscussed at greater length in later sections of this report,the present study has taken place at a very dynamic time.There has been a series of law and policy proposals,either generally to recognize indigenous rights, or tohave special protection for indigenous rights within the

INTRODUCTION1

Indigenous Peoples/Ethnic Minoritises and Poverty Reduction: Regional Report2

context of new land and forestry laws, or to havetargeted programs for addressing the needs ofindigenous and ethnic minority groups.

Economic, political, and social developmentswithin these Southeast Asian countries are of equalimportance, making this project a particularly timelyexercise. The ethnographic composition of the fourcountries is very diverse, and the nature of laws, policies,and programs on behalf of indigenous and ethnicminority groups also varies accordingly. In one of thecountries, highland indigenous peoples are a very smallproportion of the overall national population, and arelocated in just a few provinces.

The study was undertaken between February andNovember 2001, having to achieve a number of activitiesin a brief time period. National consultants wererecruited to carry out activities in the four countries. Theyacted under the direction of the international consultantfor the project. Each of the governments selected a focalagency for the project. In Cambodia, this was the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Highland PeoplesDevelopment (IMC), located in the Ministry of RuralDevelopment; in Indonesia, the Directorate of HumanRights Protection, of the Ministry of Justice and HumanRights; in the Philippines, the National Commission onIndigenous Peoples (NCIP). However, as the NCIP wasunder restructuring for much of the project, activitieswere coordinated closely with the Office of thePresidential Advisor for Indigenous Peoples Affairs. InViet Nam, the focal agency was the Committee for EthnicMinorities and Mountainous Areas (CEMMA).

Six provincial workshops and four nationalworkshops were held. The provincial workshops wereheld in Ratanakiri, Cambodia (21–22 May); Kon Tum,Viet Nam (31 May and 1 June); Baguio, Philippines (4–5June); Palu, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia (5–6 June);Samarinda, East Kalimantan, Indonesia (28 June); andCagayan de Oro, Mindanao, Philippines (21–22 July).These provincial workshops provided the opportunityfor local assessment, with the participation ofindigenous/ethnic minority representatives, localgovernment officials, and other relevant stakeholders.Participatory poverty assessments were carried out bythe national consultants in select villages andcommunities in preparation for the provincialworkshops.

The national workshops were held in Phnom Penh,Cambodia (13–14 September); Hanoi, Viet Nam (18–19

September); Jakarta, Indonesia (25–26 September); andManila, Philippines (1–2 October). A country report wasprepared for each of the national workshops. A draftcountry report containing the principal findings of thestudy was presented to each workshop, and a country-specific plan of action was adopted.

The regional workshop was held at ADBheadquarters in Manila (25–26 October 2001). It wasopened by ADB President Tadao Chino, and the fourparticipating governments were represented at highlevel, including cabinet ministers of the governments ofCambodia and Indonesia. Indigenous representativesfrom the four countries also participated. Severalinternational organizations were represented, including:the International Fund for Agricultural Development(IFAD), International Labour Organization (ILO),International Work Group for Indigeneous Affairs, UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP), World HealthOrganization (WHO), and World Bank. A draft of aregional plan of action was approved at this workshop,and its main elements are presented at the end of thisreport.

This regional report contains a synthesis of thestudy’s main findings and recommendations, togetherwith proposed elements of the regional plan of action.It is structured as follows.

The second chapter examines questions ofdefinition of indigenous peoples and ethnic minoritiesin each of the participating countries, as well as thegeographical location of these peoples and some of theirkey characteristics.

The third chapter reviews the law and policyframework relating to indigenous peoples and ethnicminorities, in particular as relevant to programs andpolicies for poverty reduction. Rather than a detailedanalysis, it aims to portray some key similarities anddifferences between the policy frameworks of the projectcountries.

The fourth chapter discusses the progress anddifficulties in measuring poverty trends for indigenouspeoples and ethnic minorities, drawing on availablestatistical data and surveys, and also the use of proxieswhere national statistical data have not beendisaggregated by ethnicity.

The fifth chapter turns to the more qualitativedimensions of poverty and poverty reduction forindigenous and ethnic minority groups. Based mainlyon fieldwork by the national consultants, it aims to

Introduction 3

present these peoples’ own perceptions. Issues includethe meaning of poverty and wealth for the peoplesconsulted, their own perceptions of poverty trends andtheir causes, and their principal needs and aspirationswith respect to poverty reduction programs. This is avery preliminary exercise, based on only very limitedassessment in the short time available.

The sixth chapter turns to the role of internationalassistance, including the experience of ADB itself. Inaccordance with the terms of reference for the regionaltechnical assistance, a certain amount of attention ispaid to ADB projects in the four countries. However, it

was considered useful to spread the net more widely,examining how these issues have so far been addressedin programs and poverty partnerships, as well as inspecific projects. The finding of the study is that a purelyproject-specific approach may have difficulty in givingadequate treatment to complex concerns, which needto be part of a broader policy dialogue with the countryconcerned.

The seventh chapter summarizes the principalconclusions and their policy and program implications.The final chapter sets out the main elements of theproposed regional action plan.

INTRODUCTION

If greater attention is to be paid to indigenouspeoples and ethnic minorities in poverty reductionprograms, the first task is to identify exactly who they

are, where they are located, and if possible what theirnumbers are and their proportion of the overall nationalpopulation. It is important to determine whether or notthey are small minorities, what is their role in thenational economy, and in particular whether or not theylive and earn their livelihood apart from other populationgroups. These questions are important for determiningwhether the main policy approach should be one of“safeguards,” protecting vulnerable peoples and theirresources from the possible adverse effects ofdevelopment projects; or whether it might instead beone of “mainstreaming,” ensuring that these peopleshave equal access to the benefits of modernization anddevelopment without undermining their cultural valuesand traditional institutions.

Throughout Asia these are difficult questions. Theterminology used is itself important, because the policyand practical implications of being defined as eitherindigenous or ethnic minority can be potentially quitedifferent. Peoples and communities who formulate theirdemands under the “indigenous umbrella” are oftenseeking a differentiated status with regard to their landand resource rights, recognition and application of theircustomary laws, and the role of their traditionalinstitutions in social and also political life. On the worldstage, indigenous peoples in some regions are seekinga high degree of control over their own development,addressing issues that include autonomy and self-determination, and a measure of veto power over anyinvestment and development projects undertaken withintheir areas of habitation or ancestral domain. Aconceptual entry point for these claims by indigenous

peoples is that they have prior or “aboriginal” rights overthe resources contained in their traditional areas, rightswhich they have held since time immemorial, and whichpredate the formation of the modern Nation State. Theseissues are being addressed in emerging internationallaw, as will be discussed further below.

The use of the term ethnic minorities may havesomewhat different connotations. There may be nosuggestion that the groups in question have any prior,ancestral, or aboriginal claims over land, territory, orrelated resources. The term means largely what it says.There are certain ethnic groups in individual countries,which are numerical minorities vis-à-vis thepredominant ethnic population. However, as experienceshows, the ethnic groups that are numerically in theminority are by no means always disadvantaged orvulnerable. In economic terms at least, they may be themost successful groups with the highest income levels.This can be the case of ethnic groups of European orChinese origin. There may, however, be some risk ofpolitical or social disadvantage, if any impediments areplaced on full participation by these groups in nationalcivil or political life. Yet for poverty reduction strategiesthe emphasis needs to be placed on ethnic minoritygroups for whom there is some evidence of economicdisadvantage vis-à-vis other sectors of the nationalpopulation.

It is possible that, whether such vulnerable anddisadvantaged groups are classified as indigenous orethnic minority or any other term, their functionalcharacteristics are very similar. Throughout theSoutheast Asian region such groups may bepredominantly rural and largely isolated from otherpopulation groups (at least until quite recently). Theymay be nomadic, or shifting cultivators, blendingswidden (slash-and-burn) or sedentary agriculture withincome-earning strategies that depend on hunting oraccess to forest products. They may have communal

THE TARGET GROUPS ANDTHEIR LIFESTYLES2

Indigenous Peoples/Ethnic Minorities and Poverty Reduction: Regional Report6

forms of land tenure and allocation, although perhapsworking land plots on an individual or family basis. Theymay have their own language, and unique cultural andreligious practices. They may have their own recognizedauthority systems for resolving local conflicts includingland, family, and minor criminal concerns. But theexistence today of such cultural or traditional practicesand institutions may not be a necessary condition fordefining certain groups as indigenous (or even ethnicminority). An equally important thing can be theaspirations of certain groups to be identified as such,and to be differentiated from other sectors of the nationalpopulation for certain policy or practical reasons.

It is for this reason that, at least as far as indigenouspeoples are concerned, both emerging international lawand the policy guidelines of multilateral developmentbanks are placing much emphasis on the issue of self-definition. Ethnic groups often choose to definethemselves as indigenous as a defensive mechanism,because they share certain cultural values that areconsidered by them to be under threat. There tend to besome unifying features behind the “indigenous” paradigm,including the communal or collective nature of land useand natural resource management, the importance oflanguage, and the importance of traditional forms ofrepresentation. But the agenda would also appear to bean open-ended one. There is no compelling evidence thatthe groups that define themselves as indigenous or ethnicminority wish to pursue an exclusively subsistencelifestyle, or to be isolated altogether from the marketeconomy and its institutions.

As regards the question of definition, the law andpolicies of the four countries participating in the presentstudy present very considerable differences. Only thePhilippines makes specific reference to the termindigenous in its pertinent legislation and administrativearrangements. Viet Nam refers to ethnic minorities. Thereare administrative arrangements at both national andprovincial levels for attending to the concerns of ethnicminorities in development policies and programs. Thereare considerable statistical data and analysis concerningthe economic and social situation of ethnic minorities.Cambodia uses different terms to refer to the ethnicminority groups living in the northeastern and otherregions, mainly in upland areas. The terms hill tribes,highland peoples, indigenous peoples, and ethnicminorities have all been used on different occasions. ADepartment of Ethnic Minorities Development has

recently been created within the Ministry of RuralDevelopment and a draft General Policy for HighlandPeoples’ Development has been prepared by the IMC.Thus, the assumption appears to be that the vulnerableethnic minorities located in highland areas should besingled out for special attention.

Indonesia presents a special case. The Governmenthas expressed its reluctance to use the term indigenouspeoples. It as yet has no policy or administrativearrangements to deal with indigenous peoples or ethnicminorities as such. However, both the Constitution andthe Basic Agrarian Law recognize the concept ofcustomary law communities or adat communities. Severalrecent laws, policies, and ministerial decisions refer toadat concerns. Moreover, the creation of a NationalAlliance of Adat Communities (AMAN) in 1999, withrepresentatives from different islands and provinces, hasconsiderably raised the visibility given to adat concerns.The term masyarakat adat (adat community) appears nowto enjoy increasing acceptance in official circles, possiblypaving the way for a more coordinated national policy.Further groundwork would still appear to be needed toidentify the criteria under which groups or communitiesmight be covered by a national policy on masyarakat adatconcerns.

Country-specific issues of definition will beexamined in more detail below. First, it is useful to seehow ADB’s own Policy on Indigenous Peoples deals withthe question of definition.

THE ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK’SDEFINITION OF INDIGENOUS

PEOPLES AND ITS OPERATIONALIMPLICATIONS

ADB’s 1998 Policy on Indigenous Peoples dealsat some length with problems of definition. It isaccepted that developing “a single, specific definitionor identification for indigenous peoples would bedifficult”. The term indigenous peoples is seen as a“generic concept,” used by ADB solely for convenience.While accepted or preferred terms or definitions vary“by country, by academic discipline, and even by usageof groups concerned,” the terms relating to the conceptof indigenous peoples as addressed in the ADB policyinclude cultural minorities, ethnic minorities, indigenous

The Target Groups and their Lifestyles 7

cultural communities, tribals, scheduled tribes, natives,and aboriginals.

Indigenous peoples’ communities in the Asianregion reflect tremendous diversity in their cultures,histories, and current circumstances; and therelationships between indigenous peoples and dominantgroups of society vary. The ADB policy uses as its startingpoint for defining indigenous peoples two significantcharacteristics displayed by them, namely: (i) descentfrom population groups present in a given area, mostoften before modern states or territories were createdand before modern borders were defined; and (ii)maintenance of cultural and social identities; and social,economic, cultural, and political institutions separatefrom mainstream or dominant societies and cultures.

Additional characteristics identified by the policyare (i) self-identification and identification by others asbeing part of a distinct cultural group, and the display ofa desire to preserve that cultural identity; (ii) a linguisticidentity different from that of the dominant society; (iii)social, cultural, economic, and political traditions andinstitutions distinct from the dominant culture; (iv)economic systems oriented more toward traditionalsystems of production than mainstream systems; and(v) unique ties and attachments to traditional habitatsand ancestral territories and natural resources in thesehabitats and territories. Indigenous peoples are alsodescribed with reference to their ways of life. In manycases, indigenous peoples live in separatedcommunities, often in areas geographically distinct fromurban centers; and often functioning at the periphery ofthe political, social, cultural, and economic systems ofthe dominant or mainstream society. In other cases,indigenous peoples’ communities can be found on thefringes of urban areas, comprising peoples who havemigrated but remain distinct from the mainstream. Thusindigenous peoples’ communities in a given country canreflect varying degrees of acculturation and integrationinto the dominant or mainstream society.

On this basis, ADB’s policy employs the followingworking definition for its operations as they affectindigenous peoples.

Indigenous peoples should be regarded asthose with a social or cultural identity distinct fromthe dominant or mainstream society, which makesthem vulnerable to being disadvantaged in theprocesses of development.

ADB also accepts that indigenous peoples shouldbe defined at the national level. In specific developmentinterventions it supports, “the national legislation of thecountry in which the development intervention is takingplace contributes to a basis for defining indigenouspeoples.” This includes constitutional, statutory, andcustomary law, as well as international law, including anyinternational conventions to which the country is a party.Furthermore, the application of any definition ofindigenous peoples should “work to differentiate betweenindigenous peoples and other cultural and ethnicminorities for which indigenous status is not an issue.”

ADB’s policy also sets itself the objective ofassisting member countries to develop knowledge oftheir indigenous peoples. Among the constraints to moreeffective development efforts that affect indigenouspeoples are the lack of “detailed and objectiveknowledge and information about indigenous peoplesand their circumstances.” This is clearly important forADB, because of the need to identify whether indigenouspeoples covered by the policy are located in a projectarea. In project preparation, if the initial socialassessment identifies indigenous peoples specifically asa significantly and adversely affected population (orvulnerable to being so affected), it is required that anindigenous peoples’ development plan acceptable toADB be prepared by the government or project sponsor.

NATIONAL DEFINITIONS AND MAINCHARACTERISTICS IN THE

PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES

Cambodia

Cambodia is a multi-ethnic society in which thedominant and mainstream population is the ethnicKhmer who represent some 90% of the population.Significant nonKhmer minority groups include theMuslim Cham, Vietnamese, Laotians, Chinese, andEuropeans, as well as the highland groups most oftenreferred to as indigenous ethnic minorities.

The main government agency responsible for thedevelopment of indigenous or ethnic minority groups,the IMC, has a clear focus on the more vulnerablehighland groups. However, in the absence of clear legaldefinitions of the concepts of indigenous peoples,


ethnic minorities or highland peoples, it is difficult toestimate the numbers involved. In 1995, the Ministryof Interior stated that there were 442,699 ethnicminority peoples (or 3.8% of the population). Thisestimate included the Chinese and Vietnamesepopulations within the ethnic minority groups. The totalindigenous ethnic minority population was estimatedat 70,030 (or 1.0% of the total population in 1995). In1997, the IMC reached higher estimates, of 105,000indigenous highland peoples for only the 3 northeasternprovinces of Mondulkiri, Ratanakiri, and Stung Treng.And based on IMC figures, the 1998 census data wouldpoint to a total of 112,000 indigenous highland peoples

in the 4 northeastern provinces of Kratie, Mondulkiri,Ratanakiri, and Stung Treng.

These can only be rough estimates. Provisionalfigures under the new population census indicate thatindigenous highland peoples, with characteristicssimilar to those found in the northeastern provinces,are also located in other provinces including PreahVihear, Kampong Thom; and in the mountainousmassifs of Koh Kong, Pursat, Kampong Speu, andSihanoukville.

Of the highland indigenous peoples, two mainlinguistic families can be distinguished, each of thembroken down into several subgroups (Table 1). The first

Table 1. Geolinguistic Classification of the Main Indigenous Populations in Cambodia

Ethnic NumberGroup Subgroup Group Family (approx.) Location

Jarai Chamic Austronesian Austro-Thai 14,000 Ratanakiri

Rhade Chamic Austronesian Austro-Thai a dozen Mondulkiri

Kachac North Bahnaric Bahnaric Môn-Khmer 2,200 Ratanakiri and Chamic

Tampuon West Bahnaric Bahnaric Môn-Khmer 18,000 Ratanakiri & Mondulkiri

Brao West Bahnaric Bahnaric Môn-Khmer 5,500 Ratanakiri & Stung Treng

Kreung West Bahnaric Bahnaric Môn-Khmer 14,000 Ratanakiri

Kravet West Bahnaric Bahnaric Môn-Khmer 4,000 Ratanakiri (Veunsai) &

Stung Treng (Siempang)

Lun West Bahnaric Bahnaric Môn-Khmer 300 Ratanakiri (Taveng, Veunsai) &

Stung Treng

Phnong South Bahnaric Bahnaric Môn-Khmer 19,000 Mondulkiri, Stung Treng &

Ratanakiri

Stieng South Bahnaric Bahnaric Môn-Khmer 3,300 Kratie ( Snuol) & Mondulkiri

(Keo Seyma)

Kroal – Bahnaric Môn-Khmer 1,960 Kratie & Mondulkiri (Koh Nyek)

Mel – Bahnaric Môn-Khmer 2,100 Kratie

Poar (Eastern Pear, Pearic Môn-Khmer 1,440 Kampong Thom & Pursat

Western Pear)

Saoch (Saoch) Pearic Môn-Khmer 175 Kampot & Pursat

Suoy – – Môn-Khmer 1,200 Kampong Speu (Oral)

Khmer Khe Khmer Khmer Môn-Khmer 1,600 Stung Treng (Siempang)

Kuy – Katuic Môn-Khmer 14,200 Preah Vihear, Kampong Thom

and Stung Treng

Other groups identified in 1995 but without any other data available:

Robel (1,640), Thmaun (543), Loemoun (280), Kola (31), Kaning (150), Poang (260) and Rohong (in Keo Seyma, Mondulkiri)Note: – = unknown.Source: Bourdier (1996).


is the Austro-Thais or “Malayo-Polynesians,” comprisingthe Jarai people in Ratanakiri and the Rhade and Phnongpeoples in Mondulkiri. The second is the Môn-Khmerfamily, with its several ethnic subgroups including theTampuon, Brao, Kravet, Lun, Phnong, Stieng, Kroal,Mel, Saoch, Poar, Suoy, Kuy, Khmer Khe, Thmaun, andRaong.

These ethnic groups have resided in sparselypopulated areas of the north and northeast, in regionsthat have until recently been covered by dense forests.Their traditional habitat borders the neighboringcountries of Lao People’s Democratic Republic (LaoPDR), Thailand, and Viet Nam, and several ethnicgroups are to be found on both sides of these nationalborders. The Jarai of Ratanakiri and the Phnong ofKratie and Mondulkiri can also be found respectivelyin the provinces of Gia Lai and Dac Lac in Viet Nam’scentral highlands. The Kuy of Preah Vihear andKampong Thom are also to be found in Lao PDR andThailand. The Brao and Kraveth groups of Ratanakiriare also related to those living in southern Lao PDR.The border demarcations first imposed under theFrench colonial government in the early 20th centurydivided these groups artificially, placing restrictions ontheir freedom of movement.

Most indigenous farmers in northeasternCambodia still use traditional farming techniques ofseminomadic slash-and-burn or swidden agriculture.Although some are cultivating lowland rice fields afteran integration process that commenced in the 1960s,they still maintain swidden fields where they farm uplandrice and other crops for security. Very few crops aregrown outside the village, as it is difficult to protect thesefrom domestic animals. Other crops grown forsubsistence use within the household includevegetables, root crops, gourds, fruits, and nonfood cropssuch as tobacco and cotton. Indigenous communitieshave also been turning to some cash crops for incomepurposes, including coffee, cashew nuts, green beans,jackfruit, and durian. However, poor infrastructure andthe lack of market support have reduced the motivationto expand cash-crop cultivation.

Forest fruits, wildlife, fish, traditional medicines,and construction materials have all played a key role inthe indigenous economy. This is particularly importantat times of food scarcity between harvests. Forestvegetables, leaves, and tubers have been important forthe diet of indigenous highland communities. Wild tubers

were collected in particular during the period of civilconflict, when cultivation was difficult and people fledtheir home communities, and also in years with poorrice harvests. Forest vegetables are used mainly forconsumption, although some such as bamboo shoots,mushrooms, and yams are sold in limited quantity bysome villagers. Forest fruits complement the diet in thedry season. Resin can also play an important role inhousehold income generation. The cash is used to buyrice and other necessary consumption items. Bamboo,rattan, and small trees have been used for houseconstruction and handicrafts. Wildlife has been huntedfor food and in the absence of fish is an important sourceof protein in high altitude areas. In recent decadeshowever, some wildlife species have been hunted byoutsiders for sale to neighboring countries.

Indonesia

Indonesia is an ethnically diverse and populouscountry, its 210 million people made up of some 500different ethnic groups speaking over 600 languages.Yet during the lengthy New Order period of PresidentSuharto’s government, with its emphasis on centralizedrule and uniformity, there was a firm policy to play downany ethnic differences. While the principle wascharacterized by the slogan Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (Unityin Diversity), the emphasis was on unity rather thandiversity in the area of ethnic identity. Throughout thevast archipelago, uniform policies were pursued withregard to village and local administration, theeducational curriculum, and natural resourcemanagement. In the words of one analyst: “Although,or perhaps because, Indonesia is such a diverse society,it has always been government policy to emphasizenational unity and to play down the cultural and ethnicdifferences. Giving priority or special attention to aparticular group or community is sometimes evenqualified as being adverse to the national interest.”1

Numerous terms have been associated with theconcept of indigenous peoples in Indonesia. Under theNew Order government, the Ministry of Social Welfareused the concept of masyarakat terasing (or “isolatedcommunities”) to refer to the more remote andvulnerable groups. Under Ministerial Decree 5/1994,such isolated communities were described as groups indispersed and isolated areas, following a sociocultural


system considered to be “isolated” and “backward” incomparison with the rest of Indonesian society. TheNational Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS)identified certain characteristics of these isolatedcommunities: (i) nomadic or seminomadic lifestyles, orliving in small and dispersed bands; (ii) a livelihoodsystem strongly dependent on the natural environment,such as hunting, gathering, fishing, or swiddenagriculture; (iii) inadequate standards of personalhygiene or cleanliness of environment; (iv) meager orno clothing; (v) a low standard of housing; (vi) verylimited knowledge and low use of technology; (vii)animistic belief systems; and (viii) strong attachmentsto cultural and belief systems, making thesecommunities culturally closed.

“Empowerment” programs, designed to upliftcommunities from their state of isolation, give someidea of the numbers previously considered by theMinistry of Social Welfare to fall into this category.According to a 2000 publication, 227,377 householdshad not been empowered, 97,763 households werebeing empowered, and 10,482 had already beenempowered.2 Available data suggested thatapproximately 1.2 million persons have been consideredto fall under the “isolated peoples” category in 18provinces of different outer islands. Some 65% of thesewere in Irian Jaya (West Papua). The next largestnumbers were in Kalimantan and Sulawesi, and thenSumatra. The figures and locations nevertheless appearto have been provided on a somewhat arbitrary basis.

During the New Order period, the concept ofindigenous was also applied to communities engagingin traditional practices of forest resource utilization. Forexample, the term was frequently used by theDepartment of Forestry to refer to peladang berpindah(shifting cultivators). In the early 1990s, the Ministry ofForestry stated that the number of shifting cultivatorswas some 6 million,3 but there are insufficient data toestimate the present numbers.

Today, perhaps the closest Indonesian equivalentto the term indigenous peoples is that of masyarakat adat(customary law peoples or communities). The term adatwas first used during the Dutch colonial period byscholars and policymakers who aimed to preserveindigenous customary laws and traditions rather thanto introduce a uniform western legal system. The thenDutch colony was divided into separate adat law areasof “law circles” (rechtskring), based on cultural and

geographic units and perceived differences. The adatapproach was also reflected in judicial administration,with native courts established by their own codes ofprocedure, and customary (adat) law was applied bynative judges when it was not in conflict with otherlegislation. However, an interpretation of the adatcommunity was that it should have lived permanentlyin an area with fixed boundaries. The implication wasthat nomadic communities and shifting cultivators didnot have rights over their traditional territory andnatural resources.

Since independence in 1945, there has beenconsiderable ambiguity over the situation and status ofadat communities. The 1945 Constitution recognizes theexistence of the adat community (although referring tothe Adat Law Community in one of its sections, and tothe traditional community in another). The 1960 BasicAgrarian Law is actually based on the principles of adat,although only to the extent that customary law andprocedures are not in conflict with the national interest.Moreover, the Act would clearly need variousimplementing regulations to make it truly effective, andvery few of these have been adopted. Yet, some recentagrarian legislation provides that customary adat landswill be duly recorded in the land register.4 Forestry law,however, still equates adat forest areas with state forest.

Since the late 1990s, with the onset ofdemocratization, there has been a clearer trend towardrecognizing the existence of adat communities and theirrole in development. The Human Rights Act, No. 39 of1999, provides for explicit recognition and protection ofthe adat community and its cultural identity as afundamental human rights issue. The right to customary(ulayat) land is seen as an explicit manifestation ofcultural identity. The Local Government Act, No. 22 of1999, is also of much importance. Replacing the earlier1979 legislation on Village Government, the new lawprovides the opportunity for revitalization of adatcommunities and institutions. Such communities canrevitalize their specific communal entities, norms, andvalues if they so wish. And these customary norms canalso be incorporated within village regulations.

The year 1999 appears to have marked awatershed in the Government’s willingness to refer moreopenly to indigenous peoples or adat communities inits laws and policies. Under Presidential Decree No. 111of 1999, reference was made to “remote indigenouscommunities” rather than to “isolated communities.”


While considerable law and policy reform is taking placein Indonesia, there have also been nongovernmentinitiatives to create networks of adat institutions. Aninitial step was the formation of a network in 1993,which aimed among other things to clarify the criterionof an “adat community.” The chosen definition was“Groups of people who have inter-generational originsin a particular geographic territory, and who also havetheir own value system, ideology, economy, politics,culture, social identity and territory.”

In 1999, a national congress of Indonesianindigenous peoples took place, reportedly attended byover 200 adat community representatives from 121ethnic groups. The Congress agreed to establish anatonal alliance of indigenous peoples, AMAN. By 2001,AMAN had 24 affiliated organizations in islands andprovinces ranging from Bali to Kalimantan, Lombok,East Nusa Tenggara, West Papua, Sulawesi, and Sumatra(including the conflict-ridden Aceh). It has severalobjectives, including the restoration to adat communitiesof sovereignty over their socioeconomic laws andcultural life, and control over their lands and naturalresources and other livelihoods. It also urges theGovernment to sign or ratify international agreementson indigenous rights, including the ILO’s Indigenous andTribal Peoples Convention (No. 169) and the UnitedNations Draft Declaration on Indigenous Peoples.

Under present conditions, it would still be difficultto identify the numbers and location of indigenouspeoples or adat communities in Indonesia. There is aclear change in attitude and approaches in recent years.Some years ago, the government approach was toidentify isolated, remote, and forest-dwellingcommunities as communities that needed to be changedand uplifted in both economic and social terms, in orderto achieve their eventual integration within mainstreamIndonesian society. The approach was strictly objective,and attached little importance to the intrinsic value oftraditional institutions and cultures.

Over the past 2 years there have been verysignificant changes. Under the AMAN structure, thecriteria for self-identification as indigenous or adatcommunities are eminently subjective, based on self-identification, the desire to revitalize traditionalinstitutions, and to maintain a certain lifestyle. InIndonesia’s transitional stage toward greaterdecentralization and regional autonomy, as it seeks tofind the appropriate balance between traditional and

“national” institutions, indigenous identity may be morea question of ideology and aspiration than of ethnologyand objective classification. The rapid growth of AMANsince 1999 indicates that identification with the adatconcept is held widely throughout the outer islands.But it is an evolving concept, and in thesecircumstances an estimate of the numbers concernedwould not be very useful.

Philippines

The Philippines, as noted, has an IndigenousPeoples Rights Act (IPRA).5 This contains a definition ofindigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples.These terms refer to

a group of people or homogeneous societiesidentified by self-ascription and ascription by others,who have continuously lived as an organizedcommunity on communally bounded and definedterritory, and who have, under claims of ownershipsince time immemorial, occupied, possessed andutilized such territories, sharing common boundsof language, customs, traditions and otherdistinctive cultural traits, or who have, throughresistance to political, social and cultural inroadsof colonization, non-indigenous religions andcultures, become historically differentiated from themajority of Filipinos. [They] shall likewise includepeoples who are regarded as indigenous on accountof their descent from the populations whichinhabited the country, at the time of conquest orcolonization, or at the time of inroads of non-indigenous religions and cultures, or theestablishment of present state boundaries, whoretain some or all of their own social, economic,cultural and political institutions, but who may havebeen displaced from their traditional domains or whomay have resettled outside their ancestral domains.

The IPRA also defines the concept of indigenouspolitical structures. These refer to

organizational and cultural leadership systems,institutions, relationships, patterns and processesfor decision-making and participation, identified byindigenous cultural communities/indigenous


peoples as such, but not limited to, Council ofElders, Council of Timuays, Bodong Holders, or anyother tribunal or body of similar nature.

The definition draws largely on the ILO’sIndigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Convention, No. 169. Itblends the concept of self-definition or self-ascriptionwith the concerns of language and culture, themaintenance of traditions and institutions, and also thebiological criterion of descent. The question ofindigenous identity is closely linked with such territorialconcerns as ancestral domain, one of the key substantiveissues addressed by the IPRA.

Assessing the numbers and location of thesepeoples in the Philippines presents considerabledifficulties. There is consensus that indigenous peoplesand their communities are located throughout thePhilippine archipelago, in the main islands of Luzon tothe north and Mindanao to the south, and in severalislands of the Visayan chain in the central Philippines.Indeed, the organic structure of the National Commissionon Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), established under the IPRA,itself indicates that indigenous peoples are spread broadlythroughout the country. The NCIP is to be comprised ofseven Commissioners, three of these from different partsof Luzon including the Cordillera Autonomous Region;one from the Visayan island groups; and one fromrespectively Northern and Western Mindanao, Southernand Eastern Mindanao, and Central Mindanao.

As to the total numbers of indigenous peoples andtheir proportion of the overall Philippine population,various estimates have been put forward. The NCIP itselfestimated in 1998 that they were between 12 and 15million altogether. The Philippine research foundationIBON, comparing 1995 population figures from theNational Statistics Office with the NCIP’s 1998 estimate,has suggested that the present indigenous populationmight actually comprise more than 20% of the nationaltotal. As will be discussed further below, however, thisdepends on both objective and subjective criteria fordetermining the nature of indigenous peoples.

The Philippines certainly displays immense ethnicand cultural diversity with respect to language, cultures,and institutions. A preliminary listing by the Office ofthe Presidential Advisor for Indigenous Peoples Affairs6

identified approximately 150 ethnic groups. The SummerInstitute of Linguistics has estimated as many as 170different languages, 168 of these in active use.

As regards location and lifestyles, the diversity isalso very great. In northern Luzon, various indigenousethnic groups are concentrated in the mountainousranges of the Cordillera region, generally occupying theinterior hills, narrow strips of flat land along deep valleysand plateaus. The Tingguian, Isneg, and northernKalinga are to be found in the watershed areas of theAbulag, Tineg, and Chico rivers. These groups, largelyswidden cultivators by tradition, depend on rice, rootcrops, and vegetables for their food. Along the slopes ofMount Data and neighboring areas are the Bontoc,Sagada, Ifugao, and Southern Kalinga peoples. Mainlywet-rice cultivators, they grow crops in both terracesand swidden fields. The Ibaloy and Kankanaey inhabitthe southern Cordillera region, also basing theirsubsistence economy on wet and dry agriculture. Inrecent years, these groups have become more integratedinto the market economy through the growth ofcommercial vegetable production.

In northeastern Luzon, several lowland indigenousgroups including the Ibanag, Itawes, Yogad, and Gadanginhabit the Cagayan valley. Toward the south of thisregion, the Caraballo range is home to the Ilongot,Ikalahan, Isinai, and some Aeta groups who continueto practice wet-rice agriculture, swidden farming,hunting, gathering, and some commercial activities.

Other indigenous groups are to be found in therest of Luzon. Along the Sierra Madre range of easternLuzon live the Dumagat, Pugot, and other Aeta groupswhose economy is based on swidden agriculture,hunting and gathering, fishing, and some tradingactivities. Paan Pinatubo communities inhabit theZambales range, and the Baluga the northwestern partof Pampanga and the southwestern area of Tarlac.Along the Pacific coast in the provinces of Quezon,Polillo Island, and the Bicol peninsula are the variousAgta groups, known as the Kabihug in Camarines NorteProvince; and the Agta Tabangnon, Agta Cimarron, andItom in Camarines Sur, Albay, and Sorsogon. Thesegroups tend to combine agriculture, fishing, and thegathering of forest products with wage labor activities.

Of the Visayan islands, seven Mangyan groupsare to be found on the island of Mindoro. The Sulodand Ati peoples inhabit the interior foothills and remotecoastal areas of Negros and Panay islands. And on theisland of Palawan, the Tagbanua inhabit northern andcentral areas, and Batak are present in small pocketsnorth of the Palawan capital of Puerto Princesa, and in


northeastern areas. The Palawanon live in southernparts of the island.

The ethnic composition of the main southernisland of Mindanao and its neighboring smaller islandsin the Sulu archipelago is extremely diverse andcomplex. There is considerable debate as to whetherthe members of the various Islamized ethnic groupsmight be included under the term indigenous. This canbe a highly political issue, and also one in which theremay be “shifting identities” in accordance with the natureof claims and the benefits that can be derived from aparticular ethnic, political, or religious status.

There are at least 31 ethnolinguistic groupsindigenous to Mindanao and the Sulu archipelago. Allof these groups can claim the same ancestry in theirfolklore, but the introduction of Islam served to dividethem into two distinct categories. Those who adoptedIslam became known as the Muslim or Moro peoples.7

Those who did not became known collectively as theLumads.8

The 13 Islamized groups indigenous to Mindanaoare the Badjao, Iranun, Jama Mapun, Kalagan,Kalibugan, Maranao, Maguindanao, Molbog, Palawani,Samal, Sangil, Taussug, and Yakan. The 18 nonMuslimLumad groups include the Bagobo of Davao del Sur,North and South Cotabato, and Sultan Kudarat; theMansaka of Davao del Norte; the Mandaya of DavaoOriental; the Subanen of the Zamboanga peninsula; theB’laan of Davao del Sur, North and South Cotabato,Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat; the T’boli of SouthCotabato; and the Tiruray people of North Cotabato,Maguindanao, and Sultan Kudarat. In addition, theManobo people encompass various tribal groups foundin different provinces of Mindanao, mainly in Agusandel Norte and Sur, Cotabato, and Davao provinces.

In the 1960s, a group of Moro intellectualspromoted the concept of a distinct Moro orBangsamoro (Moro nation) identity. The movementescalated into armed conflict, with Muslim insurgentspursuing claims to a separate nationhood. Thecomplexities of this drawn-out conflict are beyond thescope of the present study. The movement split intodifferent armed groups in the course of the 1980s.Peace negotiations eventually led to the creation ofan Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)in 1989,9 following the adoption of the 1987Constitution. Demographic changes throughoutMindanao, including several provinces where Muslims

have until recently been in the majority, mean that itis difficult to identify large or contiguous territorialareas where only one ethnic group is present. Due topast government efforts to promote outside or“Christian” settlement in these regions, it iscommonplace to find Ilonggo, Cebuano, Tagalog, orIlocano speakers together with a mixture of Maranaw,Taussug, Maguindanao, and Arabic speakers. Smallethnic groups such as the B’laans, T’bolis, andManobos may also have their own distinct languageswithin pockets of these same geographic areas.

The relationships between the claims of Moroand Lumad groups in Mindanao are inevitably highlycomplex. In simple terms, what sets them apart is themore political demands of the former for nationhood,and the more specifically “indigenous rights” agendaof the latter for ancestral domain and land recognition,together with respect for their traditional cultures andinstitutions. However, in peace negotiations in 2001,the Moro Islamic Liberation Front has reportedly listedthe recognition of ancestral domain as a primary itemin their agenda. Moreover, the extent of the challengesahead were reflected in the resolutions adopted by aMindanao Indigenous Peoples Peace Forum, held inDavao City in early 2001 with the participation of over65 Lumad leaders. Among other things, this urgedPhilippine Congress to enact a law declaring Lumadterritories as autonomous, including Lumad territorieswithin the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao.All concerned were urged to recognize and respectthe territories and boundaries established by eldersduring D’yandi and Pakang10 times. This includesterritorial agreements among Lumad tribes, betweenthe Lumads and Moros, and between the Lumads andChristian settlers.

The broad definition of indigenous in the IPRAsuggests that self-ascription will be a key factor indetermining indigenous identity in the Philippines. Whilethe lifestyles may be largely or partly ones of subsistence,there is ever closer integration with the market economy,and in many areas a growing participation in the wagelabor force. They may even be urban dwellers, such asthe Negrito, Bajao, and Cordillera groups who come atleast on a seasonal basis to Metro Manila. There is alsoan educated indigenous elite, whose members mayretain a strong sense of indigenous identity. But perhapsthe main purpose of self-identification as indigenous inthe Philippines is the pursuit of ancestral domain claims.


In this sense, the existence of favorable legislation,recognizing special rights for indigenous peoples overtheir ancestral lands and related natural resources, maywell lead to an increase in the numbers who choose toidentify themselves as indigenous. In Mindanao inparticular, both political and religious factors, as wellas the advantages offered by a certain status, willcontinue to affect the choice of ethnic identity.

Viet Nam

Vietnamese ethnographers have used the criteriaof language, cultural traits, and also self-identificationto classify ethnic groups. Several censuses have beenundertaken in recent decades to define the number ofethnic groups in the country. According to the censusesconducted in 1959, 1973, and 1979, the number of suchgroups was listed as 64, 59, and 54, respectively. Thus,the Vietnamese population is now broken down into 54officially recognized ethnic groups, of which the majorityKinh account for some 87%. The remaining 53 groupsare significantly smaller in size as well as in economicand political power (Table 2).

According to the National Program of EthnicClassification carried out by the Institute of Ethnology,ethnic groups are defined as

A stable or relatively stable group of peopleformed over a historical period, based on commonterritorial ties, economic activities, and culturalcharacteristics; on the basis of these commoncharacteristics arises an awareness of ethnic identityand a name of one’s own.

Ethnic minorities are referred to as the dan tocthieu so or dan toc it nguoi in the Vietnamese language.The term indigenous as such is not officially used.

While the ethnic classification has until nowserved its purpose for activities of administration,development, and research, its inherent weaknesseshave been recognized by Vietnamese researchers andpolicymakers. A new ethnic classification project iscurrently being conducted by the Institute of Ethnology.Some researchers have argued that the number ofethnic groups should be expanded. Research findingspoint to the dissatisfaction of some small ethnic groupsthat they are merged within larger ones, while their

historical and cultural backgrounds are very different.The need for a new and more comprehensive ethnicclassification has also been expressed at the local level,during the implementation of development programsand projects.11

Viet Nam’s ethnic minorities belong to three mainlinguistic families (Austro-Asiatic, Malayo-Polynesian,and Han-Tang), each comprising different ethnicgroups. Language is a key feature of culturaldifferentiation. Each of the ethnic minority groups hasits own spoken language, while in each region thelanguage of the largest group present in the area tendsto be used as a common language for communication.Vietnamese is sometimes used as a communicationlanguage, mainly among men who have more accessto outsiders. Ethnic minority people often speak theirown language, some Vietnamese, and one or two otherlocal languages.

Ethnic minorities are amply spread throughoutthe country, present in some three quarters of thenational territory. They are located predominantly inmountainous areas of the northern and centralhighlands. Very few communes are comprised of onlyone ethnic group. Of the 53 ethnic minority groups, onlythe Cham, Khmer, and Hoa live along the central coastand the Mekong delta. Some other groups with higherpopulations and with the skills to practice wet-ricecultivation (such as the Tay, Thai, and Muong) live inlowland and valley regions along rivers and streams,where they have access to water resources andtransportation. Apart from these, most of the ethnicminority populations inhabit remote or mountainousareas, featuring high mountains and historically denseforest coverage. However, many of these areas haveexperienced heavy deforestation in recent years, andnow suffer from serious environmental degradation.

Ethnic minority relationship with traditional landsand resources is a complex issue in Viet Nam, givenmigratory trends, recent patterns of Kinh settlement,and the introduction of commercial farming andforestry in upland areas. By no means are all the 53ethnic minority groups indigenous to the land areaswhere they currently reside. Some of the Tay-Thaiethnic groups have been in northeastern Viet Nam sincetime immemorial. Others in the northwestern andmountainous regions of Nghe An Province migrated inlarge numbers several centuries ago. The first membersof the Tibeto-Burmese ethnic group probably arrived


in Viet Nam between the 17th and 19th centuries,Ancestors of the Malayo-Polynesian ethnic group haveresided in their present areas in the central highlandsfor countless generations.

Recently, there has been more migration by theethnic minority groups themselves, mainly fromnorthern and central parts of the country to the centralhighlands. Some have migrated on a voluntary basisin response to land scarcity, due to the natural disastersin their places of origin. There have also been cases ofinvoluntary resettlement due to the construction oflarge hydropower plants. In Kontum Province, forexample, many of the Thai, Tay, Hmong, and otherethnic minority groups have only arrived in recentyears. There can be friction between the ethnicminorities indigenous to a particular region, and otherminorities who have only recently migrated there.

The traditional upland livelihood is swiddenagriculture. The cultivation period has been of briefduration, after which fields have lain fallow until treeshave regrown and the land has recovered. Since the1960s, a campaign of fixed settlement and cultivationhas limited the mobility of ethnic minority communities.More recently, since the early 1990s, the allocation ofland and forest areas to individual households hastransformed the forest and mountainous areaspreviously held under communal and collective formsof tenure. Households of the groups practicing shiftingcultivation were also allocated a fixed area forcultivation, with the term of leasehold ownershipranging from 20 to 30 years. In consequence, the livingspace of groups that formerly depended on shiftingcultivation has now been limited to the few hectares ofland allocated to them.


Table 2. List of Ethnicities in Viet Nam, 1998

PopulationNo. Ethnicity Subgroup (person)

1 Ba-na Ro Ngao, Ro Long (Y Lang), To Lo, Go Lar, Krem 189,500

2 Bo Y Bo Y, Tu Di 1,750

3 Brau 245

4 Bru-Van Kieu Van Kieu, Tri, Khua, Ma Coong 44,000

5 Cham Cham Hroi, Cham Pong, Cha Va Ku, Cham Chau Doc 114,000

6 Cho-ro 18,000

7 Chu-ru 11,450

8 Chut May, Ruc, Sach, Arem, Ma Lieng 2,800

9 Co 24,500

10 Cong 1,480

11 Co-ho Xre, Nop (Tu Nop), Co Don, Chil, Lat (Lach), To Ring 98,000

12 Co Lao Co Lao Xanh, Co Lao Trang, Co Lao Do 1,900

13 Co-tu 40,500

14 Dao Dao Do, Dao Quan Chet, Dao Lo Gang, Dao Tien,

Dao Quan Trang, Dao Thanh Y, Dao Lan Ten 650,000

15 E-de Kpa, Adham, Krung, Mdhu, Ktul, Dlie, Hrue, Bih, Blo,

Kah, Kdrao, Dong Kay, Dong Mak, Ening, Arul, Hwing,

Ktle, Epan 240,000

16 Giay 42,000

17 Gia-rai Chor, Hdrung (Hbau, Chor), Arap, Mthur, Tobuan 320,500

18 GieTrieng Gie (Gie), Trieng, Ve, Bnoong (Mnoong) 33,000

19 Ha Nhi Ha Nhi Co Cho, Ha Nhi La MÝ, Ha Nhi Den 14,500

20 Hmong Hmong Trang, Hmong Hoa, Hmong Do, Hmong Den,

Hmong Xanh, Na mieo 710,000

21 Hoa Quang Dong, Quang Tay, Hai Nam, Trieu Chau,

Phuc Kien, Sang Phang, Xia Phong, Thang Nham,

Minh Huong, He 1,100,000

22 Hre 101,000

23 Khang Khang Dang, Khang Hoac, Khang Don, Khang Sua,

Ma Hang, Bu Hang, Ma Hang Ben, Bu Hang Coi 4,650

24 Khome 1,050,000

25 Kho-mu 49,200

26 La Chi 9,780

continued next page


27 La Ha La Ha can (Khla Phlao), La Ha nuoc (La Ha ung) 1,600

28 La Hu La hu na (den), La-hu su (vang),La-hu phung (trang) 6,310

29 Lao Lao Boc (Lao Can), Lao Noi (Lao Nho) 11,200

30 Lo Lo Lo Lo hoa, Lo Lo den 3,350

31 Lu Lu Den (Lu Dam), Lu Trang 4,200

32 Ma Ma Ngan, Ma Xop, Ma To, Ma Krung 27,800

33 Mang Mang Gung, Mang Le 2,740

34 Mnong Mnong Gar, Mnong Nong, Mnong Chil, Mnong Kuenh,

Mnong Rlam, Mnong Preh, Mnong Prang, Mnong Dip,

Mnong Bu Nor, Mnong Bu Dang, Mnong Bu Deh 70,900

35 Muong Ao Ta (Au Ta), Moi Bi 1,150,000

36 Ngai 1,790

37 Nung Nung Giang, Nung Xuong, Nung An, Nung Inh, Nung Loi, Nung Chao,

Nung Phan Slinh, Nung Quy Rin, Nung Din 900,000

38 O-du 204

39 Pa Then 4,040

40 Phu La Phu La Lao-Bo Kho Pa, Phu La Den, Phu La Han 6,820

41 Pu Peo 410

42 Ra-glai Rai, Hoang, La Oang 77,100

43 Ro-mam 286

44 San Chay Cao Lan, San Chi 165,000

45 San Diu 106,000

46 Si La 620

47 Tay Tho, Ngan, Phen, Thu Lao, Pa Di 1,350,000

48 Ta-oi Ta Oi, Pa Co, Pa Hi 29,500

49 Thai Nganh Den (Tay Dam) Nganh Trang (Tay Don or Khao) 1,200,000

50 Tho Keo, Mon, Cuoi, Ho, Dan Lai, Li Ha, Tay Poong 58,500

51 Kinh 61,200,000

52 Xinh-mun Xinh Mun Da, Xinh Mun Nghet 12,500

53 Xo-dang Xo Trng, To Dra, Mnam, Ca Dong, Ha Lang, Ta Tri, Chau 108,000

54 Xtieng Bu Lo, Bu Dek (Bu Deh), Bu Biek 54,400

Source: Committee for Ethnic Minorities and Mountainous Areas/Central Ideology-Culture Department (2001).

Table 2 (continued)

PopulationNo. Ethnicity Subgroup (person)

INTRODUCTION

The ADB Policy on Indigenous Peoples identifiesa number of “structural constraints” to beovercome in order to achieve the effective

realization of policy objectives in development andpoverty reduction programs for the target groups. Theseinclude an appropriate legislative framework in DMCs;the necessary capacity of relevant developmentinstitutions and agencies; and an accurate and effectiverepresentation of indigenous peoples. Key issues includethe recognized legitimacy of the indigenous social andlegal institutions of indigenous peoples; and therecognition of the right of indigenous peoples to directthe course of their own development and change.Institutional strengthening and capacity-buildingsupport for indigenous peoples’ communities should beprovided as necessary and appropriate. Similarly, asnecessary and appropriate, support should be providedto relevant government entities.

The terms of reference for the regional technicalassistance required a review of these concerns at thecountry level. The consultants were instructed to “reviewthe policies, laws, guidelines, and directives at thenational level, identifying any areas or sectors that canaddress the needs of indigenous peoples/ethnicminorities in poverty reduction, and indigenous peoples/ethnic minority policy”.

This is a large subject, difficult to encapsulate in afew pages. As already discussed, the four projectcountries display great diversity with regard to theirtreatment of the target groups. At one end of thespectrum is the Philippines, with its relevant law andadministrative structures now firmly in place, togetherwith formal mechanisms for consultation with

indigenous peoples over development policies andprograms at different levels. The key issue in thePhilippines is the low degree of implementation of lawand policies that have now been in place for severalyears. At the other end of the spectrum is Indonesia,where there is no law or policy dealing specifically withadat customary law or indigenous groups. An intenseand informed debate is nevertheless under way,examining questions of ethnicity in development andpoverty reduction programs, and putting forward broadpolicy principles in the context of land issues, education,decentralization, and regional autonomy. There wasanimated discussion of these issues at the nationalworkshop held in Jakarta in September 2001, and keyquestions of policy formulation are addressed in theIndonesian action plan.

Somewhere between these two extremes lie theMekong countries of Cambodia and Viet Nam, in each ofwhich the situation is rather different. Cambodia has areasonably clear definition of the vulnerable groupsconsidered to be indigenous for practical developmentpurposes. Although a national policy has as yet to beformally approved, an active NGO movement has beenlobbying with much success to have reference toindigenous rights incorporated within sectoral law andpolicies, in particular those relating to land. In Viet Nam,with its longer history of state law and policies towardofficially recognized ethnic minorities, there is a quiteintensive policy debate at the present time. Key issues ofdiscussion include classification procedures, consultationand representation mechanisms, land and forestrypolicies, and the effectiveness and efficiency of projectsin a context of increasing investment in mountainousareas. Policy concerns also received prominent attentionduring the project’s national workshop held in Hanoi inSeptember 2001, and recommendations have also beenput forward in the Viet Nam action plan.

A Comparative Review

STATE LAW AND POLICIES3


The law and policy framework in each of theparticipating countries is now examined.

CAMBODIA: ADDRESSING THE NEEDSOF SMALL MINORITY GROUPS

Ethnic Minorities and the Constitution

Article 32 of the Constitution affirms that allKhmer citizens are equal before the law, enjoying thesame rights and freedoms. In the debate on theConstitution in the National Assembly, the definitionof “Khmer citizens” was discussed. It was agreed thatthe term would include some Cambodian ethnicminorities, such as the hill tribe people known as theKhmer Leu, and also the Khmer Islam.

Inter-Ministerial Committee for EthnicMinorities Development

The principal government agency withresponsibility for policies and programs toward ethnicminorities is the IMC, formed in 1994 at the same timethat a Highland Peoples Programme (HPP) wasestablished by UNDP. Its secretariat has since been basedat the Ministry of Rural Development.

In 2001, the Government decided to create a newDepartment of Ethnic Minorities Development, alsowithin the Ministry of Rural Development, to followup the work of the IMC. Its roles include the planningof programs for ethnic minority development;improving the current draft policy for highlandpeoples’ development; research on the identity,culture, and traditions of ethnic minorities; andtraining for development workers in cooperation withlocal and international development agencies activein highland areas.

Current Policies for Ethnic Minorities:Overall Appraisal

It cannot be said that Cambodia at present has anactive policy toward ethnic minorities. In September1997, the IMC submitted to the Government draft general

policy guidelines for the development of highlandpeoples. This emphasized the right of highland peopleto practice their own cultures, to adhere to their ownbelief systems and traditions, and to use their ownlanguages. It stressed that the Government shouldstrongly encourage and support local organizations orassociations established by highland peoples. The draftpolicy also included guidelines for different aspectsof development, ranging from the environment toinfrastructure. As of October 2001, it had not beenapproved by the Council of Ministers.

Land and Forestry Policies

In late 2000, the Government established a Councilfor Land Management Policy and issued a statement onthe subject. Its main objectives were to strengthen landtenure security and land markets, and prevent or solveland disputes; manage land and natural resources in anequitable, sustainable, and efficient manner; andpromote equitable land distribution. At the same time,attention was given to new forestry legislation.Substantial technical assistance was provided byinternational organizations including ADB, in the formof advice on the new draft legislation.

Security of indigenous peoples over theirtraditional lands and access by them to communalforests and their produce have been the main concernsof NGOs and international organizations working onbehalf of indigenous highland groups in northeasternCambodia, particularly Ratanakiri Province. These havepointed to the adverse effects of new investment in theprovince—commercial agriculture, logging concessions,and expanded Khmer immigration from the lowlands—and have insisted that the most serious issue facingindigenous communities of Ratanakiri is the rapid lossof lands and natural resources to meet their livelihoodneeds. They have undertaken strong advocacycampaigns, urging that new legislation contain specialprovisions to safeguard indigenous rights. Theseinitiatives have received support from internationalfunding agencies, which have urged the Government tocurb illegal logging activities.

After an intensive period of analysis and publicdebate, a new land law entered into force in July 2001.It contains a special chapter on the immovableproperties of “indigenous ethnic minorities,” which

State Law and Policies: A Comparative Review 21

recognizes the right of indigenous communities to useand manage their communal lands according to theirtraditional tenure systems. Implementing regulations forthese important provisions have as yet to be adopted.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries(MAFF) prepared a draft forestry law after several publicconsultations in 1999. By October 2001, the draft hadbeen approved by the Council of Ministers, and sent tothe National Assembly for its approval. Certain articlesof the draft contained reference to the livelihood andrights of indigenous communities. Concerns have beenexpressed, however, that the rights of rural communitiesto forest products and resources may be restricted.

Policies for Poverty Alleviation

The Government has a longstanding overallcommitment to poverty reduction. It was included asa primary objective of the First SocioeconomicDevelopment Plan, 1996–2000 (SEDP1), which firstintroduced market economy principles to nationalplanning. The draft second SocioeconomicDevelopment Plan, 2001–2005 (SEDPII), is based onfour key objectives: broad-based and sustainableeconomic growth, social and cultural development,the sustainable management and use of naturalresources, and improvement in good governance. Italso has sectoral plans to achieve synergy inapproaches to poverty reduction, covering agriculture,rural development, health, and education. Somespecific strategies could potentially incorporate theconcerns of indigenous peoples. At the Phnom Penhnational workshop held in September 2001, mentionwas made of the need to reflect these concerns inrevised versions of the plans.

INDONESIA: TOWARD ACOORDINATED POLICY?

The policy debate concerning indigenous orother ethnic minority groups is as yet at an early stagein Indonesia. The background and the reluctance ofgovernments until the late 1990s to consider ethnicdifferentiation were discussed in the earlier sectionon definition. Under the centralizing policies of the

New Order era, the Village Government Law of 1979is often singled out as the law and policy instrumentwhich had most effect in dismantling customaryinstitutions and practices.

Since 1999, there have been many signs of anemerging new policy on adat concerns. The policymeasures have not been coordinated by any singleministry or agency of the central Government for reasonsmentioned earlier. There is no agency with specificresponsibility for these concerns, or any real consensusas to the groups that could be defined as indigenous oradat communities.

Indonesia’s original independence Constitutionof 1945 recognizes the existence of traditional politicalentities derived from indigenous cultural systems. Theprinciples of adat are recognized in agrarian andforestry law. Yet, a number of issues of law and itsenforcement have not been adequately resolvedbecause of the unresolved tensions between customaryand positive law. For example, the 1960 Basic AgrarianLaw provides explicitly that adat law must not becontrary to the “national interest of the State based onnational unity.” Ambiguities can be illustrated withregard to the traditional hak ulayat (right of disposal).Because this right can only be exercised in accordancewith the national interest, an adat community has nolegal power to prevent the Government from grantingan outside party the right to use the land, if this isdeemed to be in the national interest. Large-scale landregistration has not taken place, in particular in theouter islands. In the absence of adequate mechanismsfor registering land rights enjoyed under customary law,problems have occurred throughout Indonesia whentraditional lands have been appropriated fordevelopment projects.

The 1967 Basic Forestry Law also underminedadat communities’ claims to natural resources, bydeclaring that all Indonesian forests including naturalresources are controlled by the State. Adat was not tointerfere with the implementation of forestry law andpolicy. Moreover, 1970 regulations to implement theforestry law specified that adat rights should notinterfere with forest exploitation and could besecondary to those of concession holders.

Since 1999, certain laws and regulations issuedby different ministries have reinforced different aspectsof adat rights. The 1999 Human Rights Act recognizesrights over ulayat land as part of cultural identity. A


1999 Regulation of the Minister of Agrarian Affairsprovides guidance for resolution of ulayat claims byadat communities. It calls for baseline studies todetermine where such ulayat lands still exist and torecord them on land registration maps.

New forestry legislation of September 1999 givesa certain emphasis to adat concerns. The Governmenthas the powers to decide whether adat communitiesexist as legally recognizable entities with a definitesocial organization. The criteria for this include a formaladat institution with recognized authority, a clearlydefined territory, a body of customary laws that are stillrecognized and enforced, and the dependence of peopleon forest products to meet their daily subsistence needs.However, the law provides for substantial fines forunlicensed uses, including swidden cultivation.12 Adatforest is still considered under this law as state forest.

Act No. 22 of 1999 concerning local governmentreplaces the 1979 Village Government Law. It providesclear opportunities for the revitalization of adatcommunities and institutions. It is now possible torestore and revitalize the various communal entities(known variously as the nagari, huta, kampung, bori,and marga in different regions), if the community sodesires. Community norms and values can be revitalizedincluding those relating to land tenure and naturalresource management. Members of villagerepresentative councils can be chosen by communities,with the powers to formulate village regulations togetherwith the village head.

There are signs that future law and policies willnow be influenced by principles of democratization,community participation, and respect for human rights.An indication is an Act of the year 2000 concerning theNational Development Program,13 which stresses thatlaws on natural resource management must be basedon sustainability, human rights, democracy, genderequality, and good governance. It also stresses theimportance of active community participation in resourcemanagement within the framework of protecting therights of the public and of adat communities. While it isstill difficult to predict the outcome of such initiatives,there are clear signs of greater participation in thelegislative process. This can be seen in draft decisions orActs of the Peoples’ Assembly on issues includingagrarian reform implementation and natural resourcemanagement, each of which contains reference tohuman rights principles and existing adat law.

THE PHILIPPINES: TAKING THE LEAD?

Indigenous Peoples Rights Act

Analysts and policymakers in other SoutheastAsian countries are now looking toward the Philippinesas a possible trendsetter in indigenous identity and rightsin development. The 1997 IPRA is a comprehensive pieceof legislation and needs to be placed in some context.Earlier legislation over the past decade had givenprogressively greater recognition to the concept ofindigenous rights. The 1987 Constitution, for example,contains provisions that recognize the “rights ofindigenous cultural communities within the frameworkof national unity and development,”14 together with thecreation of autonomous regions in both MuslimMindanao and the Cordillera region.15 Yet, theConstitution never came fully to grips with the key issuesof indigenous claims to ancestral lands and territories,related natural resources, or possible veto powers overmining and other investment projects within the areasclaimed by indigenous communities. Earlier legislationplaced restrictions on customary indigenous land useand ownership. The 1987 Constitution itself providedthat all “lands of the public domain, waters, minerals,coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces ofpotential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife,flora and fauna, and other natural resources are ownedby the State”.16 Complexities had also arisen over miningconcessions and activities, many of these located inindigenous areas. These were not altogether resolvedby the 1995 Mining Act,17 although this aimed topromote environmentally sustainable mining inconsultation with indigenous communities.

The IPRA addresses four main substantiveconcerns: rights to ancestral lands and domain, the rightto self-governance and empowerment, the right tocultural integrity, and social justice and human rights.For its implementation and consultative mechanisms,it established the NCIP, referred to above. Chapter VIIIof the IPRA deals with the important issue of principlesand procedures for the delineation and recognition ofancestral domains.

Ancestral lands and domain. The IPRA restores therights of indigenous peoples over their ancestral landsand domains. Ancestral land refers to the lands occupiedby individuals, families, and clans who are members of


indigenous cultural communities, including residentiallots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swiddenfarms, and tree lots. These lands are required to havebeen “occupied, possessed or utilized” by them or theirancestors “since time immemorial continuously to thepresent.” Ancestral domain is defined as areas generallybelonging to indigenous cultural communities, includingancestral lands, forests, pasture, residential andagricultural lands, hunting grounds, worship areas, andlands no longer occupied exclusively by indigenouscultural communities but to which they had traditionalaccess, particularly the home ranges of indigenouscultural communities who are still nomadic or shiftingcultivators. These are also required to have been heldsince time immemorial continuously to the present. Therights recognized include those of ownership of theancestral lands and domains, the right to develop andmanage lands and natural resources, the right toregulate entry of migrants and other entities, the rightto safe and clean water, the right to claim parts ofreservations, and the right to resolve conflicts accordingto customary law. Indigenous peoples also have the rightto transfer their lands and property among their ownmembers and to redeem those that have been acquiredfrom them through fraudulent transactions. Indigenouspeoples are required to maintain ecological balance andto restore denuded areas.

Self-governance and empowerment. These rightsand their exercise are defined by the IPRA and itsimplementing rules and regulations. They include theright of indigenous peoples to pursue their economic,social, and cultural development; to use commonlyaccepted justice systems, conflict resolutionmechanisms, peace building processes, and customarylaws; to participate in decision taking; to maintain anddevelop indigenous political structures; to havemandatory representation in policymaking bodies; todetermine their own priorities for development; and toestablish tribal villages. A key instrument for indigenousempowerment is the principle of free and informedconsent. Indigenous peoples within their communitiesshall “determine for themselves policies, developmentprograms, projects, and plans to meet their identifiedpriority needs and concerns,” and “shall have the rightto accept or reject a certain development interventionin their particular communities.”

Cultural integrity, social justice, and human rights.The IPRA establishes procedures and mechanisms for

safeguarding indigenous rights to cultural integrity. Itcovers the right to establish and control educationalsystems; recognition of cultural diversity; the right tonames, identity, and history; the protection of indigenoussacred places; the right to protection of indigenousknowledge systems and practices; and the right to scienceand technology. The IPRA also guarantees indigenousrights to basic social services including employment,vocational training, housing, sanitation, social security,infrastructure, transportation, and communication.

NCIP. The Commission, comprised of sevenindigenous Commissioners from different regions, is the“primary government agency responsible for theformulation and implementation of policies, plans andprograms to promote and protect the rights and well-being” of indigenous peoples, including recognition ofand rights to their ancestral domains. Its multiple tasksinclude: to serve as the medium through whichgovernment assistance to indigenous peoples can beextended; to review and assess the conditions ofindigenous peoples, and to propose relevant laws andpolicies to address their role in national development;to implement policies, programs, and projects on behalfof indigenous peoples, and also to monitor theimplementation thereof; and to issue certificates ofancestral land and domain title. An Ancestral DomainsOffice is to be responsible for the identification,delineation, and recognition of ancestral lands anddomains; and to be responsible for their managementin accordance with a master plan. It shall also issue,upon the free and prior informed consent of theindigenous peoples concerned, leases or permits for theexploitation of natural resources affecting the interestsof indigenous peoples and communities. An Office ofPolicy, Planning, and Research shall be responsible forthe formulation of appropriate policies and programs,including the development of a Five-Year Master Planfor indigenous peoples and communities. A consultativebody (consisting of traditional leaders, elders, andrepresentatives from the women and youth sectors ofdifferent indigenous peoples and communities) shall beconstituted by the NCIP on a periodic basis to advise iton the “problems, aspirations and interests” ofindigenous peoples.

Delineation and recognition of ancestral domains.The principles and procedures are set out at some lengthin the IPRA. Self-delineation shall be the guidingprinciple in the identification and delineation of


ancestral domains. The official delineation of ancestraldomain boundaries, including census of all communitymembers, shall be undertaken immediately by theAncestral Domains Office upon filing of the applicationby the indigenous peoples concerned. This is to be donein coordination with the communities concerned, andshall at all times include genuine involvement andparticipation by its members. There are a number ofrequirements as proof of the claimed areas, includingtestimony of elders and community under oath, writtenaccounts of indigenous customs and traditions, writtenaccounts of the indigenous political structure andinstitutions, survey plans, anthropological data, anddescriptive histories of traditional communal forests andhunting grounds. Other government agencies are to turnover the areas within ancestral domains that have beenmanaged by them. All government agencies shallhenceforth be strictly enjoined from issuing, renewing,or granting any concession, license or lease, or enteringinto any production-sharing agreement, without priorcertification from the NCIP that the area affected doesnot overlap with any ancestral domain.

In the IPRA law itself, no time frame is set fordealing with outstanding land claims and issuing thecertificates of ancestral domain titles (CADTs).

Implementation of the IndigenousPeoples Rights Act

Any discussion of the policy framework in thePhilippines needs some review of the implementationrecord of the IPRA in the 4 years it has been in forcesince 1997. The issuance of the certificates of ancestraldomain or land titles (the CADTs and CALTs) hascertainly been very slow. By February 2001, only 9 outof the 181 CADT applications and 347 CALTapplications had been approved. Moreover, there havebeen ample reports that several of these applicationswere approved on a haphazard basis, and did not abideby the procedures required by law.

Complex issues have arisen over mineralactivities within claimed lands. Under theImplementing Rules and Regulations for the IPRA,issued in June 1998, the right of indigenouscommunities is recognized to “suspend or stop anyproject or activity that is shown to have violated theprocess of securing free and prior informed consent,

or have violated the terms and conditions of suchpreviously granted consent.” Subsequently, an NCIPAdministrative Order18 exempted all leases, licenses,contracts, and other forms of concession withinancestral domains, which had existed prior to the entryinto force of the June 1998 IPRA regulations, from thecoverage of its provisions on free and informedconsent.

A serious challenge came to the IPRA inSeptember 1998, when its constitutional basis waschallenged in a petition to the Supreme Court. Thepresent Philippine administration has since declaredits support for the IPRA, with a commitment toindigenous rights generally, and specifically to a quickerdistribution of ancestral domain claims to indigenouspeoples.19 A new set of NCIP Commissioners was inplace by August 2001 after an intensive round ofconsultations with indigenous groups throughout thecountry. Steps have been taken to “mainstream”indigenous concerns within the programs and projectsof different government line agencies. This was, in fact,the main theme addressed during the Philippinenational workshop under this regional technicalassistance in October 2001.

In the meantime, indigenous organizations andthe NGOs acting on their behalf have expressed differentopinions regarding IPRA. Some point to an exacerbationof land conflicts at the community level after the law’sadoption. There are also concerns that ruralcommunities may for the first time assume or “imagine”an indigenous identity, in order to enjoy the rightsenshrined in the IPRA. With regard to the concept ofancestral domain itself, very different concerns havebeen expressed. Some argue that it may actuallyfacilitate the privatization of land that has previouslybeen held under customary tenure, for example, whenbusiness corporations negotiate with one or only a fewmembers of an indigenous community in order to secureaccess to their lands. Others have expressed the oppositeconcern, that the very concept of ancestral domainreflects a “static” concept of communal tenure, ratherthan the prevailing reality in which many indigenouscommunities have already adopted or adapted a westernproperty regime based on individual private tenure.

All of this points to the need to adapt ancestraldomain policy to the context and cultures of specificareas, taking account of local nuances and tenurearrangements.


VIET NAM: ETHNIC MINORITIES ANDPOLICY REFORM IN A

TRANSITIONAL ECONOMY

General Principles

Vietnamese basic principles regarding ethnicconcerns, as expressed in the Constitution and relevantlaws, state the following.

• Viet Nam is a united nation of all its ethnic groups.

• The State protects, strengthens, and consolidatesthe unity of all peoples, and prohibits any behaviorthat sows divisions among ethnic groups.

• All ethnic groups are equal.

• All members of all ethnic groups are automaticallycitizens of Viet Nam, equal in their rights andobligations.

• All ethnic groups have the right to use their ownlanguage and script, and to promote theirtraditional customs and culture.

• The State should conduct plans to narrow the gapbetween ethnic groups in terms of economic andcultural development.

The 1990s has marked a transition from a centrallyplanned to a market economy, requiring significant lawand policy reform. The decade has seen a new land codein 1993; a new code of forestry protection in 1993; anda number of decisions and decrees relating tosocioeconomic development, poverty reduction,sedentary cultivation, health and education, and otherimportant issues in the mountainous and remote areaswhere ethnic minorities reside. Among more recentdevelopments has been the establishment in 1998 anddissemination of democratic regulations at thecommune level. There have also been growing concernsto target economic and social assistance programsdirectly at ethnic minority groups, rather than at themainly mountainous areas where they reside togetherwith ethnic Kinh groups. Some of these issues, policies,and programs are reviewed below.

Overall Policy Concerns

The Government of Viet Nam has made manyactive efforts to include ethnic minorities in thenational development process. It has done thisthrough regulations, subsidies, and specialdevelopment programs. There have also beencontinued efforts to include ethnic minorities inpolitical structures at both national and local levels.Ethnic groups are represented at the NationalAssembly by the Council of Nationalities. Within theGovernment, the lead coordinating agency is CEMMA,which has ministerial status and develops policies forethnic minorities. Several other government agenciesare also involved in projects and programs targetingethnic minorities, including the Ministry of Planningand Investment, the Ministry of Labor, Invalids andSocial Affairs, the Ministry of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment (MARD), and the ministries of health,transportation, and education and training. Atprovincial and local levels, each ministry has its owndepartment and office.

While the general principles of national andinterethnic relations have been outlined above, theGovernment has not as yet issued any comprehensivepolicy statement regarding ethnic minorities. For thisreason one of the concerns identified at the project’snational workshop in Hanoi was the need for overallguidelines for a system of policies on ethnic minoritygroups, leading from basic principles to specificpolicies and orientation. There is a need to reexaminesome conceptual underpinning of presentanthropological theory and policies under whichethnic groups have been based on different scales of“civil ization and culture.” According to theevolutionary theory followed by conventionalVietnamese ethnology the majority Kinh (with theirthousands of years of wet-rice cultivation) have comefirst. The larger of the ethnic minority groups, alsowet-rice cultivators, have been ranked next to theKinh. The smaller ethnic minority groups, whopractice shifting cultivation or hunting and gathering,are seen as needing to be “civilized.”

Such ratings have not only affected attitudesbetween majority and minority ethnic groups. Theyhave also affected the relationships between minoritygroups with relatively larger and smaller populations.The national workshop recommended field studies to


examine what effect these policies (and social orpsychological attitudes) have had on policymakers,as well as on the smaller ethnic groups. It alsorecommended more in-depth studies to examine theimpact of lowland cultural patterns on approachestoward ethnicity. It urged furthermore that ethnicitybe considered as a cross-cutting issue in all policies,programs, and management decisions. All aspectsincluding culture, language, and the characteristicsof ethnic groups should be considered in the designand implementation of all policies and programs.

New Economic Zones and Resettlement

Since the 1960s, Viet Nam has sought toestablish “new economic zones” in mountainousareas, organized as state agricultural or forestryenterprises or as new economic villages. In 1968, itlaunched its campaign for settlement of shiftingcultivators and for fixed cultivation practices.Sedentarization has since been considered a keyaspect of the government’s efforts for povertyreduction and hunger eradication. Sedentarizationstrategies include support for agricultural production,and technical training and technology transfers. It hasbeen estimated that as many as 4.5 million people,mainly Kinh, were settled in the New Economic Zonesin mountainous areas or the southern lowlandsbetween 1975 and 1995.20 MARD continues toimplement a resettlement program.

Vietnamese policies on sedentarization havebeen subject to critical review. It has been observedthat poverty levels can remain high after settlementand that some farmers return to shifting cultivationpractices. Managers of this program have oftenattributed its poor results to the remoteness and lowawareness of ethnic minority communities, the lackof staff and facilities to carry out the work, and thelow levels of investment allocated to it. Recent policyreviews have also focused on alternatives tosedentarization. At a September 2001 meeting of thePoverty Task Force in Haiphong, for example, it wasproposed that the current focus on “sedentarizing”ethnic minority groups could usefully be replaced by

much more intensive research into agriculturaloptions for upland farming systems.21

Land Allocation Policies

Until the 1980s, Vietnamese land policy wasbased on state enterprises and cooperative farmingunits, although a limited amount of individuallandownership was permitted. Reforms to“decollectivize” landownership commenced in 1981,permitting farm households to hold land-use rights toannual cropland for up to 15 years, and to forestlandfor longer periods. The 1993 land law then granted tofarm households the rights to transfer, exchange, lease,mortgage, and inherit; and extended use rights to 20years for annual crops and 50 years for perennial crops.By 1998, some 86% of classified agricultural land hadbeen allocated to almost 8 million households.22

In upland areas, however, the process of landallocation has been slower and more problematic.Some ethnic minority farmers have been able toexpand significantly their cultivation of wet rice,thereby supporting their household claims. Others insome localities—such as the Tay, Dzao, Gia Rai, andM’Nong—have been able to develop commercialcoffee and fruit farming. There have also beenconcerns at inequitable land distribution, at a growthin land disputes, and at shortages of land for farmingin some ethnic minority areas and households.Policymakers have discussed ways to settle thesedisputes in ethnic minority areas, including thoserelating to land occupation, land transfers, andinheritance.23 The UNDP Poverty Task Force has notedthat land allocation has been slow for ethnicminorities; and that enabling ethnic minorities toacquire formal titles as groups or individuals willrequire additional effort and investment, as well as adifferent approach by local authorities. On the sameissue, the project’s national workshop advocated theimmediate implementation of a baseline survey, to seewhether there is a need for drastic land and forestryadjustments in the central highlands, based on localcharacteristics and with special attention paid totraditional ownership.


Hunger Alleviation and Poverty Reduction

The 1996 Communist Party Congress set the goalof reducing the percentage of those living in povertyfrom 25 in 1996 to 10 in 2000. A hunger elimination andpoverty reduction program (HERP) included among itsgoals addressing the growing problems of landlessness,food subsidies, service improvement, expansion ofenterprise in rural areas, reducing school and healthfees, and increasing the government budget for ruralareas. A special program, known as “Program 135,” waslaunched in 1998, addressing socioeconomicdevelopment in the most disadvantaged communes.24

It was targeted at 1,715 communes in Region 3 of thecountry (including over 1,500 communes inmountainous areas), and most of the intendedbeneficiaries have been ethnic minorities. The targetgroup was more recently increased to 2,000 communes.While the main focus of the program has been oninfrastructure, the approach has been participatory.Decisions as to what projects should be funded havebeen decided in public by local communities.

A program to support ethnic minorities withspecial difficulties has been implemented at the

provincial level since 1994. Activities have includedsupport in agricultural production and support foreveryday essential materials. Since 1998, it has beenmerged with the HERP.

Education Policies

Educational policies in ethnic minority andmountainous areas include the two major objectivesof (a) eradicating illiteracy among ethnic minorities,and (b) developing a cadre of trained ethnic minorityofficials. Vietnamese is the main language used in theschooling system. Special ethnic minority boardingschools have been established in many mountainousareas, but only a small number of ethnic minoritystudents from the better connected families tend tohave access to them. The project’s national workshopidentified several policy concerns. These include theneed to improve children’s access to schools andprovide teachers from the same ethnic group; devise asuitable curriculum closely linked to ethnic minorityculture; and maintain traditional forms of educationthrough family, family clan, and traditional villages.

INTRODUCTION

It is of obvious importance to identify, and if possiblemeasure, poverty trends for indigenous and ethnicminority communities in comparison with other

sectors of the national population. In other parts of theworld, notably in Latin America, empirical research hasestablished some clear correlation between ethnicityand poverty. Using conventional socioeconomicindicators, based either on income data or unsatisfiedbasic needs, this research has demonstrated quiteconvincingly that indigenous ethnic groups arerepresented disproportionately among both the poor andthe extreme poor. And more disturbingly, there areindications from regression analysis that such trends havebeen worsening over the past 1 or 2 decades.25

This is an issue of very obvious importance forpoverty reduction strategies. As will be seen furtherbelow, more and more ADB interventions in recent yearshave been directed at areas where indigenous peoplesand ethnic minorities are located. The interventions maynot necessarily be directed at these peoples as targetgroups. The interest may rather be in developinginfrastructure or in resource extraction in regions wherepreviously isolated peoples are physically located.However, there are indications that some recent povertyreduction programs are being prepared or implementedin geographical areas where indigenous peoples andethnic minorities reside, precisely because these havebeen identified as poverty target areas.

There can be a considerable difference betweentargeting the geographical areas where indigenouspeoples reside, and identifying the indigenous peoplesand ethnic minorities as specific target groups fordevelopment assistance. As our earlier review hasshown, indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities are

only rarely the sole inhabitants of physical and territorialspace. In all the four project countries, they areincreasingly sharing this space with other ethnic groups.This may be a longstanding historical process, as in thecase of the “Christian” settlement in the southernPhilippines throughout the 20th century. It may be a morerecent development, as in the case of the Indonesiantransmigration programs under the New Order era, theKinh settlement in the Vietnamese uplands, and the veryrecent Khmer settlement in Cambodia’s northeasternprovinces. Moreover, indigenous and ethnic minoritylifestyles can be more varied than a subsistence andcommunity-based economy. They may participate in bothurban and rural labor markets, often on a seasonal basis,and also undertake migrant labor. Indigenous womenmay earn their livelihood in urban areas as domesticworkers or even in the entertainment industry. There isalso likely to be considerable economic differentiationboth within and between diverse ethnic minority groups.

Analysis of poverty trends is bound to be acomplex exercise. For an overall assessment, thestatistical data are generally not available. In most ofthe countries, census figures and household surveysare not disaggregated by ethnic group or origin.Moreover, a rigorous assessment of poverty trends forethnic groups would require a far longer time framethan the few months available for this study. Baselinedata would have to be collected over a period of atleast several years.

In only one of the project countries, Viet Nam, arethere sufficient data at the national level to reviewpoverty trends for ethnic minorities over a fixed timeperiod. In the Philippines some attempt has been madeto assess the relationship between ethnicity and poverty,extrapolating from the data of the National StatisticsOffice. In Cambodia and Indonesia, data are inadequateto permit even attempting an exercise of this kind. This

Quantitative Indicators and Measurement

POVERTY TRENDS4


analysis draws mainly on the fieldwork and participatorypoverty assessments conducted during the project.

Any correlation between ethnicity and povertyremains inconclusive on the basis of the very limiteddata presently available, using the more conventionalindicators. Some ethnic minority groups areexperiencing disproportionate poverty, as appears to bethe case in Viet Nam. In the Philippines, there appear tobe significant differences between the poverty indicatorsfor indigenous peoples in the north and the south of thecountry. In Indonesia, despite the lack of data, resourcemanagement policies of recent decades that havecaused an “impoverishment” of indigenous communitiesare clear concerns. In Cambodia, where the evidence isparticularly anecdotal, a growth in poverty for somehighland indigenous peoples can be attributed to thelack of alternative livelihood opportunities when accessto forest produce has been reduced.

CAMBODIA AND INDONESIA

In neither Cambodia nor Indonesia are datacurrently available to allow for meaningfuldisaggregation by ethnic group at the national level.

In Cambodia, 36% of the population is estimatedto have a per capita consumption of less than US$14per month. Some 90% of the poor live in rural areas. Itmay be noted that a recent participatory povertyassessment of ethnic minorities conducted by ADBfocuses on such groups as the ethnic Vietnamese as wellas indigenous upland groups.

In Indonesia, poverty incidence was last estimated,in August 1999, at 18.2%. It is widely known that povertyincreased dramatically in Indonesia as a whole beforethe country was affected by the economic and financialcrisis of 1997. A recent ADB assessment of poverty inIndonesia26 shows that one aspect of regional disparitiesdeserves special attention. The resource-rich provinces,which include East Kalimantan and Irian Jaya amongothers, are among the richest provinces in terms of percapita GDP, and yet the living standards of the populationare generally lower in terms of per capita consumption.The discordance arises because a considerable proportionof the GDP is transferred to other parts of the country.“This transfer and the resulting depression of livingstandards have understandably led to serious discontent

and a potentially explosive situation in these provinces.”The ADB study also identifies discrepancies betweenregional and national averages, covering such indicatorsas literacy rates. “While most of the provinces had literacyrates close to the national average, there were somesignificant deviations such as West Nusa Tenggara (66%)and Irian Jaya (68%). It is noteworthy that all these regionsare also among the ones that suffer from the highestincidence of poverty measured by consumptionexpenditure.”

PHILIPPINES

In the Philippines there are no reliable data at thenational level because ethnicity is not captured innational statistics. During the study, an attempt wasmade to extrapolate from the data of the NationalStatistics Office compiled by geographic region. Asindicated earlier, this can be only a very rough indication,given the demographic composition of the country andthe tendency of different ethnic groups to coexist in thesame area. The very tentative findings are that, except ina limited number of regions, indigenous peoples are notlikely to comprise the absolute poorest groups in thePhilippines, using conventional socioeconomicindicators. Rather, there is a growing risk ofimpoverishment, as their traditional lands and naturalresources come under increasing threat. Moreover, therecan be marked poverty gaps within the indigenouscommunities. There do appear to be cases of significantgrowth rates for some indigenous communities, but theexistence of significant inequalities within these sameareas impedes equitable access to the benefits of thiseconomic growth.

Some idea of indigenous poverty trends can begained from comparing the ethnographic regions of theNCIP with poverty analysis for specific geographicregions. In Mindanao, for example, the povertyindicators are particularly severe. A recent ADB study27

found that the regions with the highest poverty incidencewere the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao(with 56.7% poverty incidence) and the largelyindigenous area of Caraga (55.4%). Western Mindanao,which ranked second nationwide in terms of ruralpoverty incidence, is part of the NCIP’s NorthwesternMindanao ethnographic area. In 1995, the population

Poverty Trends: Quantitative Indicators and Measurement 31

of this region was placed at 1.1 million persons, of whomapproximately 46% were indigenous with the Subanenas the most numerous ethnic group (Table 3).

The methodology for the preliminary survey givenbelow was to select regions where indigenous peoplescomprise at least 40% of the population.28 As of 1997,one of these regions, Caraga, had the second lowestof all regional average incomes for the Philippines, asmuch as 42% lower than the national average. For thedecade between 1988 and 1997, the growth rate in theregional average incomes nevertheless matched thenational trend in general terms.

However, when the data are further disaggregatedto focus on poor families and individuals, a somewhatdifferent picture emerges. At the national level, povertyincidence among families declined by nearly 10%, from40.2% in 1988 to 31.8% in 1997. The decline was muchless in the predominantly indigenous regions. In two ofthe regions, the incidence of poverty actually increaseddespite average family incomes growing at more thanthe national rate. Poverty incidence among individualsdeclined at an even faster rate than for families (from49.5% in 1988 to 36.8% in 1997). The drop was again

much less in the predominantly indigenous areas. In thecase of the Cordillera Administrative Region, povertyincidence for individuals remained at the same levelthroughout the decade. In the case of Region X, it wasworse in 1997 than in 1988.

Using “poverty gap indicators”—which helpdistinguish between the situation of the poor andextreme poor—there are signs that poverty is deeperin predominantly indigenous rural areas than a decadeago. From the Cordillera experience, it is likely that theintensification of extreme poverty levels can beexplained by the different returns for their labor toagricultural enterprises at different ends of thespectrum: on the one hand, small and rainfedsubsistence farms, and on the other, high-value cashcrop enterprises.

The above represents a very preliminary andrudimentary analysis, given the scarcity of basic data.However, ethnic differentiation is clearly accepted inthe law and policy framework, and where there is scopefor far more systematic assessment of these concerns.It is to be hoped that statistical survey methods will berefined to permit better understanding of these issues.

Table 3. Annual Poverty Thresholdsa and Incidence of Poor Families:b Regional vs. National,Philippines, 1988, 1991, 1994, and 1997

National 4,777 40.2 7,302 39.9 8,885 35.5 11,319 31.8CAR 5,116 41.9 8,332 48.8 10,853 51.0 12,836 42.5Region II 4,573 40.4 7,035 43.3 8,316 35.5 9,880 32.1Region X 4,523 46.1 6,433 53.0 7,938 49.2 10,440 47.0Region XI 4,876 43.1 6,544 46.2 8,201 40.3 10,503 38.2

CAR = Cordillera Administrative Region.a Annual per capita income required to satisfy nutritional requirements (2,000 calories) and other basic needs.b Proportion of poor families (whose annual per capita income falls below the poverty threshold) to total number of families.Source: Technical Working Group on Income and Poverty Statistics, National Statistics and Coordinating Board.Note: Approximate conversion rates. In 1988, US$1 = P21; in 1991, US$1 = P27; in 1994, US$1 = P26; and in 1997, US$1 = P26

(but fell to P39 at the end of the year).

AnnualPoverty

Threshold,per capita

(peso)

Incidenceof PoorFamilies

(%)Region

AnnualPoverty


(peso)


(%)

AnnualPoverty


(peso)


(%)

AnnualPoverty


(peso)


(%)

1988 1991 1994 1997


VIET NAM

Of the four project countries, Viet Nam is the onlyone where there have been systematic efforts tomeasure the correlation between ethnicity and poverty.It has proved possible to do this over a period of time,first because the census figures and living standardssurveys classify the population according to ethnicorigin, and because the data on poverty and povertytrends are quite well organized. Government agenciessuch as the Ministry of Planning and Investment andthe Ministry of Labor, Invalids, and Social Affairs havedevoted considerable efforts to this, in the context ofthe 2001–2010 Socioeconomic Development Strategy,the comprehensive poverty reduction and growthstrategy, and International Development Goals. Muchinternational assistance has been provided through aPoverty Task Force (discussed later).

The main sources are the Viet Nam LivingStandards Surveys (VLSS) of 1992/93, and 1997/98. Theformer covered 4,234 Kinh/Hoa households and 566ethnic minority households; the latter covered 5,151Kinh/Hoa households and 848 ethnic minorityhouseholds.

Overall, Viet Nam’s poverty reduction targets andperformance have been impressive over the past decade.Poverty incidence declined by over 20% between 1993and 1998, from 58.1% in 1992/93 to 37.4% in 1998, andViet Nam has by now exceeded some of its internationaltargets in the areas of poverty reduction and primaryschool enrolment. Poverty is now concentrated in ruralareas, where some 94% of the poor reside. While povertyhas declined in all seven geographic regions of thecountry, it has done so at different rates. The regionswith the highest poverty incidence, such as the NorthernHighlands with 59% and the Central Highlands with 52%,include those with a high proportion of ethnic minoritiesin the population.29

During the 1990s, the overall living standards ofethnic minority groups in mountainous areas alsoimproved. The relative poverty rate neverthelessremained high, and the level of improvement was muchslower than in other parts of the country. Indicators showthat the gaps between ethnic minority and Kinh and Hoagroups increased rapidly. Between 1993 and1998, whilethe average expenditure per capita increased by 35%,this figure was only 20% for ethnic groups in the NorthernHighlands and 7% in the Central Highlands. While the

poverty rate in the country as a whole decreased by 19points during this period (down from 55% to 36%), thedecrease in the Northern Highlands was only 11 points,and the poverty rate remained high (down from 84% to73%). The poverty rate in the Central Highlands was notreduced at all, at 92% in 1993 and 91% in 1998.

Some data are also available at the provinciallevel. In April 2001, the Department of Labor, Invalids,and Social Affairs in Kon Tum Province conducted acomprehensive poverty assessment within theprovince. As shown in Table 4, based on data providedon the “Report of the Situation of the Poor” in Kon Tum,ethnic minority households account for a very highpercentage of poor households compared with that inthe total population.

Table 4. Incidence of Poverty in Kon TumProvince, Viet Nam

EthnicMinority

Poor Kinh Poor PoorHouseholds Households Households

District (%) (%) (%)

Kon Plong 48.7 9.5 59.6

Dak Ha 29.5 12.6 51.5

Dak To 47.9 20.7 60.7

Ngoc Hoi 36.4 13.2 42.2

Sa Thay 32.9 28.9 36.8

Dak Glei 41.7 1.0 44.5

Kon Tum town 18.2 8.9 46.7

TTTTTotalotalotalotalotal 31.931.931.931.931.9 12.412.412.412.412.4 50.150.150.150.150.1

A recent study conducted for the World Bank30

used the VLSS survey data and the 1999 Population andHousing Census to examine the difference in livingstandards between the Kinh/Hoa majority and otherethnic groups, and how these have changed betweenthe 1993 and 1998 surveys. The study offers anexplanation of why many ethnic minority householdsremain so poor. Despite constituting just 14% population,ethnic minorities now make up 29% all the poor in VietNam. Moreover, of 14 provinces with rural povertyexceeding 60%, 12 have populations in which ethnicminorities make up more than half the total. Ethnic

Poverty Trends: Quantitative Indicators and Measurement 33

groups found to have performed best economically werethose most assimilated within Kinh society, while theleast assimilated groups (particularly those in the CentralHighlands and the Hmong in the Northern Highlands)have been left behind. Thus, the study observes that themost difficult challenge for public policy is to bring thosemost unlike the Kinh into the economic mainstream.

The study also aimed to detect differences amongethnic minority groups by examining such items asexpenditures and schooling. The analysis washampered by the fact that the VLSS surveys did notsample enough ethnic minority households to allowfor much disaggregation. Moreover, the 1992/93 surveyonly allowed for 10 different ethnic groupings, ratherthan the official list of 54 different ethnic groups.However, a distinction among 3 broad categories (theKinh, Hoa, and Khmer; one composite category forethnic minorities that traditionally live in the CentralHighlands; and another for those that originate in theNorthern Highlands) showed major differences. Thepoorest groups were unambiguously the minorities ofthe Central Highlands. Their relative position fell froman expenditure level that was half the national averagein 1993 to a little more than a third of the nationalaverage by 1998. The researchers identified significantdifferences between the situations of ethnic minoritiesin different regions. Northern Highland minorities hadbenefited from economic growth in the 1990s, whereasthe position of the Central Highland minorities hadstagnated. They then tried to derive policy prescriptionsfrom their analysis, arguing that diversity in thesocioeconomic development experiences of thedifferent ethnic minorities indicated the need for asimilar diversity in the policy interventions designedto assist them.

Social assessment carried out by ADB in thecontext of project preparation in Viet Nam’s central

region similarly identified higher than average povertylevels for “indigenous” ethnic minority groups. Studieshave shown that the rural poor are predominantly fromindigenous groups. Indigenous households, togetherwith female-headed households, are poorer than theaverage. Indigenous peoples’ households suffer anaverage of 5.5 months food deficit compared to 3.3months for Kinh groups and appear to have lower accessto irrigated land than the Kinh immigrants to the area.The latter are better off than those born in the area,either indigenous or Kinh, suggesting that the Kinh carryskills and knowledge, including knowledge of marketsand government services, that allow them to prospereven if they suffer a few initial years of poverty.31

A recent paper on poverty reduction among ethnicminorities, conducted for the Poverty Task Force, aimsto identify structural and other factors behind thegrowing “poverty gap” between mainstream Kinh/Hoagroups and certain ethnic minorities. Minorities have asomewhat lower maximum educational attainment leveland substantially less access to water surfaces andbenefits from remittances. They may actually have moreagricultural land, but it is unlikely to be irrigated.Geographical location, involving remoteness and pooraccess to infrastructure, is an important explanation forlower consumption compared with local Kinh people.Infant mortality, child mortality, and under-5 mortalityrates show enormous geographic differences, whichcorrelate with high concentrations of ethnic minorities.In the Central and Northern Highlands the regionalfigures are above the rural average for Viet Nam, andthere are indications that in some parts, infant mortalityactually increased over the 1989–1994 period, while thenational average remained the same.

Issues related to land tenure and farmingpractices, and ethnic minority perceptions in this regard,are analyzed further in the following section.

INTRODUCTION

A qualitative assessment is in many ways far moreimportant than a more statistical or quantitativeeffort to measure poverty trends for these

groups. Throughout the regional technical assistanceand in some of the national workshops, stakeholderspreferred to use the term impoverishment rather thanpoverty.32 It is a term with powerful overtones,insinuating that policies, processes, and structuralfactors may be reducing these groups to a situation ofgrowing poverty.

In each country, the national consultants wererequested in their fieldwork to focus on perceptions ofpoverty trends. Did indigenous peoples and ethnicminorities feel that they were meeting more of theiraspirations, or alternatively feel that they were gettingpoorer? And what were the reasons for this? In focus-group discussions, consultants were advised to askhow things have changed for the communities over aperiod of 1 or even 2 decades. They were also asked tofocus on structural factors, such as land use andoccupation, which could affect livelihoods and povertyindicators. For example, did people have more or lessland than in the recent past? Did they have moresecurity over the land? Had they been losing land tooutside groups? Had they changed their patterns of landuse and agricultural cultivation? Similarly with regardto incomes and the marketing of produce, they wererequested to detect trends over time. Werecommunities producing more for the market than a fewyears ago? Through whom did they market theirproduce, and did they receive any assistance? Werepeople seeking more credit than previously? And forwhat purposes? With regard to health, a key question

was whether new problems were emerging. Had therebeen any recent improvements in the health situation,perhaps as a result of medical services? Were any newproblems emerging, perhaps as a result of resettlement,sedentarization, or changing lifestyles?

The consultant teams were free to choose theirown methodology, but not to use questionnairetechniques or to tabulate responses. They wereencouraged to provoke discussion in an open-endedway. Qualitative assessments were also a main themeaddressed in the six provincial workshops.

In this section some main findings are presentedby country.

CAMBODIA

The principal concerns of indigenous highlandpeople in Cambodia appeared to relate to land and foodsecurity, health, and education. At the project’sprovincial workshop held in Ratanakiri, much discussionrelated to health and education concerns. In fieldworkheld after the workshop, there was ample reference toland and food security, and to the problems caused byincreasingly more limited access to forest produce.

Threatened Land Security

At present villages do not have seriousproblems of land use. But the next generation ofindigenous peoples will not have enough land fortheir field and paddy rice agriculture.

The above concerns were expressed in Tuy village,Ratanakiri. Until the mid-1990s, villagers had easy

Qualitative Assessment

PERCEPTIONS OF POVERTY5


access to lands, forests, and wildlife. But the richnessof these resources in Tuy village attracted new settlersand logging companies. Illegal logging was unrestrainedbetween 1997 and 1999. The major problems faced byvillagers are now directly related to land pressure. Theyhave increasing difficulty finding good quality land fortheir swidden fields, and experience declining rice yieldsand an increase in weed pests. The land in Tuy villageis now being encroached upon by outsiders and newsettlers. Villages are starting to take protectivemeasures, such as planting cashew nuts and other fruittrees along the main road in order to prevent outsiderstaking possession of fallow land. Although the localeconomy is becoming more monetized, villagers havelittle means to earn cash income. Some families havebegun to sell land that was formerly perceived asbelonging to the whole community. Others have onlysold part of the land they cultivated, while remaining inthe village. They believe it is better to sell the land nowand receive some money, rather than lose it to investorswithout getting anything.

If a villager had cut [trees in] this place theelders would have fined them ever so much. Butbecause it is the Government they will not daresay anything.

In the above case, a private individual hadselected an area of forest where he wanted to developa coffee plantation. The area was the old site of aPhnong village in Dak Dam where sacred trees hadbeen planted. Other cases were described whereprivate individuals not associated with government hadattempted to cut down sacred primary forest, such asloggers in Stung Treng Province and commercialfarmers in Mondulkiri Province. Although in somecases offerings to the spirits had been negotiatedbetween village elders and these individuals, this wasoften not the case.

When private individuals seek to buy land,villagers are left prone to exploitation as they are notaware of their legal position or the market value of theland. In several cases, villagers had been misled byindividuals who introduced themselves as governmentrepresentatives. Even if villagers were reluctant to selltheir land they felt obliged to do so, and at a very lowprice. Land sale decisions appear to have been madein the belief that traditional survival mechanisms used

by highlanders, when land was under pressure froman increased population, were still an option.Traditionally, villagers would shift their villages andfarming sites. With the changes underway and plannedfor the highlands, this may no longer be an option.

Lack of Food Security

Before, we did not know about the value ofwildlife. Since outsiders have captured wildlife andtaken them in vehicles for sale, many peopleincluding provincial official staff, companies, andsome villagers see wildlife as equaling money. …Asyields of swidden fields drop, the forest becomesan increasingly important source ofsupplementary food. Tubers, forest fruits, andvegetable are essential in periods of rice shortage.

The livelihood of the indigenous people dependsmostly on swidden agriculture with a diet supplementedby fishing, hunting, and collecting forest vegetables andfruits. With low yield from their chamkar (upland farmingplots) they are likely to face rice shortages. An interviewwith Kanat Touch villagers indicated that paddy ricecultivation is now the most important source of income.The rice yield is higher and ensures enough rice tovillagers for the full year. The elders have made thischange because for generations they practiced swiddenagriculture, which left them little time for other ways ofgetting income for their family, and there werenevertheless 4-5 months of rice shortage per year.

Case studies in some villages indicated thatindigenous peoples had a preference for paddy ricecultivation, but faced problems of poor soil fertility andlack of seeds and equipment. In earlier times, paddy ricecultivation was not a preferred activity of indigenouspeoples, but highland communities understood thatswidden agriculture could not provide enough rice fortheir daily needs. The point was emphasized in casestudies in several villages of Ratanakiri and Stung Trengprovinces. However, indigenous peoples could notimmediately abandon swidden agriculture, because oftheir longstanding mixed crop tradition and other factorsincluding lack of draft animals. Moreover, in some areaspaddy fields were either insufficient or too far from thepreferred village location. A case study in Mondulkiriindicated that indigenous peoples preferred traditional

Perceptions of Poverty: Qualitative Assessment 37

upland cultivation techniques to working in paddy fieldslocated some 15 kilometers from their village.

In two villages, respondents complained generallyof increasing poverty over the preceding decade.Reasons put forward included population growth;declining agricultural production due to irregular rains,pests, and animal diseases; and such natural disastersas floods. Access to wildlife had also diminished as aresult of logging and uncontrolled hunting. Whereasforest products were used previously only to supplementthe diet, for construction, and occasional exchange forlowland products, they are now being used as a sourceof income. Villagers nevertheless experienced difficultyin collecting forest products, competing with betterequipped and also armed outsiders.

INDONESIA

In the course of field visits in Kalimantan andSulawesi, and during the project’s provincial workshopsheld in Palu and Samarinda, adat community membersexpressed different perceptions of their povertyproblems. It was noticeably in Indonesia thatindigenous respondents drew attention to the structuralfactors behind their present-day poverty—to the trendof impoverishment due to land, resource management,and other policy shortcomings. Reference was alsomade to cultural aspects and to problems deriving fromthe lack of basic facilities or services. These issues arediscussed below.

Lack of Recognition of Customary (Adat)Rights over Land and Natural Resources

During the provincial workshop held in Palu,Central Sulawesi, in June 2001, many representativesof adat communities identified the main cause of theirpoverty as lack of recognition and protection of theirrights to land and natural resources. This had resultedin dispossession of these communities from theirtraditional lands and resources. Mention was made ofa 1992 provincial decree, which extinguishedcommunal ulayat rights over land. In the words of avillage elder from Palolo, Donggala, in CentralSulawesi: “How can we afford to live, if the Government

takes our farm to be part of a conservation area? Thiswill not only make us poor, but will make us unable tolive. We will defend our land, no matter what the risk.”

In East Kalimantan, adat community informantsinsisted that they are wealthy, in terms of their naturalresources. However, some villagers feel that they haveexperienced discrimination with regard to the benefitsof this wealth. In the words of one adat communitymember, “The Government only thinks about theincoming people and not us.”

The need for cash has also led some adatcommunities to sell their lands to outsiders, especiallysince the availability of transport has improved accessto their village areas. This process has been evident invillages close to Palu, for example.

Degradation of Lands and NaturalResources

During the East Kalimantan workshop, several adatcommunity participants stated that their poverty was alsocaused by some development activities within their areas,including logging, mining, and plantation agriculture.These had led to the pollution and degradation of theenvironment. In the words of one informant,

Before the plantation came in, our lifestyle wasprosperous. If we needed fruits, we just went tothe forest. It was the same if we needed medicines,we just went to the forest. But since this companycame in and burned our forest, everything hasgone. Our life became difficult. The forest fire hasbeen a disaster for us.33

Lack of Education and Health Services

Education and health services were oftenmentioned as a key determinant of poverty. As expressedby the village head of Toro in Central Sulawesi, also anadat elder in the community: “The adat communities donot feel poor although they live in a subsistence manner.This is because they do not mainly use material criteriawhen they measure their poverty or prosperity, as theurban people usually do. For Toro people, the main causeof poverty is the low quality of human resources, due tothe lack of education and bad condition of health.”


In Benung, East Kalimantan, adat communitymembers complained of the lack of health facilities intheir village. The hospital and health center were veryfar from their village, and the cost of medicine andtreatment was very expensive for them, whiledegradation of forests had made it difficult to securemany of the traditional medicines which had previouslybeen obtained easily enough from surrounding forests.Similar complaints were echoed by persons from Toroand Kalora villages in Central Sulawesi.

Lack of Infrastructure and TransportFacilities, and Marketing Problems

Because of their remote location, adat villagesgenerally lack adequate roads and transport facilities.This makes it difficult to secure fair prices for theirproducts at marketing outlets. Transportationproblems have been perceived by the people of theTogian islands in Luwuk Banggai, Central Sulawesi,as a major obstacle to the improvement of their localeconomy. Indigenous farmers and fishers acceptprices well below the mainland market rates fromtraders who travel through their region.

Toro villagers in Central Sulawesi also complainedof the price fluctuations for such agricultural productsas cocoa and cloves. In East Kalimantan, informantscomplained of increases in fuel prices. This had led toincreased transport costs, in turn causing price increasesfor such basic commodities as rice, sugar, and salt. Thesecommodities are transported from distant cities to theremote adat community areas.

Limited access to information can also contributeto poverty problems. An example was provided by thecommunity of Sekolaq Darat, East Kalimantan. In aproject supported by ADB, farmers without access toinformation on how to choose good seed for their rubbertrees received seed of inferior quality. For a number ofyears following, the poor seed quality affectedproductivity and outcomes in rubber cultivation.

Perceptions of Laziness and Vices

As in the other project countries, laziness wasoften put forward by the indigenous peoples themselvesas major factor behind their poverty.

Examples can be cited among the Manggarai andSumba peoples of East Nusa Tenggara. Adatcommunities distinguish between three categories ofpeople based on their socioeconomic status. The atandengo (poor people) are those who do not ownlivestock and do not cultivate commercial crops,possessing only a parcel of subsistence land, which islikely to be small and infertile. According to theperceptions of the Sumba, such poverty can beattributed mainly to the weak or lazy character of thepersons concerned. The ata kabisu are the commonpeople who are neither poor nor wealthy. The ata ratoare the wealthy strata of their society, those with widekinship and human relationships, who have manyanimals and extensive lands cultivated with cash crops,have influence and authority in the village, and havethe capacity to host adat festivities including burialceremonies. Sumbas see the ability to develop goodsocial relationships, as well as diligence and capacityto work, as important factors behind wealth creation.

In East Kalimantan, it is recognized that thegambling habits of some community members havecaused their poverty. Gambling is seen originally asa recreational pastime, for example, during thekewangkey festivities to commemorate the death offamily members. However, gambling has nowbecome a professional business, run either byindividuals from the cities or by village membersthemselves.

Marginalization of Adat Institutions

During the provincial workshop in Palu, someadat communities and NGOs stated that themarginalization of adat institutions has indirectlycaused the poverty of these communities. It wasstated that, as a result of government policies,communities lack persons with the capacity andauthority to manage and control the use of landsand natural resources in their territorial areas. Thishad led to conflicts and to uncontrolled use ofnatural resources. Moreover, these conflicts aredrawn out in the absence of an authoritative figureto resolve them, as people are either unwilling orunable to bring these conflicts before the officialstate courts.


PHILIPPINES

Indigenous perceptions of poverty in thePhilippines are presented here from the Cordillera regionof northern Luzon and from Mindanao.

Cordillera

Each of the ethnolinguistic groups in theCordillera has its own terminology to refer to the“poor” and to “poverty.” For example, the Ibaloi ofsouthern Benguet and the Kankanaey of northernBenguet refer to the poor as ebiteg, and nabiteg,respectively. Both terminologies refer to one who hasno land to till and lacks the resources to be able towork. These resources are capital, transportation,machine sprayer, and kuliglig (a small farm machine).An ebiteg is also one who lacks opportunities like timeand money to learn new skills and ideas. He/she isusually indebted, without a regular source of income,and does not have amenities like a television,appliances, or liquefied petroleum gas for cooking.

The Kankanaey of Mountain Province call thepoor person a kudo. He/she is one who has no propertylike a payew (irrigated rice field) and therefore workson the land of the landed kadangyans. Since the kudo isfrequently without enough food and money, he/she isforced to stay with better-off relatives. The Box on thispage explains their concept of poverty in terms of theinverse—wealth.

The Tinggian of Abra identify the poor as pobreor panglaw. This refers to a person who issangkasapuluan, sangkaapuyan, which literally meanshand to mouth existence. They lack food to eat, moneyto buy basic commodities and to send children to school,cannot read and write, and their children are notproperly clothed. This is so because they lack resourcessuch as land and work animals

Notions of poverty are socioculturally defined. Forexample, the Tinggian of Abra believe that one indicatorof poverty is the physique of the person: being thin is anindicator of being poor, while being stout is an indicatorof being rich. One Tinggian elder even suggests that thesmell of a person is a marker of poverty. He said:“you can tell that one is poor when he/she stinks—he/she cannot even afford to buy bath soap.”

Kankanaey Traditional Notionsof Poverty and Wealth

TTTTTo understand the Kankanaey notions ofpoverty, one must understand their notions ofwealth or who are considered rich.

Traditionally, those considered rich are thosewho host thanksgiving feasts called sida or pedit.These religious feasts are offered to gods and thespirits of the ancestors. These feasts are rankedaccording to the number of pigs the host family canoffer to the gods and spirits. Ranking starts from 3pigs, then 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17 and so on. Thesequencing is always based on odd numbersbecause of the belief that the pig without a pairwill again attract more pigs when the host familyraises pigs again after the feast.

The bigger the feast a family hosts, the widerthe circle of relatives and clans can be invited. Thehost family gains more prestige as it invites a widercircle from within and outside the community. Withthe prestige comes the status of kadangyan orbaknang, which connotes wealth and the ability toshare such wealth. One was thus considered rich ifhe/she was able to hold feasts, during which thewealth was shared with many people in thecommunity. One may have dozens of cattle andlivestock but cannot gain the community’s respectwithout sharing the wealth through a feast.

Being rich is not synonymous withaccumulating wealth. Being rich is being able toshare one’s wealth through a sida or pedit. It follows,therefore, that poverty, at least according to oldtradition, is the opposite of the Kankanaey notionof wealth: being poor means being unable to invitea wide circle of relatives and clan members to a feast.

It is also useful to consider indigenous notionsof well-being. The poor people of the Cordillera, justlike anyone else, also desire a better life. Well-beingmeans being able to meet the basic needs to survive,like food (rice, sugar, salt) and clothing.34 At the sametime, perspectives also vary with ethnic andsocioeconomic status (perhaps even gender).


For some Ibaloi respondents of this study, TubaBenguet, good life means the state of being able tobuy other amenities in life such as gas for cooking, amechanized tractor to lighten the burden of farmwork, and a vehicle to transport their goods andproducts.

Well-being means good health. Among theAyangan of Ifugao, good life is synonymous with ahealthy life, ap-ap-hochan, which means that a personor a community is able to maintain a harmoniousrelationship with the environment and supernaturalworld. To attain good life, one should not ravage theforest and spoil the land, especially the ricefields. Oneshould nurture them and not leave them idle orunproductive; otherwise, one will get ill and suffermisfortune (Interview with Prof. Leah Enkiwe, 2001).

For the Iffialig of Barlig, Mountain Province,notions of well-being are linked to notions of health.The generic term for health is apu-apuor, whichmeans absence of illness or sickness. It can be notedthat women and men in Barlig have a positivedefinition of health. Health is not simply the absenceof illnesses but a condition of well-being or beingstrong in order to face the day-to-day challenges oflife in a cheerful way.

The indigenous description of a healthy personis amma ammay chi achor, which means goodcondition of the whole body. “When one isconditioned, one is healthy and strong.” Note thatthere is the implicit assertion here that one is able towork or function because the body is fully developedin relation to one’s need to work. Health is thenconsidered to be an integrated aspect of life of thepeople. For many men and women in Barlig, there isemphasis on the idea that “life is work,” if one is apu-apuor, nakursi or ammay ammay chi achor, then he orshe is capable of doing things.

Although indigenous worldviews persist, thesedo not constrain people in the villages of theCordillera. Their values and ideas of good life areincreasingly influenced by what they read, see, andhear outside their villages. Increasingly, people believethat education is a key to a better life, especially forthe younger generation. A college degree is a passportout of the drudgeries of a farming life. This is whythey work hard to be able to send their children tocollege. Some dream of sending one or two of theirchildren to work overseas.

Mindanao

Indigenous perceptions of poverty are firstconsidered among two separate ethnic groups ofMindanao, the Higaonon community of BukidnonProvince and the Ata-Manobo community of DavaoProvince. A more general analysis is then madeconcerning poverty perceptions of the indigenouspeoples of the island of Mindanao as a whole.

When asked for local terms for poor, Higaononrespondents refer to such Visayan terms as kabos andmakaluluy (the latter referring more specifically to a“pitiful condition.” Two youth leaders noted that the termis equated with the absence or lack of money while itsopposite, sapian (Visayan for rich) connotes the abilityto purchase material things such as houses, farmanimals, and vehicles. Traditionally, these were notwithin their consciousness until the entry of thedumagats or outsiders. Thus, the Higaonon appear toperceive themselves to be poor only to the extent thatothers say they are. One woman informant refused tobe referred to as “pitiful,” observing that she still hadfood on the table and did not have to resort to begging.

The nearest terminologies akin to poverty areagkapulog, t ingauhol and kalugan. Residentsexperience the first only because they do not havemoney to buy certain things they need, but thiscondition does not necessarily indicate that food isscarce. The second term refers to seasonal hunger.Although food is limited during this period, they canstill eat because the situation is temporary and can bemitigated. The third term indicates that a person is ina state of difficulty: while walking through a steep andnarrow terrain, when food is scarce, a conflict isunresolved, or violence is experienced.

The Higaonon perceive themselves to be indifficult circumstances brought about mainly by outsidefactors. According to ethnographic literature, they weretraditionally coastal dwellers enjoying the resourcesboth of the sea and the forests. However, they weresubsequently pushed into the interior areas, where theyhad to depend solely on the forest for their subsistence,household, health, and ceremonial needs. Theseinterior areas were in turn encroached upon bymigrants in the 1970s. A number of Higaonon lost tractsof land to outsiders for cash or for goods such as cloth,sardines, and alcoholic beverages.


The situation was further aggravated bygovernment policies on land tenure and resource use,greatly limiting access to forest zones. Then loggingactivities by the Nasipit and Agusan logging companiesfrom 1980 to the early 1990s affected the economic,social, and political condition of the community. Withthe depletion of forests, the more immediate impactwas the decrease of meat supply (deer, wild pig,monkey, chicken, frogs, birds, and fish). In addition,sources of honey became difficult to find. Wild chickensfor traditional healing practices became scarce.

Logging also greatly altered the cycle oftraditional farming systems. Due to more intensiveuse of the land, farm productivity lessened. Theproblem was aggravated by changes in the localclimate and build up of pests and disease. As a result,harvests have not been sufficient to sustain Higaononcommunities until their next cropping season. As thesupply of traditional food dwindled over the years,seasonal hunger became more prolonged. Nutritionpatterns also changed, with an adverse impact onhealth and consumption patterns—communityresidents learned to eat canned foods and instantnoodles. These are nutritionally inferior to theirtraditional diet of vegetation and animals from riversand forests.

When asked about their needs and aspirations,the Higaonon tend to refer to such issues asinfrastructure, production, social services,conservation, and promotion of indigenous systemsand governance.

Among Ata Manobo communities, the conceptof poverty is best encapsulated by the term kaayo-ayo, referring to an individual who possesses only aset of clothes and has to depend on others forsubsistence. In a worse condition would be thekaubong-ubong , referring to a person who ispractically homeless and does not attend to physicalappearance or hygiene. Reasons suggested forindividuals in this state are that they reside in interiorareas and they do not participate in communityactivities. The comfortable ones by contrast are themaupiyak. They have sufficient food and domesticatedanimals. This perception of a level of comfort as statedby the Ata Manobo, however, contrasts with theoutsiders ’ view of the wealthy (adunahan) aspossessing much money, concentrating on businessactivity, and pursuing only personal interest.

Principal factors promoting poverty, according toAta Manobo perceptions, can be summarized asfollows. As recently as 1983, the area’s forests werestill intact. The leaders interviewed said they wereliving in harmony with the forests that produced allthey needed. Then business people entered into a 25-year logging concession, remaining in the area for 15years. There was a slow but steady depletion of forestareas and subsequent loss of biodiversity. Wild animalsvanished and farmlands were torn down by the loggingoperations. Now there is insufficient organic matter dueto lack of forest litter. The cultivation of upland ricehas become difficult because of the limited amount ofplanting materials and the excessively compact soil,making even sweet potato cultivation difficult. “At firstlogging companies cut the trees, then they reforestedthe area with fast-growing trees and prohibited theLumads from farming within these reforested areas.”All of this has made food shortages the principalproblem in the area, despite the existence of official“food for work” programs.

Corresponding changes in cultural practices havebeen observed by Ata Manobo informants. Previously,they would work together on an unpaid basis. Now wagelabor has been introduced. In addition, they now fail toinitiate rituals before clearing the land. Conditions areaggravated by the presence of outsiders who haveoppressed them by buying products at a very low rateand selling at exorbitant prices. In addition, they havealso brought in vices such as drunkenness and gambling.

Ata Manobo informants believe that restorationof the forest is basic for the development of thecommunity. Only when the vegetation has been restoredcan the wild pigs, birds, and the other requirements forthe survival of the Ata Manobo be provided. Otheridentified needs include infrastructure, education, localgovernance measures such as the creation of tribalvillage councils, cultural integrity through ongoing studyof traditions, and livelihood projects.

More generally, perceptions of poverty among theindigenous peoples of Mindanao, and also the remediesadvocated to address poverty, display certainsimilarities. Many indigenous languages have genericterms that approximate the word poor. Generally, theterm is not to be considered an indigenous one.Indigenous communities generally assert that theyare not poor, but are instead living “in difficultcircumstances” brought about specifically by the loss


of their lands and territories. There are various termsthat link the concept of poverty to powerlessness anddependency, including slavery.35 Poverty can also bemanifest in the loss of belief in, or practice of, theindigenous culture. In terms of access to resources, thepoor are referred to as those who are unable topurchase necessary goods and have no education ormoney. The term can also refer to an outsider or to aperson who has been banished from the group forunacceptable behavior.

Indigenous peoples often emphasize that they haveresources coveted by outsiders. Thus, poverty can bedefined as the deprivation of resources that they alreadyhave, rather than the absence of additional resources thatmight add to their well-being. According to the Lumadsof northwestern Mindanao, they cannot be poor in areaswhere they have the forest resources for their food andhealth needs, where there is peace, and where there isan indigenous system of mutual support.

Several development needs and aspirations canbe discerned. A main demand is full implementationof the IPRA in order to develop their land and regainterritories lost through cheap sales or acquisition. Asecond is education. Indigenous peoples see theimportance of sending their children to school, evenat high cost, often seeing good education as a passportout of farming. Some Higaonon, for example, haveabandoned traditional practices of arranged childmarriages to enable their children to complete highschool or university education. Third, there aredemands for livelihood programs and financialassistance, as indigenous communities clearly aspireto higher incomes to meet their household needs.Fourth, they demand a measure of self-governance andrespect for their cultures. Fifth, they demand the meansto protect themselves and their resources. Sixth, theydemand improved infrastructure as a means forincreased productivity. Finally, they are requestingmore meaningful participation in the developmentprocess. In consequence, the living space of groups thatformerly depended on shifting cultivation has now beenlimited to the few hectares of land allocated to them.

VIET NAM

Consultants visited several villages of the Northernand Central Highlands in Viet Nam, conducting focus-group meetings and household visits to both the poorestfamilies and individuals, and also those considered tobe better off. The main perceptions of poverty by theethnic minority communities can be grouped under fivemain headings, covering respectively: food security, basicconditions for production and livelihood, economicactivities, health and education, and family networks andcultural changes.

Food Security

The lack of food security appears to be the primaryconcern of poor ethnic minorities. Food productiondeficits average between 3 and 6 months for mostvillages. Food for ethnic minorities is defined generallyas rice and other resources such as tubers, leaves,vegetables, and other forest and aquatic products. Lowcash income is not cited as a difficulty. Rather than wagelabor, ethnic minorities still prefer working on their ownrice fields to ensure the harvest for the next season: “Younever know how much money is enough to buy rice tofeed the family.”

Many people nevertheless also seek off-farmemployment. They receive Vietnamese dong (D)10,000–15,000 (about US$0.66–1.00) per day, equivalent to 6kilograms of rice and enough food for a household of 5people for one day. Thus, most of this income is absorbedby the expenditures for household goods andsupplementary foods. The need for new products, whichwere not used for their livelihood previously, contributesto further expenditure. For cooking, ethnic minoritiesused rice and other forest products. They previouslyburnt a special type of plant and used the ash for salt.Nowadays, due to forest degradation, these resourcesare not as plentiful. The people are buying oil, sea salt,and other additives for cooking.


Basic Conditions for Production andLivelihood

Land shortage is perceived as one of the causes ofpoverty. In one village surveyed, three quarters of theagricultural land is under rubber trees. According tocommune leaders, the process to secure land for rubberfarms was quite straightforward. Farm representativesproposed the plan for a rubber plantation to the CommunePeople’s Committee, which allocated the land accordingly.This process was done without consultation with localpeople. They were then forced to move further into theforest to look for new patches of land for cultivation. InKong Plong district, only one fourth of the communeshave land for wet rice. The rest continue to practiceupland rice in infertile areas of young regeneration forestdue to increasing demands and the ban on shiftingcultivation of the Government. This leads tounprecedented reduction in upland rice production.

If you go to visit a household and cannot meetthem for 2 weeks or a month, you can be sure thatthey are poor people. Only poor people cannotafford to work near the village, as there is no fertileland left. They often stay in the forest for weekswith their children.—A district indigenous officer.

According to traditional beliefs, agricultural landand forests were communal property. Households andfamily clans were entitled to exploit and use land onthe basis of their strict observance of the customarylaws. There was no purchase of land or other assets.

In Dak Xu, the commune moved to the roadsidein 1987 due to the resettlement program. Not only hastheir lifestyle changed, but the land has also assumed amonetary value. Land disputes between the indigenouspeople and migrants have become intense in thecommunes where the research took place.

Land-grabbing incidents and land disputeshappen so often in our village. Before we were notaware of the value of land. Now we have to competewith outsiders who are a lot faster than us.

Before ethnic minorities can secure enough landfor their households, all the more fertile land has goneeither to outsiders or to people who have access to cash.The transition from a subsistence to a cash economy

has caused a number of difficulties for ethnic minoritygroups, who are ill-prepared to face a new socialstructure with more market-oriented values.

They now even charge for domestic animalssuch as cats or dogs, which they used to give awayfor good luck.—A woman interviewed.

Since the early 1990s, when the market economytook off in lowland areas, migrants have arrived in theCentral Highlands from the deltas. They rent or buy landfrom the indigenous peoples. At the same time, theyalso secure land by hiring indigenous persons ornorthern upland migrants to clear forests for arable land.This cash flow has changed the land-clearing pattern ofthe indigenous communities. Instead of clearing enoughland for cultivation, they clear to make money. Otherminority groups, who come almost empty-handed, alsocreate heavy pressure on land clearing for cultivation.Under these circumstances, large-scale land trading andclearing have influenced land use and cultivationpatterns of the indigenous people in several ways.

First, income from land selling or renting hasmotivated indigenous peoples to clear more land andmove further inside the forest. The open market hasexposed both the indigenous peoples and the migrantsto perennial and fruit crops in the area. However,success in growing these crops depends a great dealon familiarity with complicated techniques and marketprice fluctuations. Having better access to informationand being cash holders, Kinh people tend to be moresuccessful than the ethnic minorities. Ethnic minoritiesoften find it difficult to adapt to the changes. Therefore,they tend to sell or rent land and move away to continuetheir traditional agricultural practices. The moreadventurous indigenous households decide to keep upwith the change. However, when problems (e.g., dropin pricing or natural disasters) occur, they tend to sellland and move away instead of continuing to growother crops.

The lack of land and inability to expand into forestareas have drastically stopped land trading in manyvillages. In the surveyed sites, ownership of land forethnic minorities nowadays has become, more thanever, crucial for their survival.

Once you sell land, it means hunger for yourfamily. There is nowhere to go to clear land anymore.


Most poor people interviewed either have no ideaof the land-use rights certificate referred to as the “redcard” or have not yet been granted one. Allocating land-use rights requires measuring, mapping, anddetermination of “origins,” and other steps. These stepsare extremely time-consuming. In addition, red cardsare granted only for agricultural land. In Chu Pah district,only 21% of the total agricultural land has been mappedand allocated red cards. The cost for measuring wasabolished in 2001. According to district officers,indigenous peoples do not appreciate the significanceand security over land provided by the red cards. Theirconcept of customary rights over land remains intact.The allocation process frequently becomes locked indispute when land allocation rights are sought over anarea that is claimed by others under customary systems.

Apart from the ignorance regarding newdevelopments such as the cash value for land, poorindigenous peoples are often uneducated and aremarginalized from village meetings—the only sourceof information on the Government’s new laws anddirectives. Even if they attend such meetings, they findit difficult to understand fully what is most essentialto them.

Lack of good shelter also presents problems. Poorpeople in surveyed areas live in small temporary sheltersmade from leaves, bamboo, and mud. These shelters arenot stable and are often located near upland rice fields,which are far from villages. Such distance prevents themfrom adapting quickly to a new lifestyle and concepts.

She has always lived in her rice field since shedoes not have a house in the village. She cannotattend the activities and events. She does not knowthe value of land now and, therefore, she does notfeel the necessity to obtain a red card.

Economic Activities

In Chu Pah, the rice fields of ethnic minorities aremostly located near streams to take advantage of thenatural water flows for irrigation. They have only oneharvest of wet rice a year. An increase to two harvestsannually to this community requires intensificationtechniques, which are not adequately provided byextension workers. Before 1985, villagers in Dak Lungworked in a collective farm subsidized by the

Government for seedlings, fertilizer, and provision oftechnical assistance. During this period, ethnic minorityhouseholds received their shares of rice at the end ofthe harvest. Since the 1990s, after the breakdown of thiscollective system, ethnic minorities have been left withno knowledge of how to start generating sufficient foodsand incomes. Now, land is allocated to individualhouseholds. This change from subsistentence economyto semi-subsidized and finally to an open-marketeconomy has confused a large proportion of ethnicminorities.

Ethnic minorities are not familiar with cash-oriented economy. Thus, most women in Dak Xu, forexample, are not capable of paying back loans fromcredit programs. According to them, after the provisionof credits ends, poor people become poorer. The loanand the interest are beyond their capacity to return.

We do not know what to do with the moneygiven as a loan. We do not know how to plan andmoderate our income-generating activities andexpenditure. And how can we pay back the loanwith such interest?

Price fluctuations are a further problem. Coffee hasbeen the most popular and lucrative cash crop in theCentral Highlands. The severe drop in its price over thelast 2 years has caused some serious dilemmas for theinhabitants, especially the indigenous peoples. Most ofthe cash available in the households was invested infertilizer and irrigation for this demanding crop.Nowadays, in many villages, people cut down coffeetrees to grow new crops. The majority of the populationnevertheless continues to wait for the price to recover.In almost every village, ethnic minorities complainedabout this sudden change and blamed the Governmentfor not keeping their promise in buying the products.Many are confused as to what to grow to generate cashincomes after chopping down these trees.

Health and Education

Most of the poorest households are either female-headed or headed by people with disability or poorhealth. Disability and poor health are always cited asthe first signs of poverty. In all surveyed communes,there is at least one health center with between three


and four staff. However, these health centers are eithertoo far away or not well equipped and without necessarymedicines to deal with conventional diseases. Further,ethnic minorities have almost stopped using traditionalherbal medicines due to the depletion of these herbsand restricted access to them. Most forest areas aremanaged by either state farms or state forest enterprises.

In many places, the Government subsidizesmedicine for common diseases, but in some surveyedcommunes, people have to pay for medicine, which isnot available at health posts and only sold at localpharmacies. Most of the time, poor people cannot affordto pay for medicine. For instance, medicine forheadaches costs them 2 days of labor. Furthermore, onlysick persons themselves can buy or be given medicine.Most poor people live alone, or are disabled, weak, ortoo far away from health posts.

There are only a few primary schools in the researchvillages. Most are built by villagers and have only one ortwo rooms. There are no boarding schools at thecommune level. Sending children to the only boardingschool in a district is beyond the financial capacity ofvillagers. The district selects two students from eachvillage and pays for their education at this school.

Family Networks and Cultural Change

Poverty is often explained by family breakdown,including divorce, widowhood, and domestic violence.

My husband left me when I was struck withillness and became paralyzed. For a long time, Icould not work to support my son and myself. I donot have any relatives in this village, as my husbandis a Kinh man. My son has now grown up. He isthe only source of income for my household.

Most indigenous groups living in the surveyedareas are matriarchal. Different generations used toshare the same house called the “long house”. Theoldest woman in a long house is the owner of thehouse, and is the one with all the knowledge andexperience of household management, agriculture, andother business. Nowadays, this tradition isdisintegrating and is being replaced by nuclear families.Nuclear families live in separate houses and have theirown piece of land. Inheritance was mentioned as a

cause for poverty by young ethnic minorities. Younggirls get married and leave home without properlylearning cultivation techniques and experiences fromtheir parents.

It is difficult to start everything now. Luckily,my mother and I still live near each other. I canlearn slowly from her things that I do not know.

Some women interviewed said their husbandsnow engage in activities and distractions, particularlyrelated to alcohol, which did not exist previously in theirvillages. The women pointed out this phenomenon as acause of poverty.

Ethnic minorities used to live in such remote areasthat communication with the outside world was almostnonexistent. The village was the basic social unit. In theCentral Highlands, it is also the highest level of socialorganization. The villagers do not know any other socialstructure beyond it. Their lives have been regulated bycustomary laws. Gia lang—the most respected person—or the gia lang council manages all issues related toadministration. The impact of the development processhas been drastic changes to the traditional institutions ofthe indigenous people. In the past, the villagers went togia lang to seek advice on issues related to nature, climate,and forest to make decisions on farming and livelihood.Drastic changes in the living environment, technologies,farming organization, lifestyle, and state interventions andlaws have limited the role of gia lang. Nowadays, the villagechief, who is elected by the villagers and approved by thecommune leaders, manages administrative issues. Also,there are new mass organizations and higheradministrative levels beyond the village. However, in theproject survey, the indigenous peoples were found to stillhighly appreciate their traditional institutions formanagement of village issues. All informants expressedthe need to have customary laws and gia lang in the village.

The poor speak about their inability to fullyparticipate in festivals and rituals. In the past, whenwood was used for household construction purposes,rituals were required before cutting down a treebecause, according to indigenous religious belief, treeshave souls like human beings. Nowadays, wood isharvested on an industrial scale and traded for cashby outsiders. The forests close to villages have beenrapidly disappearing. Access to wood and other forestresources is very limited.


Nha rong (the communal house) is the culturalcenter for ethnic minorities. Ethnic minorities used togather in the nha rong every night talking, drinking,dancing, and exchanging experiences regarding theirlivelihood practices. In all surveyed villages, people arenow settling in flat areas along the roads. The nha ronghas disappeared with all its rituals or been transformed

into a place called a cultural hall of different design andwith a tin roof. This new nha rong is not acknowledgedor accepted by the communities as a part of their culturallife. According to ethnic minorities, nha rong is also theplace where poor people can learn from those betteroff. There is no longer a mechanism for sharing andexchanging knowledge and experiences as in the past.


INTRODUCTION

T his section examines the role of internationalassistance in providing support for povertyreduction policies and programs as they affect

indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities. Clearly, thescope of such interventions can be very considerable.They can range from overall support for policyformulation and its implementation, to large-scale loansupport for infrastructure or investment projects as theyaffect these vulnerable groups, technical assistance ofvarious kinds, and “safeguard” approaches, which (asreflected in ADB’s Policy on Indigenous Peoples) can bedesigned to protect these groups from the potentiallyadverse effects of development interventions. Projectsand programs, as noted earlier, may or may not betargeted specifically at indigenous peoples and ethnicminority groups.

It is also important to distinguish between therole of multilateral financial institutions, otherinternational organizations such as UNDP and otheragencies of the UN system, bilateral donor agencies,and the various NGOs active in this area, includingthose of the indigenous peoples and ethnic minoritiesthemselves.

Here, we identify the main objectives andapproaches of international assistance and how thevarious actors involved can complement each other,using their own particular “niche” in accordance withtheir mandates and expertise. This is an issue of muchimportance for the proposed regional action plan oncapacity building and poverty reduction of indigenouspeoples.

Specific attention is given to the activities andapproaches of ADB for two reasons. First, one of the

principal objectives of the present regional technicalassistance is to improve the implementation quality ofADB-financed loans. The terms of reference providedthat ADB’s interventions through projects and programsshould be evaluated, mainly but not only throughselecting up to two projects in each country to assessthe nature and effectiveness of implementationprocedures.

Second, as became clear throughout theproject’s implementation, it is not only through itsloan interventions that an organization like ADB iswell equipped to deal with indigenous and ethnicminority poverty concerns. The ADB Policy onIndigenous Peoples emphasizes very strongly theneed for a policy framework, objective knowledgeand information, and accurate and effectiverepresentation of indigenous peoples, among otherthings. To date, ADB’s main operational instrumentfor addressing these concerns has been theIndigenous Peoples’ Development Plan, which isapplied essentially at the individual loan and projectlevel. However, as ADB staff, government officials,and other informed stakeholders regularlycommented in the course of this project, a project-based approach is often not the most suitable onefor addressing very complex concerns of ethnicityand poverty reduction. An equally important questionis how to incorporate these concerns within theoverall policy dialogue, support for strategic law andpolicy reforms, country sector programming, overallpart icipatory poverty assessments, povertypartnerships between ADB and the countryconcerned, medium-term planning, and much else.Thus, this review of ADB experience adopts a broaderperspective in the interests of finding the mostcomprehensive approach possible in formulating aregional action plan.

THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONALASSISTANCE6


REGIONAL SUPPORT FOR POLICYAND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT:

THE UNITED NATIONS EXPERIENCE

International Labour Organization

The ILO derives its mandate on this issue from itsstandard-setting initiatives on indigenous and tribalpeoples, in particular its Indigenous and Tribal PeoplesConvention, No. 169 of 1989. Although not as yet ratifiedby any country in Southeast Asia (India, Bangladesh,and Pakistan have ratified an earlier ILO instrument onthe same subject), Convention No. 169 has had a stronginfluence on the indigenous peoples policies of otherinternational organizations including ADB and the WorldBank. It has also been a strong point of reference forthe 1997 IPRA in the Philippines, which repeats severalof its provisions and is clearly influenced by theConvention. The spirit of the Convention, as mostrelevant to poverty reduction programs, is thatindigenous peoples should exercise as much control aspossible over their own development and institutions,and participate in the formulation and implementationof plans and programs for national and regionaldevelopment that may affect them directly. TheConvention also has strong provisions on land, requiringgovernments to take the necessary steps to identify thelands that indigenous and tribal peoples traditionallyoccupy, and to guarantee effective protection of theirrights of ownership and possession. Governments haveresponsibility for developing, with the participation ofthe peoples concerned, coordinated action to protecttheir rights; the responsible government authority shallensure that agencies or other appropriate mechanismsexist to administer programs.

With this mandate, ILO has provided policy adviceto a number of Southeast Asian countries, includingCambodia, Lao PDR, Philippines, and Viet Nam. In VietNam, it has developed programs with the state agencyCEMMA, including pilot projects on natural resourcemanagement and women’s workload in ethniccommunities.36 In Cambodia, it has provided technicalassistance to the IMC, mainly in the form of technicaladvice and capacity building relating to the government’sdraft policy. A series of workshops was organized in1997.37 Important policy advice has also been providedto Lao PDR.38

More directly related to poverty reduction atgrassroots level has been ILO’s Inter-RegionalProgramme to Support Self-Reliance of Indigenous andTribal Communities Through Cooperatives and Self-HelpOrganizations (INDISCO). Originally launched in 1993with support from the Danish Government, it hasprojects in Southeastern Asian countries including LaoPDR, Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nam. The focus hasbeen on pilot projects, demonstrating viable models ofparticipatory indigenous peoples’ development througha number of country-specific initiatives. INDISCO claimsthat in some pilot areas the living standards ofindigenous peoples have been raised considerably.39 InViet Nam, the program has concentrated its activities inYen Bai Province, establishing some 40 self-managinggroups among ethnic minorities; and supportingincome-generating activities through technical trainingon business development and revolving loan-fundcredit. In the Philippines, it has managed pilot projectsin both the Cordillera region and Mindanao and Sulu,handing these over to partner organizations in 1999. Ithas recently promoted the establishment of twoindigenous knowledge resource centers, enablingindigenous peoples to take over project managementfrom INDISCO and continue on their own. The strategyfor 2000–2003 aims to disseminate best practices andto combine field activities with policy interventions.

The approach can be illustrated from the INDISCOexperience in the Philippines. One prerequisite for itsassistance is that land tenure of the community mustbe secured. Even in the absence of a formal land orancestral domain title, the community must be awareof their land rights and ready to defend them. A secondcriterion has been to work with existing indigenousinstitutions. INDISCO has respected traditionalindigenous methods of electing their leaders,encouraging the strengthening and consolidation oftribal councils and formation of broader federations.Building on its practical experience in different regions,INDISCO has recently undertaken a 3-month “scopingproject” with UNDP support, to provide guidance for thenew NCIP.

Highland Peoples’ Programme

The Highland Peoples Programme (HPP) forCambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand, and Viet Nam began in

The Role of International Assistance 49

1995, following initiatives taken in connection withUNDP’s Year of Indigenous Peoples in 1993. It has beena joint initiative of UNDP and the United NationsVolunteer program, using volunteers for many of itscountry programs. The declared objectives were first,to increase organizational capacities and opportunitiesin selected highland communities in participatoryplanning, and to increase the support capacities of theresponsible governments; and second, to establishmechanisms and procedures for dialogue and exchangeof experiences and information on highland peoples’development at regional, national, and local levels.As with ILO’s INDISCO approach, it first undertook pilotprojects in a limited number of villages in Cambodia,Lao PDR, and Viet Nam. Its second objective wasimplemented through various regional workshops andstudy tours. It had a limited budget of US$1.1 millionfor its first period (1995–1998), the assumption beingthat it would have a catalytic role on highland peoplesdevelopment in the subregion.

In both Cambodia and Viet Nam, the governmentfocal agencies for the HPP were the same as for thepresent project, namely IMC in Cambodia and CEMMAin Viet Nam. CEMMA carried out pilot projects in fourprovinces of the North and Central Highlands and, inearly 1998, a workshop was held for all organizationsworking in highlands peoples’ development. InCambodia, the main contribution was to help the IMCdevelop its policy guidelines for highland peoples’development through a participatory process. No pilotprojects as such were implemented by the IMC. Instead,the HPP’s pilot activities were integrated within a largeUNDP project in the northeastern province ofRatanakiri. A mid-1998 evaluation considered that theHPP has been successful in its first phase. It had “madesubstantial achievement in terms of capacity buildingin select highland communities and the governmentsupport structure,” and had had a catalytic effect.However, it was found that there had been limitedcooperation with other projects (including those ofNGOs) working on highland peoples development, andalso limited learning from traditional culture andknowledge in the pilot projects. It was recommendedthat the HPP’s own pilot projects should be limited insize and number; that the HPP should focus on buildingnetworks for exchange of experiences and information;and that it would continue to support the developmentof policy guidelines when opportunities arose.40

A second phase of HPP commenced in November1999, but by early 2001 no additional activities had beenundertaken except in Viet Nam. Activities in Viet Namincluded training programs for CEMMA officials onparticipatory development for ethnic minorities,dissemination of lessons learned, and networking. Amid term evaluation conducted early in 2001 containedcertain criticisms of the program and its approach.These confirm some opinions encountered during thepresent project. In Cambodia, for example, the creationof IMC appears to have been instigated by the HPP, andits profile has been greatly diminished since the HPPeffectively ceased its activities in that country. Thereappears to have been no sense of national ownershipand the IMC has in recent times been operating on ashoestring budget. In Viet Nam, the capacity of CEMMAto implement activities at the local level has often beencalled into question. It has proved difficult to find asuitable mix between its advisory, security, andoperational roles. A possible lesson to be learned fromthe HPP experience in the Mekong subregion is that itis very difficult to contribute effectively to policy andits implementation in indigenous and ethnic minorityareas without a presence on the ground throughconcrete activities .

OTHER UNITED NATIONSACTIVITIES: CAMBODIA,

PHILIPPINES, AND VIET NAM

In Cambodia, an important focus of UN activitieshas been in Ratanakiri, which together with Mondulkirihas the highest proportion of highland indigenouspeoples. UNDP’s CARERE program in Ratanakiribetween 1996 and 2000, as an experiment indecentralized planning and participatory development,has given much attention to indigenous concerns. Inparticular, its community-based natural resourcemanagement project has demonstrated the closelinkages between indigenous livelihoods andsurrounding natural resources. Several trainingworkshops were organized on land and forest use byindigenous communities of the region in conjunctionwith the wide network of NGOs active in this region.41

In the Philippines, UNDP entered into anagreement with the Government in 1997 to undertake


a preparatory assistance project relating to indigenousmanagement of their ancestral domains. At that time,before the adoption of the IPRA, the designatedexecuting agency of Government was the Departmentof Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Fiveareas were identified for capacity building, includingsupport for policy reform; development and advocacyaimed at the protection of indigenous rights;strengthening of national and community-basedcapacities to accelerate ancestral domain delineationand mapping, and issuance of certificates of ancestraldomain; support to the management of ancestraldomains by indigenous peoples; capacity building forindigenous knowledge systems and practices; andstrengthening indigenous peoples organizations.Workshops and consultations were held. A revisedcapacity-building program was prepared in mid-2001.42

Its components include strengthening NCIP in suchcrucial issues as mapping, which has hitherto beenconducted mainly through the assistance of NGOs.

In Viet Nam, UNDP has played an active role inthe Poverty Task Force. Recently it coordinated a specialstudy on poverty reduction for ethnic minorities,proposing a set of socioeconomic development targetsspecifically for these groups.43

NONGOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONINITIATIVES

There have been numerous NGO initiatives relatedin at least some way to poverty reduction for indigenouspeoples and ethnic minorities. Following is a broadoverview.

In Cambodia, mention has already been made ofthe important NGO initiatives in Ratanakiri. Severalinternational and national NGOs have worked in closecollaboration with international organizations and localgovernment. They have combined technical work, forexample on resource management and communitymapping, with advocacy on law and policy reforms.Others have focused on health and education policiesand programs. An interesting recent initiative is supportby some international NGOs for the creation of ahighland peoples’ organization.

In the Philippines, the number of NGOs workingwith or on behalf of indigenous peoples is extremely

large. Advocacy NGOs played a key role with regard tothe IPRA. Others, such as Philippine Action forIntercultural Development, have taken a lead with regardto community mapping. An important feature of thePhilippines is the existence of indigenous peoples’organizations at either national or regional levels, aswell as the local level. For example, a NationalConfederation of Indigenous Peoples in the Philippineswas formally created in 1998, aiming to unify allindigenous federations, to formulate action plans, andto help strengthen local organizations. Other objectivesinclude consolidating the development of ancestraldomains; and further institutionalizing the beliefs,traditions, cultures, and institutions of indigenouspeoples throughout the Philippines. A TribalCommunities Association of the Philippine is activenationwide except in Muslim areas. It is strong onadvocacy and also provides legal assistance toindigenous peoples charged with such offences as illegallogging, and in researching conflicts arising from claimsto ancestral domains. An example of a more regionalorganization is the Cordillera Peoples Alliance.

In Indonesia, an NGO movement has grown inrecent years. An initial lead on indigenous concerns wastaken by the environmental NGO WALHI in the early1990s, taking an advocacy position on indigenous landand other rights. Many NGOs are now addressing landand resource rights, both in Jakarta and at regional andprovincial levels. Some of these, as in West Kalimantan,are advocating indigenous rights by reference to suchinternational instruments as ILO’s Convention No. 169.As in the Philippines, NGOs have taken a strong lead onparticipatory community mapping. In West Kalimantan,for example, the NGO Pancur Kasih created a communitymapping facilitation unit, through which some 150communities had mapped their lands and forests by2000.44 Pancur Kasih also developed a credit union,blending microfinance with awareness-building activities.The scheme was originally developed in 1997 to meetthe ordinary credit needs of the organization’s activists.The credit union came to be seen as an effort to developthe economy of adat communities, particularly for theDayak peoples of Kalimantan. Activities spread to Eastand South Kalimantan and Siberut, and the union evolvedfrom being a simple credit cooperative to a holdingcompany with diverse business assets.

In Viet Nam, international NGOs have been mostactive in programs and projects on behalf of ethnic


minorities. An ethnic minority working group wasformed under the leadership of Oxfam Hong Kong,China. A fairly recent development is the formation ofnational Vietnamese NGOs working with ethnicminorities. The NGO Toward Ethnic Women has workedwith poor highland minority communities since 1994.It has focused on increasing the confidence ofmarginalized farmers and knowledge of theirfundamental rights, providing them with opportunitiesto improve skills in natural resource management,savings and credit, and in public health and hygieneamong other areas. The Centre for IndigenousKnowledge Research and Development works withethnic minority farmers to reach development targetsby developing pilot models based on indigenousknowledge and traditional culture. Both these NGOswork in close collaboration with the Centre for HumanEcology Studies of the Highlands, a research andnetworking organization that aims to improve thequality of life of highland ethnic minority communitiesin the Mekong subregion and Yunnan Province of thePeople’s Republic of China.

EXPERIENCE OF THEASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

Identification of Relevant Projects

In principle, several projects in the participatingcountries were considered potentially relevant forreview. In the Philippines, at least 10 ADB-sponsoredprojects are either targeted at indigenous peoples andethnic minorities or considered to affect themsignificantly. In Indonesia, there are at least 9 suchprojects. In Viet Nam there are at least 5 and (in view ofa decision to focus on poverty reduction in the centralregion) this number is expected to increase in the nearfuture. In Cambodia, many of the relevant interventionshave been through technical assistance, although it isconsidered that ADB-sponsored projects earmarked forindigenous peoples and ethnic minorities may alsoexpand in the near future.

Choosing specific projects was nevertheless notan easy task. Should the emphasis be on past, ongoing,or pipeline projects? Should it be on loan projects, oron other forms of intervention such as technical

assistance? Should the exercise cover similar sectoralprojects in the different countries, or attempt themaximum diversity? Should the emphasis be on projectsthat are designed very largely to benefit indigenouspeoples and ethnic minorities? Or should it also address“safeguard” concerns, when the projects are of moregeneral coverage but may also have an impact onindigenous peoples?

The aim was to derive the maximum number oflessons, as varied as possible, in order to guide futureADB activities and interaction with the governmentsconcerned over what are sometimes quite sensitiveissues; and to identify issues and problems in such a waythat they can be incorporated within a future action plan.

In Cambodia, significant loan projects have notaffected indigenous areas. However, the ADB programin Cambodia is now expanding quite rapidly, also coveringoverall poverty reduction and key policy concerns. In thiscontext, it was considered most useful to concentrate onrelevant technical assistance projects, and to examinethe extent to which these have been implemented inaccordance with the ADB Policy on Indigenous Peoplesand in collaboration with Cambodian indigenous peoplesand relevant state entities.

In Indonesia, attention was given both to ongoingprojects and to a pipeline project shortly to beimplemented. The focus was on the outer islands ofKalimantan and Sulawesi, where there are substantialadat or indigenous communities. A key issue is how adator indigenous concerns are being addressed in thecontext of regional autonomy and decentralizationprograms.

The Philippines provided an opportunity for a dualapproach. In the Cordillera, there has for several yearsbeen implementation of an ADB poverty project affectingpredominantly indigenous peoples. This provided theopportunity to examine consultative procedures,assessing the extent to which the project interacted withindigenous institutions and knowledge systems. InMindanao, where the bulk of future ADB assistance maynow be directed, it was more difficult to identify specificprojects. A more general approach has been taken,examining the extent to which indigenous concernshave been incorporated in project preparation.

In Viet Nam most attention was given to the newcentral region livelihood project that will have asignificant impact on ethnic minorities in Kontum andother provinces of the Central Highlands. Some attention


was also given to the Northern Highlands, comparingADB experience with World Bank projects, and withoverall concerns in the policy dialogue.

Poverty Partnerships and Analysis

Of the participating project countries, formalpartnership agreements on poverty reduction have nowbeen signed between ADB and the governments of thePhilippines and Indonesia.

The Philippines agreement45 makes a number ofcommitments directly concerned with indigenouspeoples and their rights. Other commitments, such asthose for Mindanao, imply respect for indigenouscultural demands. A program of asset reform to addressproblems of income and wealth inequality will includethe distribution of ancestral domain claims toindigenous people. Commitments regardingagricultural modernization with social equity willaddress security of land tenure, indigenous peoples’rights, and land reform and redistribution. In thecontext of special attention to ensuring peace anddevelopment in Mindanao, special interventions fordevelopment will include the implementation ofculturally sensitive programs in health and education,and institutional reforms to improve the voice ofMindanaoans in government agencies and institutions.The agreement does not enter into detail on the aboveissues, establishing only general principles.

In the agreement with Indonesia,46 there iscertainly an allusion to ethnicity concerns insofar as theyaffect poverty. It is observed that “New forms of povertyare emerging as a result of social tensions and outbreaksof sectarian or political violence. A further complicationarises when the victims of unrest attempt to relocatethemselves elsewhere. This is a disruptive influence inthe receiving area regardless of the goodwill or lackthereof of the inhabitants. Displaced persons andrefugees are a new problem in Indonesia and there aremany challenges to developing appropriate approachesto deal with this issue.” Beyond that, the Governmentof Indonesia and ADB have agreed that povertyreduction is the government’s highest priority, and willbe addressed inter alia through implementation ofdecentralization and development of good governance;enhancing local government transparency andaccountability to reflect local needs and aspirations;

strengthening community organizations; andaccelerating development in remote areas. Forimplementing the agreement, good governance wouldbe achieved by creating transparent and accountabledecentralized institutions responsive to the needs of thepoor. Such commitments provide ample scope forconsidering the role of adat institutions in localgovernance and community empowerment, particularlyin remote areas.

In Cambodia, a draft participatory povertyassessment, prepared by the Government and ADB,contains a chapter on poverty among ethnic minorities.It covers inter alia the social exclusion of ethnicminorities, food insecurity and diminishing naturalresources, and disenfranchisement of land-use rightsand access to natural resources, physical infrastructure,and health and education. The assessment was madeas a contribution to the draft Second Five-YearSocioeconomic Development Plan, 2001–2005, preparedwith ADB technical assistance. The draft Plan containscertain commitments toward ethnic minorities. Forexample, ethnic minority groups, which subsist on whatthey gather or hunt from common property resources,will be given security of tenure over the use of theseresources. The most acceptable means to safeguard therights of traditional users is to give them long-termstewardship contracts with concerned governmentagencies. A partnership agreement on poverty reductionbetween ADB and the Government of Cambodia iscurrently being finalized.

In Viet Nam, a similar partnership agreement isalso in draft form. The draft gives considerable attentionto ethnic minorities and their social development. Ethnicminorities are considered together with the poor andwith women in poor households as especially vulnerableand disadvantaged groups. The needs of ethnicminorities should be integrated into relevant ADB-assisted interventions. Examples in proposed areas ofADB support include the following: (i) whilestrengthening the institutional framework foragriculture, efforts will be made to improve theproductivity of ethnic minorities; (ii) within secondaryeducation, special attention will be paid to increasingaccess of ethnic minorities, and to involvingcommunities in all phases of education delivery; and(iii) the health care system will be made more accessibleto the poor and responsive to the needs of ethnicminorities. Immediate indicators in each of these areas


will be selected to measure the extent to which ethnicdifferences, as well as income and gender differences,are being addressed.

While in certain cases there is reference to specificpoverty concerns of indigenous peoples and ethnicminorities, either directly or indirectly, there is littleindication as to how the representatives of these groupshave been involved in identifying their needs, or informulating recommendations for suitable responses. Anexception is perhaps Cambodia, where the participatorypoverty appraisal involved a series of focus-groupdiscussions within ethnic minority communities. Thus,thought needs to be given as to how indigenous peoplesand their representative organizations can henceforth beinvolved more directly in exercises of this kind. The issueis discussed further in the final chapter.

Country Strategies and Programs

How have these ethnicity concerns or generalcommitments of partnership agreements on povertyreduction been translated into proposed activities withinADB country strategies and programs (CSPs)? A reviewwas made of the CSP updates, 2002–2004, for Cambodia,Indonesia, and Philippines, and of a draft document forViet Nam.47 Incorporation of ethnicity concerns withincountry strategies was also discussed on a regular basisthroughout the project with ADB staff both atheadquarters and at the Cambodian, Indonesian, and VietNam resident missions.

In most cases, there is very limited if any referenceto indigenous and ethnic minority concerns. In the caseof Cambodia, they do not figure at all. This is mainlybecause of the geographical location of most proposednew loan interventions, in the Khmer-populatedlowlands.

More surprisingly, there is no direct reference toindigenous issues in the Philippines. These are notmentioned specifically in the substantive sections onsuch issues as human development, good governance,or environmental protection. There is neverthelessreference to pipeline projects, which would clearly havean impact on indigenous communities and their claimsto ancestral domain. An example is a plannedCommunity-Based Forest Resources Managementproject in Mindanao, with a tentative loan amount ofUS$40 million, for which the proposed executing agency

is DENR. It is envisaged that a combination of short-and long-term forestry strategies could help increaseself-reliance of upland communities, stimulating incomeand employment opportunities. A planned MindanaoBasic Education project, with a tentative loan amountof US$50 million, aims to achieve universal participationin education for students representing differentsociocultural backgrounds. Children from culturalminorities, together with poor families, are identifiedas the main beneficiaries. In a planned US$75 millionRural Roads Development project, with a focus onMindanao and the southern Philippines and the socialissues to be addressed include indigenous peoples andland acquisition.

In Indonesia, the CSP provides ample scope foraddressing ethnic concerns in different dimensions ofdevelopment. Consistent with the IndonesianGovernment position, indigenous peoples andcommunities are not identified as such. But a numberof planned projects provide opportunities forincorporating adat concerns. A planned US$150 millionPoverty Reduction through the Land Rehabilitation andManagement project aims to reduce poverty amongpeople living on degraded forestlands in the outerislands. This should facilitate community-led integratedspatial planning and management of degraded forestsand critical ecosystems. A second planned CommunityEmpowerment for Rural Development project, with aprojected US$150 million budget, aims to empower ruralcommunities by strengthening their capacity to plan andmanage their own activities. A proposed Rural PovertyReduction project, also with a projected budget ofUS$150 million, aims to help poor farmers increaseagricultural productivity in areas including CentralKalimantan, Central Sulawesi, and East Nusa Tenggara.These are all areas where significant adat communitiescan be identified.

The draft CSP for Viet Nam stands out from theothers. Ethnic minority issues figure very prominently.This may be explained by two factors. First, theGovernment has identified in its 2001–2010socioeconomic strategy the need for special policies tosupport ethnic minorities. Second, the CSP has ageographical focus on the Central Region of Viet Namwhere over 2 million ethnic minority people from 30different ethnic groups, accounting for more than aquarter of Viet Nam’s ethnic minority population, reside.And within this geographical focus there is a strong


emphasis on the Central Highlands, where the povertyindicators for ethnic minorities are particularly acute.The proposed CSP, stressing the need to preserve theculture and diversity of ethnic minorities, observes thatthe development impact of past policies and programsfor the development of ethnic minorities and remoteareas should be carefully reviewed and assessed.

Project Assessment

Cambodia

In Cambodia, there is very little of relevance inspecific loan projects to assess. Considerable attentionwas given to indigenous concerns in the context of anUS$28.5 million Agricultural Sector Program approvedin 1996, one component of which has been the draftingof the new Land Law. As noted earlier, advocacy groupslobbied strongly—and eventually with success—to havea special chapter on indigenous lands included in thislaw. The Land Titles Department initiated revision ofthe law in 1998. An ADB loan review mission inDecember 1998 then urged that a government draft bewidely discussed with stakeholders before submissionto the National Assembly. An ADB project manager andsenior counsel participated in several meetings withinternational organizations and NGOs, at which theindigenous peoples’ section in particular wasdiscussed. Technical assistance was also provided forthe wording of this section. Further ADB technicalassistance has since been provided on theimplementation of land legislation. This covers thedrafting of implementing regulations, publicdissemination, and training of the judiciary.

An Education Sector Program was underpreparation during the project. Social assessment wasconducted of indigenous peoples targeted under theprogram. It identified difficulties in recruiting andretaining teachers in northeastern provinces, anddifficulties for children to conform to the nationaleducation schedule because of the agricultural calendar(with the continuing use of swidden techniques). Itformulated a number of recommendations includingquotas for indigenous peoples, especially young women,to enter special training programs to become teachers;and sensitization programs (including the collection andpublication of stories and myths from ethnic minorities)

in order to promote a sense of indigenous culturallegitimacy within mainstream Cambodian society.

A study on the health and education needs ofethnic minorities was conducted by ADB consultantsin 1999 as part of a regional technical assistanceproject in the Greater Mekong Subregion.48 It is a wellinformed publication, but essentially comprisesdescription and analysis without formulatingoperational recommendations.

A Cambodia country report was prepared by ADBconsultants as part of a regional technical assistanceproject on Poverty Reduction and EnvironmentalManagement in Remote Greater Mekong SubregionWatersheds.49 The aim was to prepare a prefeasibilityproposal for a possible Cambodian-ADB program onPoverty Reduction and Environmental Management inthe Se San Watershed. The consultancy proposed arange of project interventions, covering institutionalstrengthening and capacity building, communitydevelopment, livelihood systems development,infrastructure development, and environmentalmanagement. The intended target beneficiaries wererural communities of five districts in Ratanakiri andStung Treng provinces, the main emphasis being ongreater food security and development of income-generating activities. This report and its proposals weresubsequently criticized by a network of NGOs inRatanakiri, concerned at the absence of input by localcommunities into the project design. They argued thatthe procedures were inconsistent with the requirementsof ADB’s Policy on Indigenous Peoples.50

Indonesia

While no projects have been concerned specificallywith adat communities, several have been implementedin locations where such communities are found. In suchouter islands as Kalimantan and Sulawesi, a number ofindigenous peoples’ development plans have beenprepared. An example is the recently approvedCommunity Empowerment for Rural Developmentproject. This aims to revitalize poverty reduction effortsin the rural sector by supporting the government’sprogram to devolve development resources to localgovernments; and by strengthening the institutional andhuman resource capacity necessary to enable ruralcommunities to plan and manage local developmentinitiatives. It aims to move some 74,000 poor families


above the poverty line in 11 districts of 6 provinces ofKalimantan and Sulawesi islands. A further 40 districtsfrom 20 new provinces are expected to benefit from theinstitutional and capacity-building program.

The indigenous peoples’ development planprepared for this project follows the governmentdefinition of “isolated communities” under the thenMinistry of Social Affairs Ministerial Decree, No. 5 of1994. On this basis, it identifies indigenous people from19 different ethnic groups in the project area. A projectimplementation unit at the district level is responsiblefor identifying subdistricts containing indigenous peoplewithin its jurisdiction, in consultation with relevantgovernment departments and missionary groups, andthose working in environmental conservation projects.Participating districts are encouraged to include thosewith concentrations of indigenous people.

The basic philosophy of this project’s indigenouscomponent is mainstreaming. It is expected to bringpositive benefits to indigenous peoples through accessto mainstream services and improved governance.Participation is voluntary and indigenous communitiesmust approve all works. In areas with large indigenouspopulations, it is assumed that the improvement incapability for local planning will permit moreparticipation by otherwise marginalized groups and willlegitimize social and ethnic diversity by strengtheninglocal institutions.51

The Sulawesi Rainfed Agriculture Developmentproject, while not specifically targeting adat communities,has inevitably had an impact on these communitiesbecause of its geographical location. Located in differentcatchment areas of four Sulawesi provinces, the projecthas been funded by an ADB loan of US$30.36 million,with counterpart funding from the Government ofIndonesia. It commenced in 1995 and was scheduled tobe completed in 2002. The project aims generally toincrease the productivity, incomes, and overall prosperityof farmers in the four catchment areas. Some specificobjectives are to increase the farm incomes of rainfedfarmers, to protect and improve the fragile uplandenvironment, to reduce poverty, and to improve thesocioeconomic conditions of women beneficiaries.

The project has undergone significant changesin its overall approach. As freely recognized by ADBstaff and consultants, it began with a very top-downand target-driven approach, with inadequateconsultation with local communities. More recently, it

has shifted toward a more participatory and bottom-upapproach, making community development its corecomponent, and involving local NGOs in theidentification of needs. The NGO members tend not tobe from the target villages, although communitydevelopment workers have been recruited from thesevillages, in the expectation that they will eventuallyassume the major responsibility for communityassistance programs. Moreover, one task of the NGOshas been to facilitate the establishment of farmers’entrepreneurship groups (Kelompok Usaha Bersama orKUBs), which are based on the existing natural groupsin the village. Thus, the bottom-up and participatoryapproach of the revised project has naturally led to someidentification and strengthening of local adat institutionsin those parts of Sulawesi where these enjoy somelegitimacy.

The pattern appears to have been repeated in otherIndonesian projects during the 1990s. There wasapparently no deliberate attempt to identify adatinstitutions as such in the outer islands for example,where, consistent with government philosophy, no realdistinctions were drawn between adat communities andtransmigrants. Such was the case of a community-basedrubber plantation project in Sekolaq Darat, EastKalimantan, implemented between 1992 and 1998. Theproject aimed generally to provide assistance to smallfarmers in planting good quality rubber trees on their land.The project had no specific provisions for dealing withadat communities and institutions, apart from informingadat leaders of the existence of the project in the villagescovered by it. Only in cases of land conflict might adatleaders be more directly involved. As the project wouldonly deal with lands free of conflict, parties to land conflictwere required by the implementing agency to settle suchconflicts through either adat or formal law institutions asa prerequisite for involvement in the project.

More recently, in preparing a new generation ofprojects for governance and poverty reduction, ADB hasbeen more concerned to understand and build on adatinstitutions. This is evident in a number of pipelineprojects for the outer islands, in which these issues areto be covered in project preparatory technical assistance.

Philippines

In the Philippines, considerable attention wasgiven to the ADB-financed Cordillera Highland


Agricultural Resource Management (CHARM) projectbeing implemented in three provinces of the CordilleraAdministrative Region (CAR), where indigenous peoplespredominate. Although the loan project is not officiallytargeted at indigenous peoples and communities, theyare likely to comprise at least 90% of the intendedbeneficiaries.

The project aims to reduce poverty in the CAR byincreasing annual household incomes of smallholderfarm families in the target area from US$820 in 1994 toUS$2,170 by 2006. In 1991, 70% of the population hadincomes below the poverty threshold of pesos (P)40,000(approximately US$1,540) per annum for a family of six.The project aims to reduce the number of poor familiesto not more than 25%. Project implementation startedin 1997 and was scheduled to end in March 2003. Theproject cost is US$41.4 million, funded by loans fromADB and the International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment (IFAD). The lead implementing agency isthe Department of Agriculture. Other governmentagencies have been involved in aspects ofimplementation, including DENR, Department ofAgrarian Reform, National Irrigation Authority, and localgovernment units.

Project components were based on participatoryrural appraisals undertaken in 47 villages in 12municipalities initially identified as within the projectarea. Priority needs were identified as accessinfrastructure—roads, vehicles, footbridges, andtramlines; water for irrigation and domestic use; andvillage market facilities.

The CHARM project was designed before theadoption of ADB’s Policy on Indigenous Peoples. Adevelopment strategy was nevertheless prepared forindigenous cultural communities, aiming to ensure theirinformed participation and to use their traditionalprocesses for community action. Overall, the projectappears to have responded to expressed needs ofindigenous communities. Community participation hasbeen accomplished successfully through activeinvolvement in a village-level natural resourcemanagement plan. Conducted on an annual basis, thisplan identifies priority needs and specific activities tobe implemented over the next year. This participatoryapproach has been the project’s main strength, buildingthe capacity and confidence of indigenous peoples toplan, implement, and evaluate activities. Anotherstrength is efforts to secure the appropriate tenure

instruments for ancestral lands and domains. It has alsoresponded to the needs of indigenous peoples for greatermarket access and food self-sufficiency.

A perceived weakness, discussed at some lengthduring the present project’s provincial workshop inBaguio, has been the absence of systematic attempts towork through, and to strengthen, viable indigenousinstitutions. Such a component or methodology was notincluded in the original CHARM project document. Theproject has actually initiated some activities to enhancesuch institutions, as in the case of Abra Province wherethe traditional system is now being improved. But thereare several traditional institutions for forestmanagement and protection, of which the project mighthave been able to avail. There have also been concernsthat insufficient use was made of local expertise forproject implementation. An example was a case inBenguet Province, where a road construction projectwas awarded to a private contractor rather than to acommunity-based group.

In Mindanao, a new generation of projects is nowbeing prepared, likely to have at least some impact onindigenous peoples. A Mindanao Basic EducationDevelopment project has been under preparation forsome time, aiming to expand educational projects forpoor and vulnerable groups. Among the target groupsare indigenous communities seeking access tomainstream public education and alternative forms ofeducation, including nonformal, and livelihoodeducation. An indigenous peoples’ development planwas prepared for this project in 1998, outlining atentative basic education strategy for indigenouscommunities. The project also aims to focus on Muslimschools in order to establish a culturally relevant andappropriate curriculum for Muslim and nonMuslimpopulations.

Indigenous concerns have been addressed quitesystematically in the context of a Rural Livelihoods inMindanao Forestlands project currently underpreparation. This project aims to address the needs ofthe rural poor located in forestlands through an increasein land productivity in areas not suitable for agriculture,as well as the provision of alternative sources oflivelihood. It aims to involve the direct participation ofsome 15,000 households, of which approximately 60%are identified as indigenous peoples. Several certificatesof ancestral domain have already been issued withinthe proposed project area by DENR.


An initial social assessment for this projectprovided an overview of the indigenous peoples in theproject area and their sociocultural features; of landtenure and indigenous production systems; and of thepoverty level and economic indicators. It found thataverage annual incomes per family are well below theannual poverty threshold, and that subsistence farmingfills the void for food requirements. Poverty of anindigenous group like the Ata-Manobo is attributed togeographical location, which impedes the provision ofbasic social services. A contributory factor is the peaceand order situation, sufficiently volatile to warrant fearin the delivery of social services. The initial assessmentidentifies a number of potentially negative impacts ofthe project. These include the rising value of real estateadjacent to project sites, which may cause the Ata-Manobo to sell their lands; a distortion of social relationsthrough more intensified involvement with the marketeconomy; and the possible emergence of a local elite.Proposals are put forward for measures including legalassistance to protect territory and resources, andlivelihood assistance for enterprise development. Allproject initiatives should be directed through anorganized council of elders for approval.

Viet Nam

In Viet Nam, the most important experience hasbeen with new poverty reduction projects in the CentralHighlands. A Central Region Livelihood Improvementproject was approved by the ADB Board of Directors inApril 2001. It aims to ensure that the poor in uplandcommunes of several provinces, including Kon Tum inthe Central Highlands, achieve sustainable livelihoodsthrough a reduction in the incidence of poverty in theproject area. The project includes five components:household food security, income generation, communitydevelopment, institutional strengthening, and projectmanagement support.

Considerable attention was paid to ethnic minorityissues in project preparation. Technical assistance tothis effect, financed from the Japan Special Fund,52

included the services of a rural sociologist to develop aproject-specific minority peoples’ development plan.This was to articulate the framework for the participationof minority peoples in project planning andimplementation, based upon consultations with minoritypeoples and their representatives in the project area;

and to assess poverty levels and other vulnerable groups’development opportunities and constraints, includingconsideration of cultural and linguistic aspects vis-à-vis ethnic minorities. On the basis of assessment, someimportant provisions have been included in the finalproject document. On land, for example, the project willseek to negotiate for land-use rights of one form oranother for ethnic minority communities, in return foragreed management plans. The project document alsoraises certain concerns with regard to sedentarizationand its compatibility with indigenous peoples’ cultureand institutions. The social development plans willexamine existing plans for sedentarization and thecommunities’ ideas on these will be submitted to districtand provincial authorities for further review anddiscussion. Assurances are to be sought that theProvincial Peoples’ Committees will supportarrangements to extend community access to land rightson a sustainable basis.

The indigenous peoples’ development plan for theproject also aims to facilitate empowerment of ethnicminority communities by strengthening theirparticipation in local development activities. The Plan’sobjectives are to be addressed through comprehensiveconsultations with the individual communities andvillages as a precursor to social development plans foreach commune. Assurances are that in all communesand villages, and particularly those where indigenouspeoples are a minority, all indigenous groups arerepresented in the participatory communitydevelopment process and priority is given to theirconcerns.

Similar plans—usually termed ethnic minoritydevelopment plans in the Vietnamese context—havebeen prepared for other new and pipeline projects. Fora rural health project, the plan supports the ongoinggovernment strategy for ethnic minorities throughproject-specific components and a mainstreamingstrategy. The former components include the productionof ethnic minority handbooks for commune and villagehealth workers, and where possible the translation ofmaterials into ethnic minority languages.

Most recently, ethnic minority concerns have beenaddressed during the preparation of a Second Red RiverBasin Water Resources Sector project. This project aimsto improve agricultural performance and incomes ofpoorer communities through sustainable improvementsin irrigation, drainage, watersheds, and flood protection,


within a framework of integrated water resourcemanagement in the Red River Basin. All componentsare to be supported by rural development measures, orby special poverty reduction measures based oncommunity demands. For the purposes of this project,it was decided after negotiation with the Governmentto incorporate, instead of ethnic minority developmentas such, guidelines on participation of ethnic minoritiesin the project. The emphasis is on mainstreaming andpositive measures to improve incomes and livelihood.

This includes greater incomes from upland farmingactivities through raising of crop yields and quality;maintaining ethnic identity through such traditionalhandicrafts as weaving and embroidery; and introducingimproved but culturally appropriate farmingtechnologies that will not alter traditional lifestyles andfarming practices. Emphasis is given to safeguards inflood protection. For all activities, efforts are to be madeto reach out to ethnic minority groups in their ownlanguage, using culturally appropriate techniques.


This chapter presents some of the main findingsof the project and discusses their implicationsfor future poverty reduction strategies, policies,

and programs as they may affect indigenous peoplesand ethnic minorities. It prepares the ground for thepresentation of a proposed action plan in the finalchapter.

ETHNICITY AND POVERTYREDUCTION: THE CASE FOR

DIFFERENTIATED TREATMENT

Fundamental questions are when and under whatcircumstances indigenous peoples and ethnic minoritiesshould receive differentiated treatment in povertyreduction programs, and also what this differentiatedtreatment should include. Should it have different goals,responding to the different perceptions of these peoples?Should a program, project, or any of its components be“ethnically targeted?” Should there be very distinctprocedures, to permit the effective participation ofindigenous peoples and ethnic minorities in the design,implementation, and monitoring of programs?

The present project dealt with these questionsfrom different angles, as presented in different chaptersabove. First, it discussed the complex issue of definition,among other things assessing how easy it is in practiceto distinguish between indigenous and nonindigenouspeoples in each of the countries. Second, it reviewedthe law and policy framework, examining the extent towhich there may be special provisions for these groupsin national development and poverty reduction policiesand programs. Third, a limited quantitative assessment(based on admittedly weak data) examined the possiblecorrelation between ethnicity and poverty, and the casefor ethnic targeting. Fourth, and perhaps mostimportantly, the study focused on the perceptions of

these groups with regard to poverty and well-being.Finally, it examined the international experience, inparticular ADB experience to date, assessing how theseethnicity concerns were dealt with in policies, programs,and projects.

One point stands out. There cannot bedifferentiated treatment unless there is a clearunderstanding of the target groups. This is whatcurrently sets Indonesia (and to a lesser extentCambodia) apart from the Philippines and Viet Nam. InIndonesia, there is a strong undercurrent of adat identity,manifest in new networks and community-basedorganizations throughout the archipelago. They aremobilized under a roughly similar banner of traditionalland rights, recognition of customary law, and self-governance through customary institutions. But it isvirtually impossible to estimate the numbers of such adatgroups, first because of the absence of an officialnational definition and policy, and second because thecriteria for inclusion depend as much on lifestyles andaspirations as on strictly ethnic factors. Certain ethnicgroups may nevertheless be more likely than others topursue or aspire toward an adat communal lifestyle. Agreat deal of anthropological work and participatorybaseline studies would be necessary before seriousconsideration could be given to ethnically differentiatedpolicies and programs.

The Philippines and Viet Nam present ratherdifferent, distinct, pictures. The Philippines has a legaldefinition of indigenous, which is potentially far reaching.It also has an elaborate law and policy framework, whichallows for differentiated treatment. The main issues areancestral domain and traditional land rights, togetherwith local self-governance and respect for traditionalinstitutions. There remain ambiguities over definition, forexample, whether certain Islamized communities ofMindanao and Sulu would be candidates for inclusionunder the “indigenous umbrella” if they so chose. Thefieldwork under this project has pointed to indigenous

CONCLUSIONS7


perceptions of poverty and well-being that provide verystrong arguments for ethnically differentiated treatment.The concept of impoverishment can be strongly linkedto dispossession from traditional land areas, and to thebreakdown of communal structures and institutions. Atthe same time, indigenous respondents in the Philippinesemphasized the need to have access to more incomeand education, and to have greater insertion within themarket economy on their own terms. This seems to pointto the need for a “development with identity” approach,which does not aim to insulate indigenous peoples frommarket forces, but rather seeks to adapt marketstructures to indigenous values and institutions. Yet, ifthis approach is to be pursued further, there is a needfor far more systematic data collection and analysis toassess poverty trends for indigenous peoples in differentparts of the country.

In Viet Nam, the arguments for ethnic targeting ofpolicies and programs have been quite intensivelydiscussed. There is a relatively clear understanding asto who comprise the ethnic minority groups, althoughproposals have been made in this project for refiningthe classifications. The existing classifications havenevertheless permitted some analysis of poverty trendsfor ethnic minorities in different geographical regionsover time. Evidence of a growing poverty gap betweenethnic minority and Kinh populations has led to somereconsideration of earlier policies and a growingacceptance that some targeting of resources may benecessary at least for the smaller ethnic minority groups.There is a broader policy debate concerning thepurposes of such targeted policies. Past policies havetended to promote economic and social integration, buthave not always been successful in reducing povertyamong vulnerable groups. More attention is now beinggiven to the scope for differentiated poverty reductioninterventions, adapted to the particular situation andaspirations of different ethnic minority groups.

THE LAW AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

The present project has identified diverse law andpolicy frameworks in the participating countries. Theconcerns of this project have been not so much withindigenous identity and rights in general, as with theirimplications for poverty reduction strategies. It is

necessary to review the fundamental principles on whicha policy toward these vulnerable groups might be based.

At one end of the spectrum, policies can be basedon the concept of special protection from outside forcesor, at the other, on accelerated integration withinmainstream society. Policies can be based on otherprinciples, such as recognition of prior rights of“aboriginal” peoples over their lands and resources.

Policies in the project countries, albeit evolvingin recent years, have shown a mix of these principles.Indonesia is understandably nervous of the concepts ofindigenous peoples and indigenous rights, given thecomplex claims and even conflicts to which theseconcepts could give rise in such a culturally diversecountry with a recent history of transmigration and otherdemographic movement. Cambodia has so far found iteasier than neighboring Viet Nam to incorporateindigenous rights provisions in its new land law, perhapsbecause the issues and claims are more localized. VietNam has been able to direct resources at poor ethnicminority communities without having a formal policyon the subject. The emphasis has so far been mainly onintegration, with uniform land and resourcemanagement policies, for example. There are signs thatthe Government may consider certain policy reforms,such as with regard to land adjudication.

The Philippines is the country with policies mostanchored on the principles of special and ancestralrights, permitting differentiated treatment with regardto land rights and other concerns. The signs are thatthese ancestral domains and self-management policieswill not be sufficient in themselves to achieve economicupliftment in those areas where poverty of indigenouscommunities is most serious. There is a need to combinethese approaches with further policies and programs toensure improved access to basic services and income-earning opportunities. One of the tasks of the NCIP is toachieve this, ensuring that all government departmentsand agencies give due attention to indigenous concerns.

POVERTY INDICATORS ANDMEASUREMENT

The data needed for a rigorous quantitativeassessment of poverty trends in indigenous peoples andethnic minorities are unavailable in most countries. The

Conclusions 61

emphasis of the project was mainly on qualitativeassessments in order to gain some idea of indigenousperceptions of poverty, its causes, recent trends, andpossible remedies. The very preliminary findings are thatpoverty and wealth do have a very particular meaningfor cohesive indigenous and ethnic minoritycommunities, which seek to maintain their culturalintegrity and which can equate the concept of povertywith loss of traditional values. At the same time, it shouldcome as no surprise that indigenous peoples share thesame aspirations as other population groups with regardto educational achievement, productivity, and income-earning opportunities. It should always be rememberedthat these peoples, while they wish to maintain theintegrity of their community, may actually wish theirchildren to earn a livelihood outside the community.They are not locked into a purely subsistence economy,but tend to have a foot in different economicenvironments.

Baseline studies of poverty in indigenous and ethnicminority communities need to examine these factors, ifthey are to be of real use for poverty reduction strategies.There is a need to examine the extent to whichremittances are being sent from outside the communities,how much participation there is in external labor markets,and other aspects of integration within the wider nationaleconomy. Income inequalities within the community,including gender inequalities, also need to be assessed.

LAND TENURE AND RESOURCEMANAGEMENT

Land tenure and rights were the most sensitiveissues. In each country there has been either a reality ora threat of dispossession from traditional lands andforests. This has often been put forward as the principalcause of impoverishment, or intensification of poverty,in recent times. In some cases, serious land shortagesare emerging. This problem has been identified in partsof Indonesia and Viet Nam, and in those parts ofnortheastern Cambodia close to urban centers. Reasonscan include extensive settlement by nonindigenouspeoples, sometimes spontaneous and sometimesofficially sponsored by governments. In the Philippines,where the present Government has pledged toaccelerate its program of titling ancestral domains, there

are likely to be complex problems of overlapping claimsbetween indigenous communities, mining and otherconcessionaires, and other external interests.

The appropriate policy response should vary withthe individual situation and the nature of indigenousand ethnic minority demands. Where very significantareas of lands and environmental resources have beenlost to outsiders, as in the case of certain Indonesianislands, there can be strong demands for restitution aswell as regeneration of depleted environmentalresources. In cases where indigenous lands are only nowcoming under serious threat from outside interests, theneed can be for a very rapid program of identification,community mapping, demarcation, and titling. This willneed some legal framework, as well as some mechanismfor resolving conflicts between indigenous and outsideland claimants. Where lands are to be titled communally,there is need for clarity as to the legal entity in whichlandownership is vested.

CONSULTATIVE MECHANISMS ANDTRADITIONAL INSTITUTIONS

The project aimed to examine consultativemechanisms carefully. There is correctly a growinginterest by ADB and others in the role of institutions inpoverty reduction and development. Traditionalindigenous and ethnic minority institutions can be veryimportant agents of governance, enjoying stronglegitimacy within the communities, with an importantrole in conflict mediation and resolution. But traditionalinstitutions also change and may have been underminedby centralizing policies or by conflicts.

Indeed, with the possible exception of thePhilippines, the role of traditional institutions in povertyreduction and development does not appear to be strongin the project countries. There are ongoing attempts torevitalize customary law institutions in Indonesia, tocreate new highland peoples organizations in Cambodia,and to recognize new ethnic minority consultativecouncils outside the official state structure in Viet Nam.

In establishing consultative mechanisms, it is alsoimportant to look beyond the merely local andcommunity level. It has to be remembered thatindigenous peoples and ethnic minorities are a veryconsiderable proportion of national populations, at least


in Indonesia, Philippines, and Viet Nam. Their interests,and the extent of their poverty reduction, will be affectedby decisions at the national as well as local level. Thereis a corresponding need for consultative mechanisms thatpermit indigenous and ethnic minority representativesto be involved in policy formulation at different levels ofsociety. Lessons may be learned from such bodies as theNCIP in the Philippines and Viet Nam’s CEMMA.

INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

For international development assistance, theconcern with indigenous peoples is quite recent butdecidedly growing. Policy and program interventions byinternational agencies in the project countries have hadmixed success. The mere drafting of a policy may notlead to effective results. However, as organizations likeADB give more emphasis to poverty reduction includingtargeting of the poorest geographical areas in developingmember countries, there is likely to be ever more contactwith indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities.

This has been the case in the project countries,with the exception of Cambodia where indigenouspeoples are located mainly in one geographic regionthat has not been considered a priority for ADBassistance. This means that more poverty reductionprojects have contained specific components forindigenous peoples and ethnic minorities, and a numberof indigenous peoples’ development plans or ethnic

minority development plans have been prepared forspecific projects. There have also been cases where thebulk of intended beneficiaries of ADB projects,particularly poverty reduction projects in rural areas,have been indigenous peoples or ethnic minorities.

Nevertheless, adequate attention to the povertyconcerns of these peoples can require policy dialoguewith the governments to seek consensus on key policyreforms and promote meaningful consultation with therepresentatives of indigenous peoples and ethnicminorities on national policy decisions that can affectthem. There is scope for addressing these issues morecomprehensively in partnership agreements on povertyreduction with the countries concerned and in CSPs.

In this regard, the experience with the projectcountries has been mixed. In Viet Nam there has beenconsiderable attention to ethnic minority concerns inthe CSP, and also in preparing the partnershipagreement. In the Philippines, a very recent partnershipagreement on poverty reduction makes reference toindigenous rights and to support for the government’sissuance of ancestral domain titles for indigenouscommunities. It would be useful to find mechanismsthrough which representatives of indigenous peoplesand ethnic minorities could be consulted directly duringthe preparation of CSPs and partnership agreementson poverty reduction. This would be one more meansof mainstreaming their concerns in national planningprocesses and in the programs and policies ofgovernment agencies concerned with different aspectsof poverty reduction.

Conclusions 63

INTRODUCTION

A key objective of the project has been to proposea regional plan of action to address the povertyconcerns of indigenous peoples and ethnic

minorities. In presenting this action plan, someclarification is needed. For a project that has beenfinanced and implemented by ADB, and which hasreviewed ADB’s past activities in the participatingcountries, it is inevitable that some of the emphasisshould be on the future activities and programs that canbe undertaken by ADB itself. Components of the plancan guide the future approach and activities of ADB,and result in specific programs of technical assistance,research and analysis, and other interventions.

However, the action plan needs also to be of moregeneral application, identifying policy concerns thatcan be addressed at the national level, and activitiesand programs that can be undertaken by nationaland international agencies, either governmental,intergovernmental, or nongovernmental. Somecomparative advantages of the different actors will beidentified in the next section.

Furthermore, the plan has to address proceduralissues as well as specific activities and programs. A keyconcern of indigenous peoples throughout the world isthat they should be consulted adequately, if possiblethrough their own representative institutions, withregard to any development or investment projects thatare likely to have an impact on their lands or livelihood.Getting the procedures right in order to secure theinvolvement of indigenous peoples and ethnic minoritiesin the process of their own development, can be asimportant as planning specific or targeted activities ontheir behalf.

A regional action plan also has to take dueaccount of national differences. The context is verydifferent, for example, in the Philippines, where thelegal framework for recognizing indigenous rights andland security is firmly in place; and Indonesia, wherethese concerns are only now beginning to be placedon national policy agendas. Throughout the regionthere remain some concerns about definition (i.e., thepopulation groups to be covered by the termsindigenous peoples and ethnic minorities) and theimplications of the terms used for practical policies andprograms.

Despite some underlying differences between theparticipating countries, this project has also identifiedsome common challenges and opportunities. Some ofthese challenges are quite immense for nationalgovernments and civil society, and also for theinternational assistance and development community.Land adjudication policies and natural resource rightsand management stand out as the most significantconcerns around the Southeast Asian region, sometimesgathering in intensity in recent years. Communityempowerment, the role of traditional institutionsin governance and decentralization, consultativemechanisms, health, education, social services,language, and cultural recognition are some othercommon issues and challenges.

As pointed out earlier, the issues of ethnic orindigenous identity can be highly complex. Somegovernments may be reluctant to recognize the conceptof indigenous peoples, fearing that this may lead todifferentiated claims that can undermine national unity.However, as ADB President Tadao Chino emphasizedduring the regional workshop, failure to address thepoverty concerns of vulnerable ethnic minorities canundermine national harmony and spill over into seriousinterethnic tensions.

Proposed Elements

A REGIONAL ACTION PLAN8


Even so, the purpose of identifying a populationgroup as indigenous or ethnic minority needs to beclearly understood. To cite President Chino again, “Howcan the balance be struck between respect forindigenous cultures and mainstreaming processes thatcombat social exclusion, break down the barriers ofdiscrimination, and seek improved access formarginalized groups to national economic benefits?”The point is that indigenous peoples and ethnicminorities can be singled out for distinct treatment,either on the grounds of their vulnerability and povertyin the context of modernization and development, orbecause of cultural differences. In neither case are thesegroups likely to wish to be protected from development.Like any other peoples and communities, they willalmost certainly wish to benefit from material progress.Indeed, as the participatory poverty assessmentsdemonstrated in each of the four countries, indigenouspeoples and ethnic minorities express needs largelysimilar to those of other groups of society. They wantmore and better education, jobs, and incomes; improvedhealth and health services; greater access to credit andfinancial services; higher quality roads andinfrastructure; and many of the other material benefitsthat make up a decent human existence.

At the same time, some indigenous and ethnicminority groups can display strong resistance toassimilation by the dominant society. Retaining theirdistinct social, cultural, and economic institutions—whether of language, governance, land and resourcemanagement, or traditional health care—can be anintegral part of their existence. But this can also be amatter of choice. Self-identification as indigenous canbe bound up with lifestyle choices as much as with ethnicorigin. Further, external characteristics, such aslanguage or dress, may not identify persons or groupswith a strongly felt indigenous identity.

ISSUES OF DEFINITION AND IDENTITY

National Action

Each of the participating countries has hadpotential difficulties in identifying the persons orcommunities considered to be indigenous peoples orethnic minorities for the purpose of targeted poverty

reduction programs or any other form of interventionthat might require differentiated approaches. Theproblems of identification clearly vary from country tocountry, as has been seen in the earlier analysis.

In Cambodia, where adequate census data areavailable, the important thing is to determine whichethnic minority groups should be covered by the specialprovisions of the new Land Law, or by the policies andprograms of the IMC.

In Indonesia, participants at the national workshoprecommended a major participatory process, involvinguniversities and research institutions as well asorganizations of adat communities, to identify adatcommunities and institutions. Such a process is clearlynecessary, if the Government is to fulfil its commitmentto strengthen adat institutions within the framework ofregional autonomy and decentralization programs.

In the Philippines, despite a fairly strong legal andinstitutional framework, there is still insufficient clarityas to which ethnic groups will be covered by theprovisions of the IPRA. Full clarity will be needed if theGovernment carries out its pledge to accelerate theissuance of ancestral domain titles between 2002 and2004. The issues are particularly complex in Mindanao,where the distinction between indigenous and Muslimidentity is not always clear. Muslim groups mighthenceforth choose to identify themselves as indigenousin order to pursue ancestral domain claims. A series ofparticipatory consultations at different levels will alsobe advisable in this country, to examine the implicationsof self-identification as indigenous. The scope fordisaggregation by ethnicity should also be examined inpopulation census and household surveys.

Of the four countries, ethnic classifications aremost advanced in Viet Nam. This has permitted somecomprehensive analysis of poverty trends in ethnicminorities. It provides a useful basis for povertytargeting. However, the project’s national workshop inHanoi recognized deficiencies in the existingclassifications. It has pointed to a more exactidentification of Viet Nam’s ethnic composition as animportant priority in the immediate future, and as anurgent need for policymakers and developmentpractitioners. The country study has recommendedconducting this study not only at the national level, butalso in provinces and communes at the local level.

In each country, therefore, there is a need for majorinitiatives to identify indigenous peoples and ethnic

A Regional Action Plan: Proposed Elements 65

minority populations. Each government could designatea research institute to assume principal responsibilityfor these studies and set time-bound targets for carryingout these activities.

International Action

These national efforts will require internationalsupport. A bilateral donor may wish to support theresearch activities. Moreover, technical support wouldbe useful to assist governments of the region to captureindigenous and ethnic minority characteristics in theircensus, household surveys, and other statistical datagathering. Such assistance could be provided either byone of the United Nations agencies, or by ADB.

ADB has been required under its Policy onIndigenous Peoples to address issues of indigenousidentity in its country operations. So far this has beendone mainly at the project level, in the context of socialassessment and the preparation of indigenous peoples’development plans (IPDPs). The experience hassometimes presented difficulties, both because ofpossible ambiguities over the criteria for definition, andalso because of uncertainty over the practicalimplications of such definition for project operations.

ADB would benefit from a clear understandingwith the governments of the region, concerning theethnic groups to be covered by its Policy on IndigenousPeoples. The issues are best addressed in countrystrategies and programs and in overall policy dialogue.Moreover, profiles of indigenous peoples and ethnicminorities need to cover not only their numbers,geographical location, and ethnic grouping. They shouldalso cover their patterns of land use and forms ofrepresentation, among other things.

OVERALL LAW AND POLICYFRAMEWORK

Challenges

The overall policy framework is of obviousimportance, in promoting and safeguarding the rightsof indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities in thedevelopment process. As the Policy on Indigenous

Peoples stresses, ADB supports government effortsthrough assistance in formulating policies, strategies,laws, regulations, and other specific actions responsiblefor indigenous peoples.

In the project countries, the law and policyframework is still evolving, with the possible exceptionof the Philippines where the main challenges are thoseof policy implementation. The national workshopsgenerally emphasized the need for more coherent policiesand for participation by indigenous peoples and ethnicminority representatives in policy formulation. InIndonesia, for example, the national action plan calls forreview of policies in participation with adat communities;for a revision of laws and other implementing regulations(including local and regional regulations) that can havea negative impact on adat communities; for ratificationof international law instruments related to adatcommunities; and for public consultation in the processof revising laws and policies. In Viet Nam, the nationalworkshop recommended the adoption of acomprehensive policy, with a common understanding ofguiding principles for development work, based onscientific research as well as knowledge of real situations.

At the regional workshop, some participantsstressed the need to harmonize policy approaches ofdifferent government agencies. There might be anexcellent overall policy concerning indigenous peoplesor ethnic minorities, but this might not be applied bydifferent government line agencies. Examples werepolicies concerning shifting cultivation.

National Action

Each country can set itself the goal of adoptingan integrated policy concerning poverty reduction anddevelopment for indigenous peoples and ethnicminorities. The policy can be informed by internationalstandards. Governments should make efforts todisseminate these standards—including the ILO’sIndigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, No. 169 andother pertinent instruments of the UN system—amongkey policymakers and the legislature. However, it isequally important that policies be influenced by nationalrealities and by the perceptions and aspirations of theindigenous and ethnic minority groups themselves.

Moreover, governments could establish policyreview commissions, to review other sectoral policies


and guidelines (including overall socioeconomicplanning, land and forestry, health and education, creditand financial services, marketing and infrastructure,local government, and regional autonomy ordecentralization) by reference to the concerns ofindigenous peoples and ethnic minorities. Consistentwith the recommendations of this project and its regionalworkshop, such an approach would serve to mainstreamthese concerns and ensure that there is someunderstanding of indigenous/ethnic minority aspirationsin all poverty-oriented policies and programs. Moreover,adequate involvement of indigenous and ethnic minorityrepresentatives in such an exercise would provideimportant capacity building for them, as well as buildingawareness of their needs in the rest of society.

To prevent such a policy review exercise frombeing too ambitious, it is recommended that eachcountry commence with a small number of importantissues. They could be selected by the pertinentgovernment agency in consultation with indigenous andethnic minority representatives. A particular focus mightbe given, for example, to regional autonomy anddecentralization policies in Indonesia; or to land andresource management policies in the Philippines.

To ensure adequate follow-up to the project, somepolicy reviews should be commenced by the end of 2002.An initial regional consultation could then be organizedearly in 2003, to compare findings and learn lessons forfuture policy formulation.


International agencies could support such apolicy review exercise in accordance with theirmandates and expertise. Of the UN specializedagencies, the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations, IFAD, ILO, the United Nations Children’sFund, the United Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization, and WHO might all supportcertain aspects and host national or internationalmeetings as relevant.

As suggested at the regional workshop, UNDPmight play a particular role in this area. In accordancewith its new policy paper on indigenous peoples’ issues,UNDP aims to focus on effective participation inpolicymaking. Indigenous peoples have been identifiedas one of the areas for future collaboration betweenADB and UNDP. UNDP might usefully sponsor the

above-mentioned consultation in early 2003, to learnthe appropriate lessons.

ADB could provide financial or technical supportfor such a comparative policy review. Alternatively, itmight provide technical support to governments andindigenous organizations. The regional workshopspecifically recommended that ADB should invest inprograms for indigenous peoples’ capacity building,enabling them to participate in the process of law andpolicy reform, sponsoring seminars or workshops forthis purpose. To follow up this recommendation, ADBresident missions could sponsor at least one suchworkshop in each participating country by mid-2003 atthe latest.

POLICY COORDINATION ANDCONSULTATIVE MECHANISMS

Challenges

For policies to be effective, they need to becoordinated carefully among the various agencies ofgovernment, and consultative mechanisms need to beestablished at different levels. During the project, theregional workshop and some of the national workshopsdetected some failures to translate broad policyprinciples into effective action at the local level. Thispoint was emphasized for the Philippines and Viet Nam,the two countries that have the strongest policyframework at the national level. The Viet Nam countrystudy, for example, pointed to inadequate linkages andconsistency between policies, basic laws, programs, andprojects, leading to some overlap and confusionbetween programs and projects.

Key issues include determining which agency ofgovernment should have the principal responsibility forpolicy coordination; how policy should best becoordinated between national, provincial, and locallevels; and how the representatives of indigenouspeoples and ethnic minorities can be represented mosteffectively at all levels on consultative and policy bodies.

The regional workshop made a number ofimportant recommendations, some directed at nationalgovernments, others at international actors includingADB. The following elements of the action plan arebased largely on these recommendations.


National Action

Each country should identify a lead agency ofgovernment, with responsibility for coordinating policiesfor indigenous and ethnic minority development, inconsultation with representatives of these peoples. Thisagency may have some role in implementing projectsand programs. Policy coordination should neverthelessbe its main function, together with the monitoring andevaluation of projects and programs that affect thesepeoples and their livelihood.

Consultation mechanisms need to be adapted tothe national context. Different approaches have beensuggested in the national action plans. The Philippinesproposed convening a national consultative body on anannual basis, to facilitate identification of leaders.Indonesia proposed increasing the representation of adatcommunities in peoples’ representative bodies, as wellas strengthening the role of adat institutions inpolicymaking by regional governments. Viet Namstressed the need to increase the number of ethnicminority personnel involved in development programs.Cambodia proposed the establishment of local councilsof ethnic minorities, to advise on development andinvestment policies and programs. An importantcondition is that governments should establish time-bound targets for establishing consultative mechanismsat different levels, ensuring wherever possible that thesebuild on existing organizational structures and are notartificially imposed on the peoples concerned. Extensivecapacity building will then be required to enableindigenous peoples and ethnic minority representativesto participate effectively in decision taking.


International agencies including ADB have theopportunity to improve policy coordination and tostrengthen mechanisms for the improved participationby indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities in povertyreduction policies and programs. For ADB, the structuralmechanisms are already in place, such as the partnershipagreements on poverty reduction at the country leveland the IPDPs at the project level. A challenge is to movebeyond purely project-based or local approaches, towardone that can first assess the impact of generalantipoverty policies and programs on indigenous

peoples and ethnic minorities, and second permit thesepeoples greater participation in development planningand processes at the national level.

As recommended at the regional workshop,international support could consist of the followingactivities.

• A review of policies in all areas to identify gaps orconflicts on indigenous peoples’ issues.

• Assistance in preparing national action plans onindigenous peoples.

• Funding of pilot projects for capacity building forindigenous peoples and government officials fromthe provincial to the national level. When a newdepartment has been created to address thedevelopment and poverty concerns of indigenouspeoples, as in the case of Cambodia, assistancecould seek to strengthen its capacity.

• Organization and facilitation of national andregional discussions on poverty reduction andindigenous peoples, with the participation of allstakeholders including governments, indigenouspeoples, NGOs, and, where relevant, privateenterprise.

MONITORING POVERTY TRENDSAND CHARACTERISTICS

Challenges

Poverty monitoring for indigenous peoples andethnic minorities is required for two major purposes:first, using the more conventional poverty indicators,to assess whether or not these peoples aredisproportionately affected by material poverty, and alsowhether or not these trends have been worsening; andsecond, through careful fieldwork, to help policymakersunderstand better the meaning of poverty and wealthfor these peoples, and their own priorities. The projectaimed to do both of these things. Because of the generallack of data disaggregated by ethnicity, with theexception of Viet Nam, it could only shed limited lighton the first issue. On the second issue, the findings were


very mixed. Indigenous peoples and ethnic minoritiesmay have particular perceptions of poverty and wealth.But in other aspects, their concerns and aspirations arevery similar to those of other population groups.

National Action

In household survey and other baseline data usedfor poverty indicators and measurement, particularattention could be paid to indigenous, ethnic minority,and adat communities. Other countries might followthe example of Viet Nam, whose national action planproposes official regulations on compulsory use ofindicators and data from ethnic minority areas inofficial statistical publications, both central and local.Where possible, statistical surveys should be combinedwith qualitative sample assessments that pay attentionto indigenous perceptions of wealth and poverty.Representatives of these groups need to be trained insurvey techniques and indicators in order to participateeffectively in poverty monitoring and poverty trendanalysis.


Initiatives such as that led by UNDP in Viet Nam’sPoverty Task Force, identifying mechanisms formonitoring poverty targets for ethnic minorities, couldusefully be replicated in other countries of the region.This study proposed longitudinal studies in sampleprovinces and for select ethnic groups until 2010. UNDPmight promote similar approaches elsewhere incollaboration with ADB and other international agencies.

ADB could address these concerns in theframework of its partnership agreements on povertyreduction with the governments of the region. This couldalso provide the appropriate mechanism for devisingprojects or programs in accordance with the aspirationsvoiced by indigenous communities. In the early stagesof drafting such an agreement, a consultative meetingcould be held with representative organizations ofindigenous peoples and ethnic minorities, identifyingtheir own concerns and priorities, and the means bywhich performance in this regard could be monitored.A start could be made immediately, identifying theappropriate procedures for such an exercise.

LAND RIGHTS AND RESOURCEMANAGEMENT

Challenges

The project’s national workshops and regionalworkshop placed major emphasis on lands and naturalresources. The nature of the challenges and theappropriate policy and program response clearly vary bycountry. In Indonesia, some adat communities are makingdemands for the restitution of lands previously occupiedby them. In the Philippines, indigenous peoples and theirsupport groups now seek to register their claims toancestral domain. Similarly, in Cambodia, the emphasisis on demarcating and titling traditional indigenous landareas. In Viet Nam, there is need for significant law andpolicy reform before ethnic minorities can make any legalclaim to traditional land areas.

Policy approaches on key aspects of land use andownership remain diverse. There are differing views asto whether or how much indigenous land should beprotected from market forces, with restrictions onmortgaging and alienation to outsiders. And there aremixed approaches to indigenous patterns of land use,including the longstanding debates over traditionalforms of shifting cultivation. There is a particularlydifficult balance between the promotion of efficient andenvironmentally sound agricultural practices and respectfor indigenous culture. However, indigenous cultures arenot static, and it would appear that most indigenousand ethnic minority communities wish to modernizetheir land tenure to make their agricultural practicesmore sustainable and to benefit from marketopportunities without excessively prejudicing theirtraditional land security. And most importantly, loss oftheir land security is widely perceived by indigenouspeoples as the main cause of their material poverty orimpoverishment.

When special land rights for indigenous peoplesare recognized, there can be considerable complexitiesin their implementation, in reconciling these specialrights with other aspects of the national legal system,and in solving potential conflicts between indigenouspeoples and outsiders. These issues have become mostproblematic in the Philippines, which has the mostambitious legislation on ancestral land rights anddomain. However, the same challenges may in future


be replicated in other Southeast Asian countries. Asstressed by a legal expert from the Philippines during theregional workshop, a number of questions arise. Whowill benefit from these special tenurial instruments? Cantribal councils, councils of elders, clans, or tribes beproper beneficiaries of such tenurial instruments? Whatwill be the permissible extent of resource use, forexample, over waters, minerals, and other subsurfaceresources within ancestral domain areas? And how canconflicting claims between mining, forestry, public land,ownership, and other various forms of claims be resolved?

National Action

Different strategies need to be pursued, dependingon whether or not a law and policy framework foradjudicating indigenous land rights are in place.

Where they are in place, as in the Philippines andto a lesser extent in Cambodia, practical and rapidmeasures are required in order to avert further landdispossession, demonstrating progress each year inimproving land security. A useful model is thecommitment by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo ofthe Philippines to award ancestral domain titles to 100indigenous peoples’ communities every year during2002–2004. Such time-bound targets are important,measured both as the number of titles to be awardedeach year and as the physical land area to be regularized.

In all cases, indigenous communities need to beinvolved in the mapping of the lands traditionally usedby them. These communities have the best knowledgeof their own patterns of land use and of their boundaries.Land specialists from government organizations needto work in close collaboration with local communities,providing training in the necessary mapping andsurveying techniques.

Once the land areas have been demarcated andtitled in the appropriate legal entity, it is important toassist indigenous communities in land use andmanagement. This may be a longer-term objective,given that the titling process is only now commencing.But it is important to demonstrate that indigenouscommunities can manage their land in an economicallyeffective and environmentally sound manner, given anappropriate policy environment and technical support.Some pilot programs could be usefully developed during2004–2005.


The process of land regularization will requiremuch international support, both technical andfinancial. Southeast Asian countries could learn usefullessons of best practice from other countries that have carried out extensive land titling and regularizationprograms for indigenous peoples, for example, in LatinAmerica. Bilateral donor agencies such as the DanishInternational Development Agency, which hasconsiderable experience supporting such programs inLatin America, might consider the extension of such aprogram to Southeast Asia. An important role can alsobe played by such international NGOs as theInternational Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, whichhas experience of participatory land mapping and titlingthat could usefully be adapted to the Asian region. Anorganization like the ILO, which has already addressedsustainable development plans for ancestral domainin the Philippines, might usefully extend the scope ofthis work to other countries of the region. Or UNDP,with its new emphasis on indigenous peoples’ issues,might usefully develop a regional program for thesustainable development of indigenous and ethnicminority lands.

Some ADB projects already have components forthe titling of indigenous lands. Examples are itsagricultural development and poverty reduction projectsin the Philippine Cordillera region (CHARM) and a rainfedagriculture development project in Central Sulawesi,Indonesia. Implementation of these components has notbeen strong and has possibly been hampered by lack oftechnical competence concerning these vital issueswithin ADB itself.

A follow-up ADB program of activities onindigenous land policy and management is clearlywarranted by the circumstances. The project’s nationaland regional workshops drew attention to the need fordifferent forms of policy advice, for law reform, forregulating existing laws, for technical aspects ofsurveying and titling, and for conflict resolution. Landissues are likely to surface frequently in the context ofADB’s own poverty reduction projects in indigenous andethnic minority areas. This suggests a need to increasecomprehension among ADB technical staff of land rightsconcerns and of the appropriate policy response.

These concerns would be best addressed througha new 2-year (2003–2004) regional technical assistance


with two sets of objectives. The first is to assistparticipating governments to refine their law and policyframework and implementing mechanisms; to establishparticular targets for issuing land titles; to strengthengovernment machinery responsible for coordinatingland adjudication; and to strengthen consultativemechanisms with indigenous peoples’ organizations.The second is to strengthen ADB’s internal capacityfor addressing indigenous and ethnic minority landconcerns in future project interventions; and developa database and training manuals for ADB staff.

INDIGENOUS AND ETHNICMINORITY CONCERNS IN BASIC

SOCIAL SERVICES

Challenges

A major concern is the inadequate delivery ofbasic social services to often remote areas where thesegroups are located. Another is that health andeducation services are ill adapted to indigenouscultures, and take no account of their traditionalknowledge and practices. This is linked to the widerissues of discrimination that can pervade relationsbetween indigenous and mainstream ethnic groups. Athird concern is that credit and financial servicescannot adopt to the many indigenous land and resourcemanagement systems based on communal tenure.There are many other aspects. Language barriers canprevent ethnic and linguistic minorities from access toall kinds of services, judicial or administrative. This canadd to a spiral of discrimination and enduring poverty.

National Action

A key issue is to mainstream indigenous andethnic minority concerns in all government programsfor the delivery of social services. The issue wasaddressed in the Philippine national workshop, in whicha series of different line agencies were invited to explaintheir programs on behalf of indigenous peoples. Thisexercise could usefully be repeated in all countries. Itrequires adequate policy coordination and consultativemechanisms.


Many international organizations, bothgovernment and nongovernment, are now concernedwith indigenous knowledge systems and practices. TheWorld Bank and ILO, among others, have addressed thisarea. One task is to disseminate the information andlessons learned, seeking to incorporate it within theprograms of government line agencies.

The role of ADB will be enhanced considerably, if itcan find the means to enhance expertise on indigenousand ethnic minority concerns in its operational work.Mainstreaming ethnic concerns in sectoral programsrequires paying attention to them at an early stage ofproject formulation. This is the opposite of the “safeguard”approach, which tends to examine the potentially adverseimpact of an intervention, rather than to examine ways inwhich indigenous groups can participate in, and hopefullybenefit from, sectoral programs of national application.As the findings of this project indicate, an effective strategyfor reducing the poverty of these vulnerable groups tendsoften to require the latter approach.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADB. 2000a. Poverty and Well-Being in the Philippines with a Focus on Mindanao. ADB, Manila.

. 2000b. Assessment of Poverty in Indonesia. ADB, Manila.

Alcorn, J.B., and A G. Royo (Editors). 2000. Indigenous Social Movements and EcologicalResilience: Lessons from the Dayak of Indonesia. Biodiversity Support Program,Washington, DC.

Baulch, B., Truong Thi Kim Chuyen, D. Haughton, and J. Haughton. Ethnic MinorityDevelopment in Viet Nam: a Socioeconomic Perspective. World Bank, Washington, DC.Forthcoming (draft of 27 September 2001).

Bourdier, F. 1996. Provincial Statistics and Statistics of Ministry of Interior (1995). Phnom Penh.

Chamberlain, J. and Panh Phomsombath. 1999. Policy Study on Ethnic Minority Issues in RuralDevelopment. ILO, Vientiane.

Committee for Ethnic Minorities and Mountainous Areas/Central Ideology-CultureDepartment. 2001. Handbook of Ethnic Work. Hanoi.

Directorate of Remote Indigenous Peoples’ Welfare. 2000, Efforts to Empower Them at aGlance. Jakarta.

Evers, P. J. 1995. Recognizing Traditional Land Rights in Indonesia. Ekonesia, Journal ofIndonesian Human Ecology, No. 3, September.

ILO and CEMMA. 2000. Report on a Pilot Project on Natural Resource Management and Women’sWorkload in Ethnic Communities. ILO and CEMMA, Hanoi.

INDISCO. 2000. Linking Grassroots Experiences with the Policy Environment: Strategy Paper forthe Second Phase, 2000-2003. INDISCO, ILO, Geneva.

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. 1998. Report on Land Situation. Hanoi.

Monie, Tiann. 2000. Report on the Land Rights of Indigenous Communities in Cambodia. UNDP/CARERE, IDRC, Ratanakiri, Cambodia.

Murray, T. 2001. Masyarakat Adat, Difference, and the Limits of Recognition in Indonesia’sForest Zone. Modern Asian Studies 35(3), July.

Neefjes, Koos. 2001. Poverty Reduction amongst Ethnic Minorities in the Mountainous Areas ofViet Nam: Reaching Targets. Prepared for the Poverty Task Force/UNDP, Hanoi.

Plant, R. 1998. Issues in Indigenous Poverty and Development. Technical Study No. IND-105,Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC.

Psacharopoulos, G., and H.A. Patrinos. 1994. Indigenous People and Poverty in Latin America.Regional and Sectoral Studies. World Bank, Washington, DC.

UNDP. 2001. National Capacity Building Program for the Empowerment of Indigenous Peoplesfor the Sustainable Management of Ancestral Domain (EIPSMAD). UNDP, Manila, June2001.

Vuong Xuan Tinh. 2000. Changing Land Policies and Impacts on Land Tenure of Ethnic Minoritiesin Viet Nam. Paper presented to the Workshop on Community Management ofForestlands, East-West Center, Honolulu, February-March 2001.

World Bank. 1992. Indigenous Forest-Dwelling Communities in Indonesia’s Outer Islands:Livelihood, Rights and Environmental Management Institutions in the Era of Industrial ForestExploitation. Report on Forestry Sector Review to World Bank, Washington, DC.


ENDNOTES

1 Evers (1995).

2 Directorate of Remote Indigenous Peoples’ Welfare. 2000.

3 World Bank (1992).

4 Regulation of Minister of Agrarian Affairs/Head of National Land Board No. 5 of1999 concerning Guidance for Resolution of Problems of Ulayat Rights of Adat LawCommunities.

5 Republic Act No. 8371, 28 July 1997.

6 The OPAIPA was created on an interim basis by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyothrough her first Executive Order (No. 1 of 20 February 2001), mainly to restructurethe NCIP. Its term was to cease upon the appointment and assumption into office ofa new Chair of the NCIP, by 31 October 2001 at the latest.

7 The terms Muslim and Moro have been used interchangeably to refer to those peoplewho adopted Islam as a religion and way of life. Whereas Muslim refers to a globalreligious identity, the term Moro denotes a political identity specific to the Islamizedpeoples of Mindanao and Sulu. The term was first used by Spanish colonizers for thepeoples of Mindanao sharing the religion of the Moors who had once colonizedSpain.

8 Lumad is a term of the Visayan language, meaning literally “born of the earth.” Whilemeaning the original inhabitants of Mindanao, it is used to refer to the nonMuslimand usually nonChristian indigenous peoples.

9 Republic Act No. 6734 of 1989, Act Providing for the Autonomous Region in MuslimMindanao.

10 This refers to rituals made before the imposition of modern government systems inMindanao, recognizing the territorial boundaries of the indigenous peoples and theMoros.

11 An example is the province of Kontum in the central highlands, where several ethnicminority groups are located. The 1997 Statistical Yearbook for Kontum province listsseven ethnic groups, but in the 2000 Statistical Yearbook there is no classificationaccording to ethnicity. Similar shortcomings have been detected in the northernhighland regions of Viet Nam. For example, the ethnic data sections in preparatorydocuments for the Northern Mountainous Region Poverty Reduction Project, fundedby the World Bank, have identified some ethnic groups but ignored other and smallerones. In other provinces, either there are no data on ethnic groups, or the data areorganized in ethnic categories too general to be meaningful, and which are notincluded in the official ethnicity classification. The paucity of data on ethnic groupshas affected the design, implementation, and monitoring of projects.

12 Act No. 41 on Forestry, 1999. See clause 67 and its explanation (cited in: Murray,2001).

13 Act No. 25 of 2000 (Program Pembangunan Nasional/PROPENAS), Annex of ChapterX on Development of Natural Resources and the Environment.

14 Article II, Section 22.

Endnotes 73

15 Article X, Sections 15-19.

16 Article XII, Section 2.

17 Republic Act No. 7942 of 1995.

18 National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, Administrative Order No. 3, 13 October1998.

19 Speech of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to the ADB Conference on Poverty,Growth, and the Role of Institutions, ADB Headquarters, Manila, 10 October 2001.

20 Cited in: Poverty Reduction amongst Ethnic Minorities in the Mountainous Areas ofViet Nam, Discussion paper for the Poverty Task Force/UNDP, Hanoi, September2001 (draft).

21 Ibid.

22 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (1998).

23 Vuong Xuan Tinh (2000).

24 Government Decision 135/1998.

25 The trend in Latin America was first established in a World Bank study in 1994. SeePsacharopoulos and Patrinos (1994). For a review of the issues, see Plant (1998).

26 ADB (2000b).

27 ADB (2000a).

28 Cordillera Administrative Region (Region II); Cagayan Valley in Luzon (Region X);Northern Mindanao (Region XI); Southern Mindanao and Caraga (carved out fromRegions X and XI).

29 Data taken from Viet Nam: Country Strategy and Program. ADB, Manila (draft ofOctober 2001).

30 Baulch, Chuyen, Haughton, and Haughton (Forthcoming).

31 Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on a ProposedLoan to the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam for the Central Region LivelihoodImprovement Project. ADB, Manila, April 2001.

32 Participants at the Indonesian national workshop in Jakarta insisted that this be thetitle of the workshop and Indonesian report.

33 This refers to a major forest fire, which devastated East Kalimantan in 1997 anddestroyed the farm plots of adat communities. Moreover, when food supplies ranout, the communities were unable to purchase foodstuffs as smoke resulting fromthe fires hampered transportation. A long drought also caused the silting up of theriver, making it difficult or even impossible for ships to transport food to these remoteareas. This was an extremely difficult period for adat communities.

34 Note that shelter/housing is not usually identified as a basic need; there is hardlyany homeless person in the Cordillera villages, and people can easily build housesas there are adequate resources.

35 For example, allang in the Mangguangan language, gupisan in Masaka, and ghulipanin Subanen are all terms for a state of poverty, in which individuals or families haveto be provided with everything.

36 ILO and CEMMA (2000).

37 Inter-Ministerial Committee supported by ILO. 2000. The Three Training Workshopson Highland Development Management in Cambodia. Phnom Penh.

38 Chamberlain and Phomsombath (1999).


39 INDISCO (2000).

40 Participatory Evaluation, UNDP/UNV Highland Peoples Programme, 1995-1998,Evaluation Report, June 1998.

41 Monie (2000).

42 UNDP 2001.

43 Neefjes (2001).

44 Alcorn and Royo (2000).

45 Philippines-ADB Poverty Partnership Agreement, signed in Manila on 10 October2001.

46 Poverty Reduction Partnership Agreement (2001–2004) between the Government ofIndonesia and ADB, Jakarta, 5 April 2001.

47 The Viet Nam strategy and program were in draft form in October 2001.Togetherwith the draft Partnership Agreement on Poverty Reduction, which was still to bediscussed with the Government, it was circulated for internal comments on 18 October2001.

48 RETA 5794. The countries covered were Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand, and VietNam.

49 RETA 5771. Cambodia Country Report, Margules Poyry Consultants in associationwith ANZDEC Limited, New Zealand and GFA-Agrar, Germany.

50 Meeting with Ratanakiri-based NGOs, 23 May 2001.

51 See RRP: INO 32367, Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board ofDirectors on Proposed Loans and Technical Assistance Grant to the Republic ofIndonesia for the Community Empowerment and Rural Development Project, ADB,September 2000 (especially Appendix 15, Indigenous Peoples Development Plan).

52 TAR: VIE 33301. Technical Assistance to the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam forPreparing the Central Region Poverty Reduction Project. ADB, January 2000.

indigenous peoples/ethnic minorities · 2014-12-03 · indigenous peoples/ethnic minorities and...

Documents