Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kami Export 34. AIPP Report 4web Final 1
Kami Export 34. AIPP Report 4web Final 1
In Rio and Johannesburg (1992 and 2002), indigenous peoples reported their situation
and their proposals for human and sustainable development. These are contained
in the Kari-oca Declaration and Indigenous Peoples Earth Charter, and the Kimberley
Declaration and the Indigenous Peoples’ Plan of Implementation on Sustainable
Development.42 The situation of indigenous peoples worldwide was characterized as
one of centuries of deprivation, assimilation, and genocide.
19
Development Aggression as Economic Growth: Report of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
20
Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Key Issues in Sustainable Development: From Our Common Future...
destructive potential. All these cases raise the issue of lack of free, prior and informed
consent (FPIC), non-recognition of the existence of indigenous peoples and their
collective rights to their exercise land, territories and resources, amidst the exercise
of eminent domain by the state.
By virtue of the geographic location and the hydro resources of their lands and
territories, indigenous peoples in Asia had been sacrificed for the post-World War
II reconstruction and development drives of the then emerging nation-states and
continuing until the current drive to gain “developed nation” status. Development had
been equated with economic growth, and economic growth is fueled by energy. Dams
offered, and offer until now, the so-called “cheap” and “clean” energy and irrigation
for cash crop production. Indigenous peoples’ livelihoods and livelihood sources have
been taken away in order that more will be fed, factories will run, cities will be aglow,
homes will have lights. BUT, indigenous peoples have no food, no light, no home, no
livelihood, no land, no spirit tree, no sacred grove.
21
Development Aggression as Economic Growth: Report of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
“Large dams have had serious impacts on the lives, livelihoods, cultures and spiritual
existence of indigenous and tribal peoples. Due to neglect and lack of capacity to
secure justice because of structural inequities, cultural dissonance, discrimination and
economic and political marginalization, indigenous and tribal peoples have suffered
disproportionately from the negative impacts of large dams, while often being excluded
from sharing in the benefits.”43
The World Commission on Dams (WCD) came out with their ground-breaking report
entitled “Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making” in 2000,
which clearly identified the lack of free, prior and informed consent of indigenous
peoples as a key issue in dam projects in indigenous territories. The cases that are
included in this report are all of this type. In many instances, indigenous peoples
are promised good opportunities in the relocations sites but in the end, they end up
with much less or nothing at all. The more sinister impact of physical displacement
for indigenous peoples is not only their deprivation from the river and ecosystems
and forests where they depend on their traditional livelihoods but from the river and
ecosystems that shaped their culture and worldview, which may be tantamount to
ethnocide. In dam projects funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), several
eligibility requirements for resettlement programs are discriminatory to indigenous
peoples, e.g., no title-no compensation and citizenship requirements. Many
indigenous peoples have no legal title to their lands. All these sacrifices are continuing
and this paper cannot accommodate all the information on all the dams in Asia in
which indigenous peoples have had to give up lands, lives and futures.
Despite the horrendous human costs of large-scale dams, governments, international
financial institutions, banks and business are pushing for the continued construction of
such infrastructure. Worse, hydropower is now seen as “clean energy” to be promoted
as part of climate change mitigation. This human rights-blind development paradigm
is not clean. If diamonds can be labeled blood diamonds, why not dams, which takes
away the right to life of indigenous peoples and other affected communities? The
exploitative and oppressive manner in which indigenous peoples and other affected
communities have been treated in the building of large-scale dams, which in real
terms is a deprivation of their right to life, requires that these kinds of dams be labeled
BLOOD DAMS. The findings of the WCD on the impact of large dams on indigenous
communities rings so true today as it did more than 10 years ago:
“… (indigenous communities) ended with lower incomes; less land than
before; less work opportunities, inferior housing; less access to the resources
of the commons such as fuel-wood and fodder; and worse nutrition and
physical and mental health.”44
Currently, many indigenous peoples in Asia are fighting for their lives against
government hydropower plans being forcefully built on their rivers, threatening their
lives, indicative of the lack of their FPIC. People in Northeast India are fighting against
22
Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Key Issues in Sustainable Development: From Our Common Future...
several dams. The Tipaimukh Dam Project proposed to be built in the Barak River
in Manipur will directly submerge about 311 km2 of indigenous territory, covering
90 villages with 1,310 families, mostly Zeliangrong and Hmar tribes (some 15,000 of
them), and also 27,242 ha of their forests and cultivable land. Violence has erupted
in the Siang District due to the strong opposition of Adi and Galo tribes to the
construction of the Lower Siang Hydro Electric Project on the Siang River.45 Twenty-
three of their villages on the banks of the Siang River will be directly affected by the
project threatening their right to life, land and livelihood—their very survival. Apart
from those directly affected, the project will have profound and adverse effects on
local ecology, biodiversity and fragile way of life of the state’s 20 plus indigenous
tribes. There are more than 80 other such projects planned in the other state of
Arunachal Pradesh alone. India has declared the Northeast as the “powerhouse of
India”46 with 168 large dams being planned in the region with at least 48 actively
under consideration, besides 900 mini and micro-hydroelectric dams.47 Most victims
of development-induced displacement and project affected peoples are tribals—
about 40 percent of them48 (Menon, et al. 2003).
Along the lower Mekong River, one of the world’s longest last stretches of free-flowing
rivers, 12 dams are being planned for construction, with some actual preparatory
works being mostly in Laos. Already in the upper Mekong, China has 17-19 dams in
operation, under construction or consideration.49 Aside from the ecological implications
of damming the length of the Mekong River, the impact of these dams on millions of
people who depend on the river is unimaginable. The 2,800km-long Salween River in
Burma, the second longest river in Southeast Asia and so far uninterrupted by large
dams, may not deserve that designation anymore. From its headwaters in China, the
Salween cleaves Burma and Thailand. Five large-scale dams are being proposed in
the Salween of Burma, and 13 in its upper part, called the Nu River in China. Apart
from hydropower, the waters will be diverted to Thailand.50 In Burma, an estimated
six million people depend on the Salween for their lives. Along the Burma-Thailand
border, at least 13 ethnic nationalities have their homelands along the river.51 Lao PDR
wants to claim the title as the “battery of the Mekong.”52
In the state of Sarawak, Malaysia, indigenous communities from the Kayans, Kenyahs,
Kajangs, Kelabits, Lun Bawangs, Ibans, Penans, Bidayuhs, Kedayans, Trings, and Ukits
are demanding immediate resolution of all outstanding issues of importance to
people affected by the dams that are already in place or currently under construction,
as a consequence of the construction of the Batang Ai, Bengoh and Bakun large-scale
dams. More importantly, they are demanding that government stop all planned 12
megadams in the state and instead hold a referendum on dam construction.53 The
Bakun Hydro Electric Project, Southeast Asia’s largest dam, affected 12,000 Kayan,
Kenyah, Ukit, and Penan peoples, while 69,000 ha, including 23,000 ha of virgin
rainforest, were destroyed.54 The Batang Ai dam, built in 1982, displaced 3,00055 Ibans
from 26 longhouses.56 Government neglect and broken promises, and the hardships
faced after the relocation are bitter lessons that are still fresh in peoples’ collective
memories. For this reason, some 250 families (about 1,500 people) from four villages
23
Development Aggression as Economic Growth: Report of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
Source: http://www.salweenwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=60.
24
Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Key Issues in Sustainable Development: From Our Common Future...
affected by the Bengoh Dam rejected government resettlement plans and instead
resettled themselves on other parts of the their traditional territory upstream of the
Kiri River that will not be included in the 8.72 km2 of land that will be submerged by
the dam.57
The Himalayas, which is home to all of the world’s eight highest mountain peaks, has
also the most glaciated large areas in the world, outside of the North and South Poles.
This makes it the repository of huge stocks of water that form the headwaters of some
of the largest rivers in Asia—the Brahmaputhra, Indus, Ganga, and Irrawady—and
whose basins are home to millions of people. The hundreds of rivers originating from
the Himalayas is then seen as one of huge potential in hydroelectric energy generation
in the region. Currently, massive plans are underway in Pakistan, India, Nepal, and
Bhutan to build hundreds of dams in the region in the next 20 years, possibly making
the Himalayas as the region with the highest concentration of dams in the world. The
consequence of the damming of the rivers of the Himalayas will have tremendous
human and ecological costs, with grave implications for the culture and identity of
local peoples, who are often distinct ethnic groups small in numbers.58
The three dams along the Agno River, Benguet Province, Cordillera
In 1948, the Ambuklao hydroelectric dam project was conceived to be constructed in
Ibaloi territory along the Agno River, the longest river system in the island of Luzon,
Benguet Province, Philippines. Construction of Ambuklao Dam started in 1952,
and before it was made operational in December 1956, another dam started to be
constructed 19 km downstream at Binga. Binga became operational in 1960. The
energy generated from the dams and the waters it kept were meant to serve the
energy and irrigation needs of the lowlands.
Apart from displacing about 200 families from self-sustaining Ambuklao villages, it
permanently destroyed 500 ha of their productive irrigated rice field, vegetable
farms, orchards, forests, habitats, and watersheds when the waters submerged the
valley they called home. The government, through the National Power Corporation
(NPC), offered scandalously low prices for their lands, which most people refused.
Those who accepted were never fully paid. No relocation plan was put in place. In
Binga, 150 ha of farmlands belonging to 100 families were completely submerged,
and no compensation nor relocation were promised. Worse, the government invoked
Public Land Act of 1905, which declared the Binga Ibaloi homeland as public land
and therefore the original inhabitants were considered “lessees” on public land, their
ancestral land. They were thus not entitled to compensation or resettlement. Until
now, the issues of uncompensated properties submerged and covered by the dams,
25
Development Aggression as Economic Growth: Report of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
26
Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Key Issues in Sustainable Development: From Our Common Future...
The Kaptai Dam completely damaged the agro-based main economy of the CHT,
destroyed the economic backbone of the indigenous Jummas, and brought about
a permanent disintegration of the Jummas on one hand, and led to the inroads of
Bengali Muslim population into the Buddhist region in large numbers, on the other.
It created jobs and business opportunities for the Bengali Muslim while the uprooted
Jummas were neither compensated properly for their lands and homesteads nor
provided land for their rehabilitation as resettlement plans were not part of the
project. Land shortage and the transmigration policy have led to persistent conflicts,
including sexual violence against indigenous women, between the oustees and the
Bengali settlers that take on an ethnic character. Military occupation accompanied
the construction. Of the many demands of the Jummas for a resolution to their plight,
until today, only 66 temporary army camps (including a brigade out of 543 camps)
were withdrawn so far. The rest of the temporary camps are yet to be dismantled.
Out of 12,222 families, 9,780 families of repatriated Jumma refugees are yet to be
reinstated in their lands, homesteads and orchards and many villages of the returnees
are still under the occupation of the settlers. Besides that, more than 90,000 internally
displaced Jumma families still have not yet been rehabilitated. In contrast, Bengali
settlers have been included as IDPs (internally displaced persons), violating the
provisions of the CHT Peace Accord.
27
Development Aggression as Economic Growth: Report of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
28
Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Key Issues in Sustainable Development: From Our Common Future...
29
Development Aggression as Economic Growth: Report of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
A matter of urgent concern is that for the Nya Heun people, the possibility of the Xe
Pian Xe Nam Noy Dam being built in their same homeland in the Bolaven plateau
will completely obliterate their ancestral lands, leading to ethnocide. In 2008, reports
were made that the displaced Nya Heun families from the Houay Ho Dam in Laos
were suffering from severe lack of food, shortage of arable land and insufficient clean
water.68
In the 200369 study, it was found that at least half (50%) of the people, especially
elders, want to return to their native lands, or even near them, but the government
refuses to allow them.70 They miss most the old fertile lands, the large productive fruit
trees and their co-existence with nature. They are worried daily about their decaying
traditions because they do not live together now as in the old villages and have no time
to bond either. Many are scattered selling their labor so that they end up living day to
day, with not much food to eat. An old woman in the resettlement village stated: “I
miss my former village and I want to return to it because I used to live there for a long
time. I’ve left behind the trees that I used to collect fruits from every year. I miss them
a lot. Whenever I think of them, I cry a great deal. Here in the resettlement village, we
cannot eat any fruits because they are stolen before they are ripe.”
The artificial merging of villages of peoples with different cultures, in a limited space, in
a contrived environment, with not enough livelihood and not enough food, is creating
many social problems. For instance, because many do not have enough to eat, some
resort to petty crimes like stealing of chickens, metal roofing sheets, and agricultural
products. In the old village, this is unthinkable as food was available in the forest and
rivers. The displaced ethnic people feel humiliated, which has led to social decay and
many disputes and quarrels, ultimately, disempowerment. The villagers do not trust
their neighbors anymore. “Before the dam was built, we used to have enough to eat.
We fished the rivers, collected vegetables in the forest and had plenty of rice. We lived
on our own without having to depend on aid or support from anyone else. Now in
the resettlement areas, we are totally impoverished and dependent on others,” a Nya
Huen man lamented in 2003.
Dams in the Mekong of Laos had been controversial because these affect the other
riparian countries of Cambodia and Vietnam. One of the controversial ones, the
Xayaburi Dam, which would have impacts on the Tonle Sap lake of Cambodia and the
Mekong part of Vietnam, has recently been cancelled as of latest news.71
30
Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Key Issues in Sustainable Development: From Our Common Future...
Asia, particularly ASEAN,72 is rich in mineral resources and mining is one of the
ASEAN region’s fundamental economic sectors. ASEAN claims there is a vast wealth
of important industrial ores and precious metals yet to be explored and exploited
throughout the ASEAN member-countries and that many important and large
international mining ventures are in the region.
Indonesia possesses some of the world’s largest deposits of nickel. This represents more
than 12 percent of global production, ranking second to Russia. The US Government’s
Geological Survey ranks Indonesia seventh in the world in terms of gold production
and sixth in terms of reserves. Total proven and probable reserves are 4,200 tons,
with much of the wealth located in Papua, the ancestral domain of Papuans. Sizeable
potential gold deposits are also located in Java, Kalimantan and Sulawesi (the last
two being predominantly indigenous peoples’ territories). At the 11th session of
the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, representatives from
Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (AMAN), the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the
Archipelago, presented the issue of mining and indigenous peoples. Although good
progress in terms of policy has been made, there is the fundamental issue of the
development framework of the government, which is focused on land concessions
and extractive industries. It was reported that approximately 1.5 million ha of land
are converted for mining per year, leading to increasing poverty among indigenous
peoples and locking them out of permits and high-paying jobs in the mining agencies,
and increasing environmental damage and pollution in the indigenous lands where
mines operate. It was also reported that more than 100 cases of criminal persecution
of indigenous activists against landgrabbing are ongoing and it is felt that the
government will not follow up with concrete protection of indigenous lands and its
inhabitants.73
Malaysia’s iron ore potential, and reserves of bauxite, coal, tin, and gold is expected
to contribute to national industry growth expected to be US$68 billion by 2015,
from $43 billion in 2010. Vietnam’s Central Highlands, the homeland of various
ethnic minorities, are believed to hold the world’s third largest reserves of bauxite,
put at some 5.4 billion tons—but it could be at least double this figure. Vietnam has
enormous coal reserves and is the world’s second largest exporter of anthracite coal.
The Philippines, in addition to Indonesia, has huge resources of nickel, along with
high grade chromite deposits, an abundance of copper, and significant gold deposits.
Thailand is the world’s second largest exporter of gypsum after Canada. The region
is also rich in mineral resources with some minerals being significantly large in terms
of reserves. Half of the global tin resources currently come from only three ASEAN
countries—Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand.
The Philippine gold ore reserves are estimated at four billion tons, the third largest
in the world. Its 7.9 billion tons of copper ore deposits are the fourth largest in the
31
Development Aggression as Economic Growth: Report of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
world and its 815 million tons of nickel ore represent the fifth largest globally. Gold
and copper are mainly concentrated in Northern Luzon and on the eastern side of
the island of Mindanao, almost all in indigenous peoples territories. It is estimated to
possess at least $1 trillion of untapped mineral resources and much of the country’s
300,000 km2 of land is yet to be appraised for its mineral content. To date, 1,046,350.87
ha or three percent of the Philippine’s total land area have mining applications.
Myanmar has not undergone a full geological survey for more than 75 years but
most of the mineral wealth is located in the ethnic states. The Shwe Gas Project, for
instance, is located in Arakan State and its planned pipelines will traverse Shan State
(Shan people). Despite the campaigns to stop the gas project due to its environmental
and human rights impacts, Myanmar is pushing through with the project. India has
significant mineral resources of metallic and industrial minerals. The country’s reserves
and resources of barite, bauxite, chromium, coal, iron ore, limestone, and manganese
ore were among the 10 largest in the world, and those of bauxite accounted for 6.8
percent of the world’s supply. In terms of production, the country was among the
world’s eight leading producers of aluminum, barite, bauxite, chromium, coal, iron
ore, kyanite, manganese ore, mica (sheet), steel, talc, and zinc (Ministry of Mines,
2011, p. 144–145).74
Out of 4,175 mines in India, 3,500 are located in indigenous peoples’ homelands (as
of 1991). The major mines in Northeast India (Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur,
Mizoram, Nagaland, and Tripura) are coal, natural gas, oil, and limestone; while Assam
and Meghalaya have large coal deposits. Among the displaced persons by mining
projects, more than half of them belong to the “scheduled tribes.”75 More than half of
these numbers are in indigenous peoples’ ancestral lands. Jharkhand in central India
has about 29 percent of India’s coal reserves and 14 percent of its iron ore reserves.
Jharkhand supplies about nine percent of India’s fuel minerals.76
Apart from a favorable investment climate in minerals, the region also offers some of
the necessary infrastructure. For instance, Malaysia is also home to significant refiners
and smelters, including Malaysia Smelting Corporation, the world’s second largest
supplier of tin metal and is thus expected to support more mineral extraction. In the
Philippines, a potential giant venture will be Sumitomo’s $3 billion nickel ore project
in Surigao del Norte in the south, which would be the largest nickel processing plant
in the country.77
ASEAN as a body and its member countries are intent on making mining development
a vital factor in their economic growth. Efforts are being made at the regional
level, through the ASEAN Minerals Cooperation Plan 2011-2015, to freely open up
this sector for investments. One of the strategies it has adopted under this plan is
“Facilitating and Enhancing Trade and Investment in Minerals.” Under this, its program
includes creating a climate conducive for trade investment in minerals, and providing
a favorable policy environment that aims to see the harmonization of mineral policies
among the member countries.
32
Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Key Issues in Sustainable Development: From Our Common Future...
33
Development Aggression as Economic Growth: Report of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
2. Philippines: Mined-out
Altogether, 65 percent of the Cordillera region is covered with various mining
applications, as large mining continues to operate in Benguet province. Six of the
national government’s 23 priority projects are located in the Cordillera region. While
some mining TNCs (transnational corporations) have temporarily exited the Cordillera
due to people’s opposition, new ones have made their presence known.
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company (LCMC) runs the first large-scale mine in the
Philippines, located in Mankayan, Benguet, the ancestral lands of Ibaloi and Kankanaey.
The Lepanto mine is barraged with environmental and wage issues since it started in
1936. The expansion of the mines to adjacent provinces is now being widely opposed
by the potentially affected communities. The mining operations caused a number of
violations of indigenous peoples’ rights. For example, the mine has been in operation
34
Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Key Issues in Sustainable Development: From Our Common Future...
since 1936 without any consent from the local community. The mines of LCMC have
dislocated the indigenous Kankanaey and Ibaloi peoples from their ancestral lands
and traditional livelihoods.
The mining patents granted by the government to LCMC have deprived indigenous
communities of their rights to ownership and control over their ancestral lands and
resources, which are the basis of their continued existence and identity. In terms of
livelihood, mining concessions have taken over lands used by indigenous peoples for
35
Development Aggression as Economic Growth: Report of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
36
Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Key Issues in Sustainable Development: From Our Common Future...
villagers living in these areas. This resulted to increased food insecurity, poverty and
alienation of indigenous peoples from their lands and resources that they have taken
cared of for so many generations.
What is trivialized is the cumulative collective knowledge that has been developed
through time that enabled indigenous peoples to inhabit such environments and
sustainably enabled them to develop unique societies. What has become reality are
the appropriation of indigenous peoples’ forest homelands as national parks, logged
out of its timber, concessioned out as plantations, resource mines, and other extractive
industries. Discrimination against indigenous peoples in Asia is so rife it is tantamount
to killing them off. They are treated as incapable of deciding for themselves what
to do with their lives, not even entitled to be informed of plans in their homelands.
Their knowledge of and contribution to natural resource management is considered
unscientific. Since they are small in population, they do not have to be factored in
the national development agenda, and their lives can be willfully disregarded in the
pursuit of national development. Their cultures are “minor” so these can be ignored,
even eliminated. The experience of indigenous peoples losing their lands, territories
and resources needs volumes to be documented.
One of the main producers of pulp and paper in Southeast Asia is Thailand. This status
was achieved with the blood, sweat and tears of farmers and indigenous peoples.
The Thai government’s most brutal plan to promote the establishment of tree
plantations started in 1991, when the then-military government launched the “Land
Distribution Programme for the Poor Living in Degraded Forest Areas,” a project
known by its Thai initials as Khor Jor Kor. The project was to be implemented by the
military’s Internal Security Operations Command and aimed to evict 2,500 villages from
reserve forests over an area of 2.24 million ha in northeast Thailand. Thai and foreign
companies would then be able to lease the land for eucalyptus plantations. Massive
pro-democracy protests in May 1992 in Bangkok forced the military government to
resign. In the following months, thousands of affected villagers protested throughout
northeast Thailand and eventually farmers resettled under Khor Jor Kor were allowed
to return to their land.82
37
Development Aggression as Economic Growth: Report of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
38
Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Key Issues in Sustainable Development: From Our Common Future...
39
Development Aggression as Economic Growth: Report of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
40
Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Key Issues in Sustainable Development: From Our Common Future...
5. Thailand: The forest is the tree and the tree, the forest
Thailand hosts 409 protected areas, 27 marine national parks, 10 Ramsar92 sites, 2
World Heritage sites and 4 biosphere reserves. The percentage of protected areas
41
Development Aggression as Economic Growth: Report of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
accounts for 20 percent of the total land area. The total forest area (2000) is 14,762,000
ha, with 9842,000 ha of natural forest and 4,920,000 ha of plantations accounting for
29 percent of the total land area.93
The Thai 1961 National Park Law is framed within a conservationist approach, which
adopts the Western concept of wilderness, where protected areas are completely
free of people and land use, even when forest-dwellers and forest-dependent people
had been there before the promulgation of the law. However, an estimated 460,000
people currently live and depend on the land and resources that the government has
set aside for ecological values or tourism potential. Between 2002-2006, 89 percent
of the forest-related conflict cases and human right violations filed in various legal fora
were related to the management of protected areas and national parks.94
Arrests for violation of forest and wildlife conservation laws are common in Thailand.
In 2006, for example, five Lisu people were arrested by the officers of the Wildlife
Preservation Authority and the OmKoi District Administrative Authority in OmKoi
district in Chiang Mai province for violating the Forestry Act and the Wildlife
Preservation and Protection Act. Those who were arrested were actually residents
of that area from 1989 to 1994 but had been resettled by the government to an area
not suitable for cultivation with the promise that they will be given compensation and
alternative sources of income. The authorities however failed to honor these promises
and the villagers had no other choice but to move back to their original village and
start cultivating their fields again.
42
Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Key Issues in Sustainable Development: From Our Common Future...
E. Special concerns
Indigenous peoples in Asia face common issues but also have issues that are specific
in some countries. Again, because of their vast lands and sparse populations, and thus
their dispensability, toxic and hazardous wastes can be dumped in their homelands.
Their territories are seen as areas where excess population in highly-urbanized regions
can be relocated. On the other hand, they are also seen as national security risks who
43
Development Aggression as Economic Growth: Report of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
44
Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Key Issues in Sustainable Development: From Our Common Future...
resulted in deaths and sickness. The lease on the land has expired, and an alternative
site has yet to be selected.101
45
Development Aggression as Economic Growth: Report of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
traditional village lay-out, common property has been replaced by private property,
plots have been fenced, and longhouses have been separated (Salemink, 1997).
Moreover, social relationships have also changed when those who have potential and
capital get rich very fast, while those who lack such conditions become poorer and are
pushed to landlessness. This leads to social stratification in the communities, which
are traditionally communal and united.108
Lack of participation, consensus, and FPIC characterized the program. For instance,
there were no adequate studies done on where infrastructures like roads, public
works, irrigation systems, terraces, and wet rice lands were to be built in order to
mitigate the effect of heavy rains, floods and the like. It was reported that heavy rains
and flash floods have destroyed 461 ha of wet rice, damaged more than 3,000 houses,
killed 317, wounded 252, and 38 reported missing.109
In the end, the sedentarization program simply removed the ethnic minorities from
their traditional forest abodes but converted these forests into plantations, cultivated
farms, and new settlements for lowland migrants. Much more forests were destroyed
while poverty still exists. The ethnic minorities were forced to integrate into the
dominant socio-cultural and economic framework, but in the end, it was the in-
migrant who benefitted from the schemes. In the same study conducted by Chinh,
a staff of the sedentarization program in one province, said: “I am afraid that if the
situation of immigration to Dac Lac continues to increase like today, and no limits for
farm land being issued, indigenous people would soon have no more land to survive
and shifting cultivation is then unavoidable.”
The Lao government has launched a comprehensive, country-wide resettlement
program where almost all of those affected are indigenous peoples. At the beginning
of the 1990s, when the program was launched, the Lao government planned to
resettle 180,000 households totaling 1.5 million people, of which 60 percent should
be resettled before the year 2000. The target has not been achieved and two new
resettlement plans have been made with a total of 211,125 people included in the
first resettlement plan for 2001 to 2005. An estimated 683 villages, with a total of
164,285 persons, were supposed to be resettled during the second plan between 2006
and 2010. Figures on the actual number of people resettled are not available. Forced
resettlement is not an official policy but part of the overall “development” program
of the Lao government. Through the program the government aims to eradicate
shifting cultivation and the production of opium, provide the resettled people better
access to services and the market, and to improve their standard of living, health, food
productivity, and food security. However, studies have shown that in most cases, the
contrary happens. Resettlement programs have led to increased poverty, malnutrition,
a higher mortality rate, and a general deterioration in the health of affected villagers.
Furthermore, they often have a negative impact on the environment, running counter
to another stated objective: the conservation of forests.110 The resettlement of
indigenous peoples affected by dams are seen as part of the effort of government to
sedentarize the rotational agriculture practitioners as it has not allowed the return
46
Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Key Issues in Sustainable Development: From Our Common Future...
of some of the affected communities like those dislocated by the aborted Xe Pian Xe
Nam Noi Dam Project.111
47
Development Aggression as Economic Growth: Report of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
48
Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Key Issues in Sustainable Development: From Our Common Future...
49
Development Aggression as Economic Growth: Report of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
50
Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Key Issues in Sustainable Development: From Our Common Future...
respect for the collective decision-making process of indigenous peoples remains weak
with the definition of consent as broad community support. Further, the commitment
of the ADB partners and staff to implement the ADB IP Policy conscientiously is yet to
be tested.
The World Bank, on the other hand, is currently reviewing its Social and Environmental
Safeguards. In 2011, WB released an independent review122 of the implementation of
Operational Policy (OP) 4.10 for the fiscal years 2006-2008 during which the revised
OP was in effect.
A summary of the conclusions reached by the review team are as follows:123
1. Although Bank-financed projects have made substantial progress in meeting
the requirements of OP 4.10, some areas of substantial improvement are
needed. Of 132 projects that triggered OP 4.10, 22 percent were in the South
Asia Region while 30 percent were in the East Asia and Pacific Region. Of the
132 projects, 15 were earmarked for indigenous peoples compared to the 12
during the 1993-2004 period. There is some evidence to suggest that there
may be some shortcomings in the screening process in order to determine
whether OP 4.10 should be triggered or not. This means that some indigenous
peoples have been denied their availment of the provisions of OP 4.10;
2. Projects can be classified as proactive (“do good”) projects, which seek to
benefit indigenous peoples or projects, which raise safeguards (“do no harm”)
issues. It was found that for every five “do good” projects there was one “do
no harm” project. Additionally, projects that specifically targeted indigenous
peoples had the best compliance followed by projects with components or
measures to proactively address the needs of indigenous peoples. However,
projects with potential adverse effects on indigenous peoples showed a need
for more improvement in addressing their needs;
3. For multi-beneficiary projects where indigenous peoples are only part of the
target population, there is budget allocation for them. However, for some
projects triggering OP 4.10, which have prepared special budgets earmarked
for the implementation of an Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP), over half of such
projects (excluding IP-targeted projects) were allocating less than two percent
of total project investment costs to the implementation of IPPs;
4. Under OP 4.10, IPPs are prepared when indigenous peoples are present in,
or have collective attachment to, project lands. This IPP should be prepared
on the basis of a social assessment and in consultation with the communities
involved. For projects involving the preparation and implementation of annual
investment programs or multiple subprojects (such as community-driven
development projects, social funds and sector investment operations), and
when screening indicates that indigenous peoples are likely to be present in,
or have collective attachment to, project lands, an Indigenous Peoples Policy
Framework (IPPF) should be prepared. IPPs will then have to be prepared
for subprojects. There is lack of expertise to determine the correct policy
instrument to apply when indigenous peoples are determined to be impacted
51
Development Aggression as Economic Growth: Report of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
by projects. This is shown by some IPPFs being labeled IPPs and the review
points out that this confusion may have contributed to the omission in about
half of all IPPFs of provisions for the subsequent preparation of IPPs for
subprojects as required by the policy;
5. The is an increasing trend in the importance of the Energy and Mining and
Transport sectors in the Bank’s lending program and the review points out the
need for more careful screening of application of the policy in these projects,
and increased attention by Bank social staff and more effective implementation
of grievance mechanisms at the local level;
6. Regardless of which policy instrument was used, compliance with the
specific provisions of the policy showed that projects scored best regarding
the inclusion of specific and socio-culturally appropriate activities to benefit
indigenous peoples, the avoidance of involuntary resettlement (in the few
projects where this was an issue) and, consultation in project design and
provisions for consultation during project implementation. Although free,
prior and informed consultation provisions scored relatively well, evidence of
broad community support showed a lower level of compliance. Other criteria
wanting in implementation include the quality of social assessments, inclusion
of specific or disaggregated monitoring indicators, incountry disclosure of IPPs
or IPPFs, and lastly the policy provisions regarding land and resource rights
and the establishment of grievance mechanisms. More importantly, although
most projects did identify benefits for indigenous peoples, in many projects
they did not address potentially negative impacts and especially the long-term
or indirect ones;
7. There is disregard of the protection or promotion of indigenous peoples’ rights
to lands and resources, and the lack of a grievance mechanism is a matter
of grave concern. Even without legal recognition of indigenous peoples,
projects that affect land and water rights, which could have had a positive
impact on protecting or promoting the application of these rights, did not
consider measures to address the land and resource rights, which are often
the condition sine qua non for the long-term wellbeing and sustainability of
indigenous peoples‘ societies and cultures;
8. Project information and documentation of project processes is substantially
lacking. The review found that evidence of broad community and verifiable
information on how the process of obtaining support was done had been
limited and is another area that needs substantial improvement.
After some years of withdrawing from funding large dams since the 1990s, the
WB recently reentered the business by “adopting new high-risk infrastructure and
energy strategies.”124 Its private equity arm, the International Finance Corporation, is
also involved in promoting dams, and has partnered with the public sector for dam
financing. This same modality is being promoted by the ADB, the so-called public
private partnerships (PPPs), in doing business. These developments increases the
need to strengthen the safeguard measures and to demand for genuine FPIC process
52
Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Key Issues in Sustainable Development: From Our Common Future...
for affected indigenous peoples in the context of respecting their rights over their
lands, territories and resources, and to self-determination.
The following cases are examples of the experiences of indigenous impacted by
projects supported by IFIs.
1. Laos
53
Development Aggression as Economic Growth: Report of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
54
Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Key Issues in Sustainable Development: From Our Common Future...
2016, will submerge an area of 3,769 km² affecting Lao-Tai (42%), Khmu (33%), Hmong
(25%), and Yao indigenous groups.
2. Northeast India
3. Nepal
In Nepal, apart from financing projects of health and education, the WB and ADB
are providing money for transport and hydropower dams. These include recent two
hydropower projects—Kabeli A Hydropower and Tanahu Hydropower Project—which
are on pipeline. The detailed impacts of these hydropower projects on indigenous
peoples could not be ascertained yet. On the other hand, Yamphu (2010) suggests that
the “do no harm” projects, e.g., agriculture development projects, do not necessarily
bring in good results to indigenous peoples either due to lack of participation or wrong
categorization of the projects by the IFIs. The Yamphu, a case study on a commercial
agriculture development project financed by ADB, stated that the high value crops
(HVC), despite increase in income in the short-term, affected the traditional seeds, soil
fertility and pest management systems of indigenous peoples in Nepal.
55
Development Aggression as Economic Growth: Report of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
4. Malaysia
Sarawak Province
The Batang Ai Hydro Electric Power (HEP) project in Sarawak was constructed between
1975-1985 in the heartland of the Iban tradition and culture, near the boundary of
Sarawak with Indonesia Kalimantan. It displaced about 3,000 Iban from 21 longhouses
who were resettled in the Lemanak -Batang Ai area on a land that was managed by the
Sarawak Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority. Funded partly by the ADB,
the largest HEP in Malaysia covers some 16187 ha of land, of which 8498 ha. were
eventually flooded, destroying large areas of forests and lands held under customary
tenure, which include swidden farms, crops and ancestral lands. The resettled Iban
natives face many problems and say that they had been treated unfairly. Instead of
the 4.5 ha of cleared land that they said they had been promised, each family only
received 0.4 ha . It also turned out that they had to pay for their new longhouses when
they were informed earlier that these would be free. While some families received
cash compensation, they did not know how to deal with their newfound wealth and
squandered it away.
Most families were in shock over the new system and new way of living; many
could not cope. Land certificates were issued for each family under the husband’s
name. Women deprived became In 2009, not only the oustees but the whole of the
constituency of Batang Ai were complaining that there was no public bus transport, not
enough telephone lines, poor electricity supply, frequent water supply interruptions,
not enough health and medical facilities, roads in bad shape, poor mail services, no
banks, few job opportunities. These are just a small portion of the long list of socio-
economic woes of the 18,000 folks in the Batang Ai state constituency, even though
the Batang Ai hydro-electric dam has been running since 25 years ago.126
Asea Brown Boveri supplied equipment for the Batang Ai dam in Sarawak, built in
1975. The Asian Development Bank funded the project. The ADB has described the
resettlement of 2,800 Ibans displaced by the dam as an example of a “culturally
sensitive and economically sound program” because “the policies and plans...were
carefully investigated and prepared.”127 Others, however, are more sanguine. As
Marcus Colchester, Director of the UK-based Forest Peoples Programme, notes
in a review paper commissioned by the World Commission on Dams as part of its
assessment on the impact of dams on indigenous peoples: “The Iban were persuaded
to move in exchange for promises of free housing, free water, free electricity and 11
acres of land per family. The reality has proved a bitter experience. Not only were
they resettled on a government land scheme, but they were also forced to change
their way of life radically. Rice cultivation proved impossible on the terraces prepared
for them and they were obliged to set up as small-holders on a plantation scheme.
Incomes fell to the point that, according to one study, 60 percent of households were
56
Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Key Issues in Sustainable Development: From Our Common Future...
below the State poverty line, with the majority of respondents reporting that lack of
land was their main problem.”128
The State-owned Sarawak Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority (SALCRA)
ran the plantation on which the Iban were resettled. Women suffered disproportionately
from the resettlement procedures. For example, compensation, which should have
been paid to both men and women as co-owners of the land, was only paid to male
“heads of household.”
5. Indonesia
57
Development Aggression as Economic Growth: Report of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
respect to the forest dwellers, it states: “It is possible that Project activities may hamper
their movements and cause changes to livelihood patterns and distress…It may also
be possible to discover heritage sites belonging to the local indigenous groups.”131 The
planned mining area is still part of the proposed buffer zone for the park. The forests
are also the lands of the Forest Tobelo indigenous peoples, and represent important
habitat for a number of endemic and protected species.
Comparably, concerns were expressed that the project will have numerous adverse
impacts on biodiversity such as the destruction of at least 4,000-11,000 ha of moist
tropical forest, as well as the destruction of at least 2,000-6,000 ha of Protection
Forest, or up to 30 percent of the Protection Forest in the mine project area.132
The continued existence of the Forest Tobelo is now put into question with the impact
of this mining project in their territory.
Since the 1970s, successive Bangladeshi governments promoted the migration of
Bengalis to the Chittagong Hill Tracts. From 1978 to 1983, the military governments
had settled an estimated 500,000 plain settlers by providing inducements in order to
make indigenous Jumma people a minority in their own land. In 1979, the Rahman
regime created a legislative framework through the Settlement Program to allow the
entry and settlement of non-indigenous people from the plain areas of Bangladesh
to the CHT. Inducements came in cash and kind with a fixed allocation of land
settlement per family through a Tk60 million program. The official rationale for the
program was that there was land to spare in the Hill Tracts to ease the overcrowding
in the plains. This misconception of enormous amounts of available land in the CHT
was contrary to official information. The indigenous peoples of the CHT were never
included in the decision making, the program formulation or the implementation of
the settlement program. They were not inform about the specifics of the proposed
plan, including the decision to provide the settlers with land allotments. Nor was their
consent obtained or their prior claims safeguarded. Between 1979 and 1984 around
200,000 and 400,000 landless Bengali were settled in the CHT, often on land belonging
to indigenous peoples. In an area of 5,098 square miles (approximately the size of
Northern Ireland), with an original population of about 600,000, this influx of outside
settlers had a major impact. Although the government claims to have halted the
settlement program, unofficial sources indicate that families from the plains continue
to relocate to the Hill Tracts. Almost 60 years ago, the indigenous peoples constituted
more than 75 percent of the CHT population, now they account for only 47 percent.
58