Some Suggested Strategies CHALLENGES

RIGHTS AIPP AIPP Regional Capacity Building Program - Training Manual on the UNDRIP 114 RIGHTS AIPP AIPP Regional Capacity Building Program - Training Manual on the UNDRIP Development Issues Prepared by Gam A. Shimray, Lulu A. Gimenez and Jannie Lasimbang with inputs from Samart Srijumnong and Chinkhanmuan Gualnam Module 6 115 Module-6 OBJECTIVES 1. To shed light on development issues as these pertain to indigenous peoples; 2. To involve participants in a discussion of indigenous peoples’ concerns related with develop- ment 3. To familiarize participants with UNDRIP provisions that address critical concerns related to development; 4. To get participants to reflect on the situation in their own communities regarding develop- ment; 5. To share with participants the experiences of various indigenous peoples in reckoning with development aggression and asserting their right to self-determined development; and 6. To involve participants in envisioning a better future with respect to indigenous peoples’ self- determined development, and to identify the challenges in realizing this as well as the means for addressing those challenges. CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION A. Mainstream development issues 1. Development aggression 2. Market integration 3. The question of human development 4. The human rights-based approach to development 5. The concept of sustainable development B. Indigenous peoples’ development concerns 1. Indigenous economic systems 2. Traditional occupations 3. Traditional healing 4. Indigenous knowledge 5. Traditional education 6. Access to mainstream education, information and mass media 7. Socio-cultural continuity II. UNDRIP PROVISIONS RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT III. REALITIES ON THE GROUND IV. EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS LEARNED

V. CHALLENGES

RIGHTS AIPP AIPP Regional Capacity Building Program - Training Manual on the UNDRIP 116

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Mainstream Development Issues

1. Development aggression

Indigenous peoples have suffered many adverse impacts from development initiatives in numerous countries. According to conser- vative estimates, at least 10 million indigenous people have been displaced in India alone as a result of development projects initiated and implemented, or fostered and facilitated, by the state. The projects typically involve the open- ing of large mines, the building of large dams, the installation of thermal or nuclear power plants, road construction, timber concessions, the clearing of land for plantations and the estab- lishment of tourist resorts. Usually forced upon indigenous peoples and invariably involving the usurpation of land and other natural resources within the territories that the indigenous peoples have settled or roamed, these projects represent what can be termed as development aggression. The adverse effects of development aggression on indigenous peoples include: • Militarization; • Political repression and denial of the right to self-determination – especially the right to free, prior, informed consent; • Dispossession and dislocation; • Environmental degradation; • Competition and conflict within and between communities over the scarce resources that remain accessible to them; • The degradation of traditional occupations, the erosion of the indigenous knowledge that these are associated with, and thus the deterioration of the social capital that com- munities have built up over generations; • Inability to meet basic needs; • Loss of food security, high incidence of hunger and occurrence of famine; • Breakdown of social controls and values, alcohol and drug abuse, prostitution, criminal violence, etc. It is expected that indigenous peoples in Asia and all over the world will continue to suf- fer development aggression inasmuch as the territories they occupy remain rich in the natural resources coveted by profit-hungry corporations that have well-entrenched connections to na- tional authorities and to powerful multi-lateral institutions like the International Monetary Fund IMF and the World Bank.

2. Market integration

Either as a consequence of development aggression or alongside it, indigenous peoples have been drawn into participation in the market economy. Land-resource and livelihood displace- Ask the participantstrainees to write down two points each on what they under- stand by development. After this, classify the cards and stick them up on a board or wall in clusters. Synthesize then move on to a lecture on Mainstream Development Issues as outlined below. Allow discussion, especially of examples from the partici- pants’ own communities. Suggested Method Module-6 RIGHTS AIPP AIPP Regional Capacity Building Program - Training Manual on the UNDRIP 117 ment, and decreased self-sufficiency in food and other basic needs, have compelled many indi- viduals to sell their labor power, talents, or the products of their craftsmanship – some season- ally, others perennially. Agricultural modernization programs, such as those that have sprung from the World Bank-supported Green Revolution of the 1970s and from the ongoing “gene revolution”, are encouraging entire communities to forsake their traditions of highly diversified, low-external input subsistence production in favor of high-external input and market-oriented monocultures. The negative consequences of the integration of indigenous peoples in the market economy may be outlined as follows.

a. Loss of both food sovereignty and subsistence security

Indigenous communities become de- pendent on the market. It is no longer their own food needs but market demand that determines the nature of their agricultur- al products. To take optimal advantage of the demand for a certain product, they will likely cultivate only this product – in other words, monocrop. But the demand and supply situation in the market may change, and this may bring about a sudden shift in the prices of products. If producers are un- able to adapt quickly, they may not be able to earn enough money for buying even their most basic subsistence needs.

b. Vulnerability to exploitation

Shifts in the price, demand and supply situation in the market are often due entirely to ma- nipulations by local merchants or global powers, rather than actual changes in the needs or tastes of consumers. Whether the manipulators are local or global forces, it is usually difficult, often impossible, for indigenous peasants to effectively reckon with their power. In the Philippines, for example, merchant cartels have enjoyed control of rice and vegetable supply and prices for decades. They are able to manipulate both produce supply and prices because they also wield control of credit financing for production. Peasants must sell their pro- duce to the merchants at any price the latter dictate because this is stipulated in the terms of their credit contracts. As creditors, the merchants already make huge gains either from charging interest at usurious rates, or from retaining substantial shares of the harvest or the cash income from its sale. As traders, the merchants make additional gains from underpricing the produce. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, local merchants in many developing countries found their prospects for continued accumulation of wealth threatened by market globalization – which allowed the European Union, the United States, China, Australia and other large economies to dump their surplus produce all over the world, driving down domestic prices. But the local mer- chants were able to cope simply by squeezing the local peasants. The impact on the indigenous peasantry in some countries has been more devastating than in others. In many places, the indigenous peasants have had to surrender ownership of pre- Module-6 One of the hundreds of so-called “temporary” army camps in the Chitagong Hill Tracts Rangamai District, strategically located near a village and the road. Photo by Chris Erni