Engaging Indigeneity in Development Policy

Development Policy Review, 2008, 26 (4): 483-500 Engaging Indigeneity in Development Policy Melissa Marschke, David Szablowski and Peter Vandergeest∗ This article explores how development programming in rural poverty and the environment can work with indigenous peoples. It draws on research conducted in Asia and Latin America to suggest how indigeneity can be understood as specific kinds of marginalisation intersecting with selfidentification and recognition as indigenous. Current obstacles to effective engagement with indigenous peoples are outlined, and suggestions are offered for pro-actively addressing their experience. Two critical areas where there are opportunities for donors to support indigenous peoples’ priorities include ‘FPIC’ (Free Prior and Informed Consent) and a careful consideration of the implications of niche-market engagement. Key words: Indigeneity, marginalisation, development policy, free prior and informed consent (FPIC), livelihood 1 Introduction This article considers development programming concerning indigenous peoples in relation to environmental and natural resource management. Our ideas have evolved from research commissioned by the Rural Poverty and Environment Programme of the International Development Research Centre in Ottawa. Although our focus is on Asia and Latin America, the thinking presented here is part of the larger enterprise of asking why indigenous peoples’ policies are being developed, what they are for, and what they do. The argument that indigeneity might be a focal point for development programming draws mixed reactions among development institutions. Indigeneity is contentious: its applicability to sites outside the Americas is often challenged, while national governments often treat indigenous politics as a highly sensitive issue. Many donor agencies have stayed away from explicitly working on indigenous peoples’ issues, motivated by either political or conceptual problems with the notion of indigeneity. Other agencies have been persuaded that indigeneity is a meaningful category for development practice that requires explicit special treatment or attention. ∗ Melissa Marschke is at the University of Ottawa, Desmarais 11-158, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada (melissa.marschke@uottawa.ca), and David Szablowski and Peter Vandergeest at York University, Canada. They are grateful to the Rural Poverty and Environment programme at the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) for the opportunity to carry out this research, and to all those whom they engaged in critical and productive discussion. However, the views expressed here are entirely theirs and do not represent the position of IDRC. Michael Stainton and Cesar Polvorosa assisted with data collection, while Rhoda Reyes helped with the Philippines fieldwork and general logistics.  The Authors 2008. Journal compilation  2008 Overseas Development Institute. Published by Blackwell Publishing, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 484 Melissa Marschke, David Szablowski and Peter Vandergeest We argue that, as the concept has travelled from the Americas to Asia and elsewhere, it has been transformed in a way that allows us to see how diverse identities have been created out of specific kinds of ethnic-based marginalisations. Most often these marginalisations are related to the national identities produced by states, and are thus unavoidably characterised by political tension and sensitivity. Nevertheless, if indigeneity does refer to a particular form of marginalisation, then development donors whose mandate includes poverty reduction and social justice should have a clear interest in finding ways of countering these marginalisations and finding effective ways of working with indigenous peoples. This article therefore concludes with some suggestions for strengthening the ability of development projects to address indigenous peoples’ issues, and for new investment in enhancing research capacity in the South on questions that are important to indigenous peoples. Our research drew on a combination of fieldwork, a literature review, web-based research and the personal experience of the authors. We began by conducting field visits in each region to development projects, indigenous peoples’ organisations, and other actors working on indigenous peoples’ issues. Fieldwork encompassed sites in Bolivia, Cambodia, China, India, Laos, Peru, the Philippines, Nepal and Thailand. Each author was also able to draw on previous experience working on natural resource management in Asia and Latin America. Finally, the field research was supplemented with interviews with members of donor agencies in Canada and Europe, as well as data obtained from development donor websites. 2 Understanding indigeneity Defining indigeneity is notoriously difficult. The contemporary concept of indigenous peoples, developed in the Americas, has gained global currency in the past several decades (Kingsbury, 1998; Niezen, 2003). Socio-cultural groups variously thought of as tribal, aboriginal, native, or ethnic minority are increasingly being identified or identifying themselves as indigenous peoples. This is especially true in the Americas, where this term or its equivalents have been used for centuries to designate peoples who trace their ancestry to pre-Columbian populations, although even in the Americas this designation quickly becomes ambiguous in the face of cultural change, population movements, intermarriage, refusals to identify as indigenous, and so on.1 The concept of indigenous peoples can be compared with concepts like race whose meanings also cannot be pinned down in terms of substance, but which nevertheless are important for legal purposes and for understanding social marginalisation. Race, for example, is understood by social scientists to have no real biological or sociological existence, but this in no way negates the significance of racialisation or racism, understood by the way people and institutions act on beliefs about race. Indigeneity has 1. Conventional views on indigenous identity and its meaning are challenged, for example, by partly indigenous Afro-American communities in Colombia, displaced pre-Columbian groups such as the Garifuna of Nicaragua who are not native to the lands they currently occupy, and Andean populations in Peru who often reject the language of indigeneity in favour of a class-based identity as peasants. In Asia and Africa, the use of indigenous identity is more recent, and more contested. Where it is used, it is commonly mapped onto people who were classified during the colonial era by racial terms such as tribal, hill tribe, bushmen, pygmies, nomads, and so on.  The Authors 2008. Journal compilation  2008 Overseas Development Institute. Development Policy Review 26 (4) Engaging Indigeneity in Development Policy 485 been understood to belong more to the discipline of anthropology, where it has been subject to considerable debate with regard to its meanings and applicability. For example, Barnard (2006: 9) argues in favour of accepting indigenous peoples as a significant concept for anthropologists: ‘there can be no perfect, universally applicable definition. The logical solution, then, is to reject the idea of a monothetic definition, and indeed of a nomothetic definition, and redefine “indigeneity” according to local requirements for the achievement of legitimate political goals.’2 We believe that it is not necessary to develop criteria for identifying what is authentically indigenous in terms of cultural characteristics, for two reasons. First, we are convinced by arguments like that made by Barnard, above, that the term cannot refer to any definite set of cultural features, given the great diversity and dynamism of cultural practices among peoples who call themselves indigenous. Second, the question of whether there are common cultural beliefs or practices among people who are identified as indigenous does not significantly affect our recommendations for development donor activity. What is important is that cultural difference and marginalisation matter, although the way they matter is contextual; and that the indigenous peoples’ movement has politicised these diverse differences in ways that are highly relevant to the objectives of rural development organisations. How, then, do indigenous peoples differ from other ethnic or racialised minorities? We suggest that they are distinct in two ways that matter for our purposes. First, we argue that indigeneity is linked to a certain predicament experienced by many ethnic and racialised groups around the world. The concept of indigeneity is associated with a broadly generalisable way in which these groups are named, located, and marginalised within the national societies that encompass them. Second, indigeneity also refers to a set of political responses to this predicament which aim to resist and transform it. It should be noted, however, that both indigeneity-as-marginalisation and indigeneity-asresistance are dynamic and evolving processes following ongoing historical trajectories in different parts of the world. 2.1 Indigenous marginalisation Like many other racialised or ethnic groups, indigenous peoples are regarded as ‘other’ within national mythologies. Their real and perceived differences from national majority or dominant populations are used to justify marginalisation within social, economic, political and cultural life. However, for indigenous peoples, this marginalisation tends to have a strong historical and territorial element. Indigenous peoples are typically linked to remote or neglected territories on the margins of the state- and nation-building enterprise. Indigenous peoples are also often associated with the historical and contemporary maintenance of self-governance institutions that exercise authority within a defined territory. This evolving sphere of self-governance is 2. Kingsbury, an international legal scholar, also rejects as unworkable the positivist effort to develop a precise globally viable definition of indigenous peoples. Like Barnard, he argues in favour of an approach that recognises indigeneity as a relatively elastic and evolving general category. He also proposes that solutions to questions regarding the meaning of indigeneity are best developed with reference to specific contexts (1998: 414-16).  The Authors 2008. Journal compilation  2008 Overseas Development Institute. Development Policy Review 26 (4) 486 Melissa Marschke, David Szablowski and Peter Vandergeest often argued to pre-date the incursion of state influence into indigenous territory, although anthropological and historical research suggests that in many cases these distinct spheres were the product of state-building through policies instituting legal pluralism (Li, 2000). Thus, for dominant or majority groups, indigenous peoples appear to comprise a culturally different population with alien or backward ways, weak identification with government authority, and strong historically-rooted practical claims to segments of national territory. In addition, many of these previously marginal areas have become valuable sources of exploitable resources. As a result, the forms of marginalisation experienced by indigenous peoples tend to be both pervasive and institutionalised and act to reproduce historical patterns of exclusion and control. Most people carry with them views and assumptions about indigenous peoples, and are not aware of the many ways that indigenous peoples experience institutionalised forms of marginalisation. Although it may, in some contexts, be more difficult to express openly racist or discriminatory attitudes today, it is still common to find policies that seem to target indigenous peoples for marginalisation, or subject them to violent attacks in part because they are indigenous. Table 1 includes a list of forms of discrimination that our respondents discussed during field visits. Table 1: Forms of marginalisation Lack of knowledge A lack of attention to or knowledge about indigenous peoples is one of the most important forms of marginalisation. Negative or paternalistic stereotypes Indigenous peoples are often characterised as primitive, lacking knowledge of modern life, unsophisticated and simple. A similar problem occurs when pro-indigenous advocates turn negative stereotypes around to produce one-sided, romanticised images of indigenous peoples. Disregard for indigenous specificity Many governments design programmes based on the assumption that development processes should produce people who live like the ethnic ‘majorities’ or dominant groups who define national culture. As a result, such programmes do not account for the specific needs of indigenous peoples. Deliberate assimilationist or marginalising polices Although it may be more difficult to express openly racist or discriminatory attitudes today, it is still common to find policies that seem to target indigenous peoples for marginalisation, or subject them to violent attacks in part because they are indigenous. These four forms of marginalisation are often intertwined. For example, inaccurate, paternalistic and negative knowledge may be used to justify marginalisation from social and economic institutions including state services such as education, public employment, and legal recognition/enforcement of rights. Stereotypes may also be used to explain the failure of development programmes, that are based on assimilation and fail to address the specificity of indigenous peoples’ livelihoods or their histories of marginalisation.  The Authors 2008. Journal compilation  2008 Overseas Development Institute. Development Policy Review 26 (4) Engaging Indigeneity in Development Policy 487 2.2 Indigenous politics and identification Indigenous peoples are often organised around political projects for autonomy and selfdetermination that involve territorial and resource claims. Simultaneously, indigenous peoples are also often involved in the struggle for full and meaningful citizenship rights. Such dual struggles for autonomy and inclusion are common responses to the predicament and forms of marginalisation faced by indigenous peoples. Where these political projects are not present, it is often because they are actively suppressed. The transnational indigenous movement has, in recent decades, greatly influenced the nature and scope of these local and national struggles, not least by providing opportunities to learn about, make connections with, and identify with other groups confronting similar challenges. The transnational indigenous peoples’ movement is made up of actors with a variety of political agendas, working on a number of different scales, spanning the international to the local. In general, the movement aims to promote legal and practical recognition of a sphere of territorial indigenous governance and self-determination. This message speaks to a wide variety of groups located throughout the world. By developing a common discourse for articulating their claims, groups that identify with the movement are attempting, in Muehlebach’s phrase, ‘to achieve local freedom via the usage of a global language … and to insist on local control as a universal right’ (2003: 241-2). The process of self-identification as indigenous is more important outside the Americas. In the Americas, indigeneity is still often understood as an obvious matter that does not necessarily require active identification. In Asia and Africa, however, selfidentification usually requires an active effort, predicated on knowledge of what indigeneity means, links to networks that enable people to know the option exists, and in some cases, the presence of historical claims to distinct legal or self-governance institutions. This means that some of the most marginalised people may not have the cultural or other resources needed to take advantage of this identity (Li, 2000), an issue that points to a need for an indigenous peoples’ strategy to not focus only on people who self-identify as indigenous. One of the reasons that marginalised groups latch on to indigeneity is that there are often distinct advantages to this identification as a way of countering marginalisation or gaining access to resources and allies. Influential development institutions like the World Bank have policies that provide special protections for indigenous peoples before displacement-inducing projects can be approved. Indigeneity also provides access to influential transnational indigenous and human rights networks that can provide support in local struggles against displacement or unwanted projects. Finally, successful identification as indigenous may draw in resources that some development institutions have set aside for indigenous peoples’ programmes. At the same time, groups may sometimes identify as indigenous peoples for the purpose of international fora, but as ethnic minorities in local and national contexts. The political claims advanced by indigenous peoples, especially those relating to territorial, governance, and resource rights, are often regarded as threatening to nationstates. Indigenous politics tends to challenge the basic premises of the modern state, including undifferentiated territorial and resource control, and state monopoly of legal  The Authors 2008. Journal compilation  2008 Overseas Development Institute. Development Policy Review 26 (4) 488 Melissa Marschke, David Szablowski and Peter Vandergeest sanctions including coercive sanctions. Motivated by recognition that assimilationist policies towards indigenous peoples have been disastrous, indigenous political projects often aim instead to revitalise and revamp grassroots spheres of territorial governance, and cultural institutions through which indigenous peoples sustain distinct ethnocultural identities (language, land management, spiritual beliefs, healthcare, etc.). This is particularly true in Latin America, although the ‘indigenous political project’ varies here too (Smith, 2003). This sphere of governance is intended to produce emancipatory results for indigenous peoples, where conventional citizenship rights have failed to address the persistent forms of marginalisation and oppression they experience (Yashar, 2005: 47-53). National states that are based on an idea of the modern abstract citizen, often associated with a majority or dominant ethnic group, are threatened by any argument that certain people are entitled to special collective rights. Indigenous peoples are often seen as a threat to the integrity of the state, or as associated (past and present) with movements that could cause the fracture or disintegration of states. However, most claims for indigenous rights are not secessionist in orientation. Predominantly they are efforts to negotiate new political relationships within the state, in which indigenous governance institutions enjoying a significant degree of decision-making power are integrated into the constitutional order (see, for example, Garcia, 2005; RCAP, 1996; Yashar, 2005). Indigenous politics takes place in both strong and weak versions, and can take regional expressions in ways that cross national boundaries to create distinct indigenous peoples’ zones of activity. Although there is generally a stronger presence of indigenous politics and claims in Latin America compared with Asia, there are also inter-regional differences. For example, there is a difference in how indigenous peoples’ politics is articulated in the Amazon compared with the Andes (Smith, 2003). There are also national differences, between Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru, for example. In Asia, the presence of indigenous politics is often weaker, in part because indigeneity has less of a history of an identity around which to make political claims, and because many states treat the question of upland ethnic minorities or indigeneity as politically very sensitive. At the same time, the indigenous peoples’ movement in the Philippines is among the strongest anywhere; there is also considerable scope for indigenous politics in India and Thailand. There are also regional networks based on indigenous identities, for example in the China/Laos/Cambodia/Vietnam/Thailand Himalayan zone, and across South and South-east Asia. 2.3 Indigenous peoples, the United Nations and international law Activism at the international level has been a vital resource for the global indigenous movement. The activities taking place at the United Nations and other international fora continue to have important repercussions for the discourse and practice of indigenous politics worldwide. Indigenous activists have used the conceptual and discursive terrain in this sphere in an effort to obtain international legal recognition for indigenous claims. The international sphere provides a forum in which to argue that respect for indigenous rights to territorial integrity and self-determination are binding obligations on states.  The Authors 2008. Journal compilation  2008 Overseas Development Institute. Development Policy Review 26 (4) Engaging Indigeneity in Development Policy 489 Self-determination became a central element in international law with decolonisation, when it came to be a right recognised as belonging to all ‘peoples’.3 In the postcolonial period, indigenous activists at the UN have argued that this right also belongs to those geographically and culturally distinct groups left colonised within existing states. This characterisation of the predicament of indigenous peoples has had substantial uptake in the global indigenous movement. Thus, many indigenous advocates at national and local level are careful to use particular language because of its meaning in international law: i.e. indigenous peoples (not ‘populations’ or even ‘people’) and self-determination (not ‘autonomy’).4 Many state representatives reject this language for the same reasons. Indigenous self-determination is an idea that is attracting broadening international support; however, the path of international law in this area remains uncertain. Existing international treaties which are binding on their signatories, such as Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO 169), fall short of the goals sought by the indigenous movement. In contrast, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by a resolution of the UN General Assembly in September 2007,5 articulates many indigenous aspirations, including recognition of the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination.6 While the Declaration is not a binding legal instrument, resolutions of this kind do exert a normative effect and can be taken as evidence of the development of customary international law. Whether this statement of intention by the UN membership is followed by changes in state practice remains to be seen. However, at a minimum, the Declaration is likely to be regarded as an important standard against which state treatment of indigenous peoples will be judged. The adoption of the Declaration after more than two decades of pressure and debate represents a considerable victory for the indigenous peoples’ movement. Indigenous organisations and their allies have become experienced and established players at the UN. Through 3. Both the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights state that ‘All peoples have the right of self-determination’. 4. In the human rights field, indigenous activists have also made persuasive arguments by invoking the right of a minority to its culture. The right to culture in the indigenous context, it is argued, necessarily entails the right to protection of land and resources that are used to sustain the economic well-being of the cultural group. By making expert interventions designed to shame offending states before UN committees, indigenous activists have successfully persuaded some of these committees to issue opinions supporting this broad interpretation of the right to culture (Muehlebach, 2003: 254-6). 5. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 13 September 2007 by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine). 6. The Declaration articulates a vision of indigenous self-determination which is exercised within existing states, and which is based on (a) recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples to autonomous government of their internal affairs and (b) the need for good faith negotiation and accommodation in relation to state measures impacting indigenous peoples. The text of the Declaration makes it clear that the indigenous right of self-determination does not entail a right to secede. Article 46 states that ‘[n]othing in the Declaration may be interpreted … or construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States’.  The Authors 2008. Journal compilation  2008 Overseas Development Institute. Development Policy Review 26 (4) 490 Melissa Marschke, David Szablowski and Peter Vandergeest the establishment of such bodies as the Working Group on Indigenous Populations7 and the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues,8 they have succeeded in institutionalising the presence of indigenous issues within the UN system. In short, activism at the international level is involved in strategic and creative behaviour that is broadly in support of the central goals of many local and national indigenous organisations. Work at the international level also articulates with efforts on other scales to provide discursive and other resources at national and local levels. Nevertheless, there are questions as to how closely international activists are linked to work at different scales. 3 Should international organisations and donors consider an indigenous peoples’ strategy? In this section we turn to the question of whether rural development organisations can benefit from developing a strategy that focuses on addressing the specific forms of marginalisation experienced by indigenous peoples, and from working with collective actors who seek to address these forms of marginalisation. 3.1 A brief sketch of who is doing what Table 2, compiled through a web-based search, provides a list of donors that have or have not developed a policy or strategy on indigenous peoples. By an indigenous policy or strategy we mean a formal, bureaucratic document which is intended to guide how a development organisation’s work should be done when indigenous peoples are involved.9 In some cases, such as the Danida and GTZ examples, these are broad strategic documents which define the term ‘indigenous peoples’, identify major issues and goals, and outline the modes of development co-operation to be used. Other policies are less detailed and may identify a small number of priority areas for programming and concerns about process. The World Bank, in contrast, has developed what it calls a ‘safeguard policy’ framework, consisting of a mandatory policy which imposes certain procedures and requirements (chiefly consultation and participatory development practices) on projects that may have negative impacts on indigenous peoples. This approach has been followed by other multilateral development banks which finance infrastructure and similar projects with the potential for substantial negative local impacts. 7. The Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP) was established in 1982 as a subsidiary body of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. The Working Group meets annually to review developments in the promotion of the human rights of indigenous peoples, and now operates as a subsidiary body to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. 8. Established in 2000, the Permanent Forum is a high-level advisory body to the UN’s Economic and Social Council. It is composed of 16 experts, 8 nominated by governments and 8 by indigenous peoples’ organisations, all of whom have been accorded parity in decision-making. 9. Here we are not counting organisations which have established narrower indigenous-focused initiatives which set out particular programmatic objectives distinct from the organisation’s other programmes. For example, CIDA has an initiative which promotes partnerships between indigenous peoples’ organisations in Canada and Latin America and the Caribbean.  The Authors 2008. Journal compilation  2008 Overseas Development Institute. Development Policy Review 26 (4) Engaging Indigeneity in Development Policy 491 Table 2: Indigenous peoples’ policies and international organisations IO/Donor ADB CIDA Danida DFID Ford Foundation GTZ IDRC IFAD IIED IWGIA Oxfam America SIDA UNDP UNIFEM World Bank IP policy? Yes No Yes No No Yes, Americas focused No Yes No No, but only work w/ IP Yes No Yes No Yes Other organisations known for their work in rural development, poverty and environmental issues, such as the Ford Foundation, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), do significant work with indigenous peoples, although they do not have a specific policy. Reasons that donor organisations might avoid such a strategy include the view that one policy is not capable of addressing the great variation among sites where these organisations work. The Latin America-Asia difference is one example, but there are differences within regions that are equally acute. A proactive strategy could create unnecessary institutional work and effort as staff members need to produce policies, agree on them and find ways of implementing them. Project checklists, for example, add a bureaucratic layer to approval processes without necessarily accomplishing much, as some observers argue regarding the World Bank’s detailed but much criticised operational policies and procedures. At the same time, there are significant reasons for rural development programmes to consider developing an indigenous peoples’ strategy. Many rural development projects already involve indigenous peoples, and even those that do not may have indirect impacts on indigenous peoples. Indeed, indigenous peoples constitute a significant proportion of the rural poor in many regions. Thus, it is not realistic to assume that a development organisation can easily avoid the complexities of indigenous peoples’ politics. The better approach would be to find ways of working more effectively with indigenous peoples and their organisations. Focused attention and an improved understanding of the types of marginalisation specific to indigenous peoples will allow a donor to work more effectively with rural people to counter these marginalisations in ways that enhance equitable resource use and participation in decision-making. Our fieldwork and analysis suggest that many organisations might benefit from more programmatic attention to understanding the  The Authors 2008. Journal compilation  2008 Overseas Development Institute. Development Policy Review 26 (4) 492 Melissa Marschke, David Szablowski and Peter Vandergeest different dimensions of ethnic marginalisation, including those specific to indigeneity. This work can limit the extent to which patterns of ethnic marginalisation negatively impact project implementation. If, as we suggest, countering marginalisation requires extra resources, then a formal strategy will help to ensure that these resources are mobilised for indigenousrelated projects where appropriate. At the same time, there are often opportunities for donors to collaborate with indigenous political projects, if they are aware of such opportunities. The following section presents more concrete ideas for donor programming. 4 Suggestions for donor programming We suggest the following two components to include in an indigenous peoples’ strategy. First, donors could strengthen existing programmes to avoid the unintended marginalisation of indigenous peoples. Second, donors could invest in new areas of research based on priorities identified through our interviews with indigenous organisations and researchers. 4.1 Strengthening existing programmes Our observations and interviews in Asia and Latin America suggested that there is considerable scope for addressing the experience of indigenous peoples more proactively. Interviewees emphasised a need to expand consideration of indigenous issues to all the ways that ethnicity might shape the positive and negative impacts of donor programming and government policies. Thus, we suggest that projects that may have an impact on indigenous peoples systematically attempt to anticipate these impacts, and devise strategies to counter them (including both indigenous and non-indigenous communities in the project area). Three strategies for achieving this are: (i) learning programming for development practitioners; (ii) investment in activities that overcome obstacles to engaging indigenous peoples; and (iii) sustained attention to inter-ethnic relations, including attention to how a focus on indigenous peoples could unintentionally marginalise other rural poor communities. (i) Questions for practitioners to consider Our field research indicated that there was a pressing need for greater knowledge of the dimensions of ethnic marginalisation among research and development projects. Many people we interviewed reported issues around non-indigenous and indigenous people having biases that needed to be overcome. Many stereotypes needed to be pulled apart, and engagement on these issues did not always go smoothly. A learning programme would engage people in critical reflection regarding the stereotypes and biases pertaining to indigenous peoples. Given that there are considerable differences in the situation and experience of indigenous peoples in Asia, Latin America and Africa, learning activities will need to be tailored to each site. Table 3 illustrates the kinds of questions that might be considered in this type of programme.  The Authors 2008. Journal compilation  2008 Overseas Development Institute. Development Policy Review 26 (4) Engaging Indigeneity in Development Policy 493 Table 3: Questions for practitioners to consider General questions to consider • What are some of the national and local sensitivities that might be provoked by an exploration of ethnic marginalisation? • What is ethnicity? What is indigeneity? (staff may be technically competent but could use more information on how to think about identity). • What are the main ethnic groups in the area of the project? • What is known about the group that the project intends to work with? For example, histories of resource use, migration, family organisation, language? • How has this group been impacted by state policies? Development projects? War and violence? State regulation on land and resource use? • What kinds of stereotypes exist about this group? Why? How did they get created? Include stereotypes not only about personal characteristics, but also resource use and poverty. • How might stereotyping lead to marginalisation? For example, in legalisation of resources access, or in education, or access to development and state institutions. • How have IP groups organised collectively, to do what, and how might development projects serve to facilitate existing capacity for collective action where these are consistent with project goals? • What non-IP groups live in the project area? What is their specific history of resource and land use? How might they have experienced marginalisation or be impacted by programmes that seek to support IP groups? Specific questions for on-going projects • What obstacles has the project encountered in engaging with IP or different social groups within an IP group (e.g., language barriers, suspicion due to history of marginalisation, accessibility, illegality of resource use practices)? • What forms of inequality and cultural difference exist within IP communities (e.g., gender, access to land and natural resources, language and cultural capital, migration histories, age)? • How might this project have assumed some of the stereotypes associated with IP, and what were the effects? • What could be done in the project to acknowledge ethnic-based marginalisation, counter stereotyping, and work more effectively with IP communities, including those sections of the communities who may be the most marginalised (based on gender, class, migration, history)? (ii) Countering unintended marginalisation Engagement with indigenous peoples often requires extra resources. When resources are not made available, indigenous peoples may be excluded from projects. Our informants suggested that projects experiencing pressure on budgets and resources are likely to cut those resources (for example, gasoline, time), skills (language, cultural knowledge) and experience (building community relationships and respect) needed to engage indigenous people effectively, whereas resources (time, airplane travel), skills (computer, English), and experience (higher educational degrees) needed to engage with policy-makers or funders often receive higher priority. A dedicated fund to which existing projects can  The Authors 2008. Journal compilation  2008 Overseas Development Institute. Development Policy Review 26 (4) 494 Melissa Marschke, David Szablowski and Peter Vandergeest apply would pro-actively counter these tendencies by earmarking funding specifically to support activities to better engage ethnically marginalised peoples. Other measures required to counter indigenous marginalisation from participation in project benefits can include: ensuring that staff members have appropriate language and cultural skills, budgeting extra resources to maintain strong contact with indigenous peoples’ communities in isolated areas, and accommodating potentially lengthy indigenous community consultation and decision-making processes in project timelines. (iii) Addressing inter-ethnic relations involving non-indigenous communities Another issue for indigenous peoples often involves the relationships that exist with non-indigenous people living in the area. For example, non-indigenous people may be presented as threats to indigenous control over territory and resources, but nonindigenous farmers are often migrants displaced from other areas and are among the poorest rural people. In some areas, for example, rural farmers do not benefit from the kinds of special protections that are now often provided for rural people who are identified as indigenous. It is important to ensure that gains for indigenous peoples are not at the expense of other rural people. Another dimension of inter-ethnic relations concerns relations among different ethnic minorities. The term ‘indigenous people’ refers to broadly common ways that people have been marginalised within larger political and economic systems, but very often there is great diversity among the peoples who have been marginalised within a particular site. Attempts to organise these groups under the common umbrella of indigenous peoples then needs to come to terms with diverse cultural and livelihood practices, including diversity in modes of marginalisation, stereotyping and so on. Our concern is ways of addressing inter-ethnic relations more broadly. In developing any indigenous-related programming, donors should build in awareness that it is important not to focus on indigenous people or specific ethnic groups to the exclusion of other residents, where project activities may impact on these residents. 4.2 Emerging research areas In the area of resource and environmental management, our observations and interviews suggest that there are several research areas emerging that may be particularly relevant to indigenous peoples. These include (a) free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) and (b) livelihood and market engagement. In presenting these ideas, we do not intend to suggest that other areas are not important. During our fieldwork, we heard many useful suggestions for ways that donors could support indigenous peoples’ research, many specific to local contexts, and some which could have broader applicability. Some of these can be worked into the two themes we have identified (for example, research on land rights, on cultural education, or on the development implications of differences within indigenous groups, based on gender, age, ethnicity). Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) FPIC refers to processes of engagement and decision-making in which the free and informed consent of an indigenous people is sought prior to the authorisation of a  The Authors 2008. Journal compilation  2008 Overseas Development Institute. Development Policy Review 26 (4) Engaging Indigeneity in Development Policy 495 particular course of action. FPIC is invoked with regard to decisions that affect indigenous land, livelihoods, culture or resources. It is a key principle promoted by the indigenous rights movement and has been used to inform many aspects of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, overwhelmingly adopted by the UN General Assembly on 13 September 2007.10 Work on FPIC represents a logical next step for many indigenous peoples’ organisations that have been successful in securing formal title to land. FPIC concerns the problem of operationalising rights in practice, perhaps the principal challenge faced by indigenous peoples worldwide. This does not mean that FPIC should be at the expense of work in support of indigenous rights over land and territory. Where these rights have not yet been secured, this remains a very important area of emphasis for work. FPIC expresses part of what is meant by indigenous self-determination: the recognition by states and other actors of an effective sphere of indigenous governance that must be engaged with meaningfully. Indigenous groups and their allies have argued in favour of FPIC by pointing to the often disastrous legacy of state-sponsored resource exploitation and development policy that has ignored both the institutions and the interests of indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples have often been left with the negative consequences of these development decisions and few of their benefits. As a result of sustained advocacy efforts, FPIC is a principle that is acquiring global currency and substantial recognition. FPIC has been endorsed and adopted by prominent institutions such as the World Commission on Dams (WCD, 2000), the World Bank’s Extractive Industries Review (EIR, 2003), and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Colchester and MacKay, 2004: 10). It has become a perennial issue raised in consultations on the internal policies of multilateral development banks (for example IADB, 2006: 5-6). FPIC, depending on how the term is defined, is also practised by some governments.11 In addition, certain industry actors state that they currently apply FPIC on a case-by-case basis even where it is not legally required (De Echave et al., 2005). This is done to develop good community relations, to manage risks, and to defend or promote the corporation’s reputation. FPIC is contentious because of its implications for state sovereignty and control over resource development. Many state actors perceive FPIC as a potential indigenous veto on development projects that serve the national interest. Even where a veto is not threatened, FPIC proposes to allow indigenous peoples to negotiate the conditions under which development can take place. This appears to run counter to state claims of exclusive and ‘permanent sovereignty’ over natural resources. Industry actors, on the other hand, particularly large enterprises in capital-intensive sectors, value certainty and 10. See notes 7 and 8 and the accompanying text above. The Declaration calls for recognition of the right of indigenous peoples to informed consent in relation to development activities within indigenous territories, the loss or use of land and resources, relocation, the acquisition of cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property, the storage or disposal of hazardous materials within indigenous territory, and legal or administrative decisions affecting indigenous peoples. 11. For example, FPIC is part of the formal legislative framework in the Philippines and Papua New Guinea. While there is no formal structure mandating FPIC in Canada, the federal government has promoted FPIC in the north by using its licensing and permitting powers to require the negotiation of impact and benefit agreements with indigenous peoples (Bass et al., 2003: 11-18).  The Authors 2008. Journal compilation  2008 Overseas Development Institute. Development Policy Review 26 (4) 496 Melissa Marschke, David Szablowski and Peter Vandergeest stability. As suggested earlier, in some industry corners, FPIC has the potential to be given a serious hearing, so long as it proves to be an effective means for managing troublesome local and community relations. The World Bank has charted a middle course, incorporating the requirement to engage in ‘free, prior and informed consultation’ with indigenous peoples into its internal policy directives (Goodland, 2004). Consultation, and possible accommodation, also represents a preferred option for some states (such as Canada).12 The debate on FPIC also speaks to a reality experienced in many areas with more developed indigenous politics. In these regions (such as the Andean Amazon, the Philippines, etc.) indigenous movements have been successful in obtaining legal recognition of their right to traditional territories. However, many indigenous peoples find that paper rights are legally trumped by rights granted to extractive industry projects, or ignored in practice by displaced non-indigenous groups who in some cases may not have many alternatives to settlement in indigenous-designated territories. The contemporary challenge for these movements involves finding ways to operationalise territorial rights in practice. Considerable work has taken place promoting the principle of FPIC at an international level, such that it is currently an item for inquiry and debate on the agenda of bodies ranging from the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to high-level civil society/World Bank Group meetings, to the working groups of the Convention on Biological Diversity,13 to the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM).14 The key questions being asked in these fora concern what FPIC means in practice and how the principle can and should be operationalised. While various examples of FPIC are commonly cited, there is a marked lack of systematic research that can enable actors to learn from these and other experiences. For example, each of the key terms, ‘free’, ‘prior’, ‘informed’, and ‘consent’ are ambiguous and can be interpreted in diverse ways in practice. Information is thus needed on how these terms are being operationalised, and the implications for promoting FPIC more broadly. Critical questions include the role played by experts in shaping FPIC practices, as well as the effects of power differences on models of negotiated justice (Szablowski, 2007). Research on FPIC thus represents a strategic opportunity for donor involvement to support local research with indigenous peoples that will inform these broader activities. 12. Although consultation/accommodation appears to be preferred, in its discussions in international fora, Canada does not close the door on consent processes. In a submission to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Canadian delegation recommends that the international framework for FPIC should include ‘a range of practices, from consultation, to involvement in decision-making, to accommodation of interests and, where appropriate, obtaining consent’. See Government of Canada (2005). 13. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) represents an attempt by states to establish a common framework for government regulation of biodiversity issues, including access and benefit-sharing. Negotiations towards a global regime are ongoing. Article 8(j) of the CBD requires that traditional knowledge of indigenous and local communities be used only with their ‘approval’. This has been taken to mean that FPIC is required (UN Economic and Social Council, 2005: 9). 14. ICMM is a global association of the world’s largest private sector mining enterprises. See ICMM ‘Draft Position Statement on Mining and Indigenous Peoples Issues’ 29 March 2006. Online at: http://www.icmm.com/news/1054Drafthighlevelpositionstatement_FINAL.pdf  The Authors 2008. Journal compilation  2008 Overseas Development Institute. Development Policy Review 26 (4) Engaging Indigeneity in Development Policy 497 Livelihoods and ‘market’ engagement We include this theme for two reasons. First, there is general acknowledgement among our respondents that many environmental or resource-management-type programmes engaging indigenous peoples (and, for that matter, rural peoples in general) have been oriented more around the protection of environment and resource rights, or of indigenous cultural identities, than livelihood improvement and addressing poverty.15 Second, the current emphasis among development donors on exploring ‘pro-poor’ markets as means of reducing poverty demands that the implications of a marketoriented strategy be explored for the specific situations of indigenous peoples. How can indigenous peoples work with markets in ways that ensure that they (and other poor communities) obtain equitable benefits and have some control over what is produced as a commodity, and that environments are not destroyed? Our most important observation is that the marginalisations and stereotypes that partly define indigenous peoples shape how they can engage with markets. Should indigenous peoples mobilise stereotypes in order to obtain market benefits? These are difficult questions to answer, but need to be considered in a broader ‘pro-poor market’ paradigm. Niche opportunities that might be available for indigenous peoples might also reinforce stereotypes, i.e., tourism opportunities, including ethnic tourism and ecotourism. Indigenous peoples may be able to sell specific products such as handicrafts or food items whose value is in part tied to ethnic identities, or perform traditional songs and dances. Although there are opportunities for indigenous peoples here, there are also many risks. Can indigenous peoples define their own development agenda and benefit in a meaningful manner from the co-modification of ethnic identity and culture? In the agriculture sector, there may also be opportunities. For example, many organisations are now working with indigenous peoples to promote organic agriculture. Their motivations are often ecological or food sovereignty-oriented. At the same time, considerable new rents or monetary values are being created through organic certifications or certifications that associate agricultural products with particular places or peoples. The key research question here is how indigenous peoples can produce and benefit from these new commodities in ways that do not subordinate them to standards and institutions that are created for the benefit of wealthy consumers and retailers. In some places there is a national trend towards supporting multi-culturalism that is linked towards the ‘commodification’ of aspects of indigenous peoples’ culture. In other words, multi-culturalism may be promoted as a way to sell culture (this plays out in China and Vietnam, for example). There are regional differences within nation states in terms of how ‘cultural commodification’ might unfold. For example, there is an acknowledged difference between indigenous peoples’ movements in north-eastern India where they are the ‘majority minority’ as compared with the central plains adivasi who are extremely marginalised. In north-eastern India there was a perceived opportunity from cultural tourism, if run on local terms; in the adivasi areas, far less so. 15. This was also found in a recent review of resource management work done in Cambodia by Veer et al. (2006). Despite researchers’ best intentions to engage in resource-management work, they often engaged in networking or protection-type work, i.e., creating a protected forest or a fish sanctuary. These are important activities; thus, we use this example to emphasise that livelihood enhancement is a challenging area of action research.  The Authors 2008. Journal compilation  2008 Overseas Development Institute. Development Policy Review 26 (4) 498 Melissa Marschke, David Szablowski and Peter Vandergeest Each historical-political context affects how indigenous peoples, the state, and others think about ‘marketing’ aspects of indigenous culture. Precisely because of this variation, the trend towards commodification of indigenous culture raises a series of research questions in which donors could consider engaging. 5 Implementing indigenous peoples’ research programmes We have argued in this article that development donor organisations could enhance their ability to work with indigenous peoples by adopting policies that draw attention to the forms of marginalisation they experience and that encourage efforts to counter its influence on development programming. We have also identified two potential areas where donors could help global South institutions develop relevant research capacity that will shed light on important questions for indigenous peoples’ development and rights. As demonstrated by the recent support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the UN, indigenous identities and mobilisations are gaining in significance; indigeneity is becoming accepted as a marker of identity along with, but distinct from, ethnicity and racialisation, and many indigenous peoples’ projects have goals that coincide with the mandate of development donors. Moreover, in some cases, we have found that some indigenous peoples’ organisations have a unique ability to work across scales, for example, linking FPIC for specific projects (such as a mining project) to national and transnational advocacy for the legal recognition of FPIC. A key issue for donor agencies that decide to adopt a more pro-active approach to indigeneity will be finding organisations with whom they might work. Elsewhere we have discussed in more detail the question of ‘partnering’ (Marschke et al., 2007), and we shall limit this discussion to a few general comments and a specific recommendation. In many countries a confusing array of sometimes competing organisations are active in indigenous peoples’ issues. They work on diverse issues, from preservationist approaches to maintaining cultural identities and practices, to livelihood enhancement, to mobilising for recognition and political autonomy. In some countries there are indigenous organisations which have strong research capacity and high legitimacy, and can work effectively across scales; in others, the formation of these groups has been suppressed. In these cases, prospective partners include universities, often distant from national capitals, which are committed to working with indigenous peoples, as well as NGOs and government agencies whose mandates include indigenous peoples. Ethnicity or claims to represent indigenous peoples should not be the sole determining factor in partnering decisions. More important criteria might include a combination of institutional capacity (administrative, research) and legitimacy (especially with indigenous participants). first submitted October 2007 final revision accepted March 2008  The Authors 2008. Journal compilation  2008 Overseas Development Institute. Development Policy Review 26 (4) Engaging Indigeneity in Development Policy 499 References Barnard, A. (2006) ‘Kalahari Revisionism, Vienna and the “Indigenous Peoples” Debate’, Social Anthropology 14 (1): 1-16. Bass, S.; Parikh, P. S.; Czebiniak, R. and Filbey, M. (2003) Prior Informed Consent and Mining. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute. Colchester, M. and Mackay, F. (2004) ‘In Search of Middle Ground: Indigenous Peoples, Collective Representation and the Right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent. Forest Peoples Programme’. Paper presented to the 10th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Oaxaca, August. De Echave, J.; Keenan, K.; Romero, M. K. and Tapia, A. (2005) Los Procesos de Dialogo y la Administración de Conflictos en Territorios de Comunidades: El Caso de la Mina de Tintaya en el Perú. Lima: CooperAcción. Extractive Industries Review (2003) Striking a Better Balance: The Extractive Industries Review (http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/ EXTOGMC/0,,contentMDK:20306686~menuPK:336936~pagePK:148956~piPK: 216618~theSitePK:336930,00.html). Garcia, M. E. (2005) Making Indigenous Citizens: Identities, Education and Multicultural Development in Peru. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Goodland, R. (2004) ‘Free, Prior and Informed Consent and the World Bank Group’, Sustainable Development Law & Policy 4: 66-74. Government of Canada (2005) ‘Statement by the Observer Delegation of Canada’, United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Workshop on Methodologies Regarding Free, Prior and Informed Consent and indigenous peoples, 17-19 January (http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/nr/spch/unp/05/fpi/ index_e.html). Inter-American Development Bank (2005) Strategy for Indigenous Development and Operational Policy on Indigenous Peoples: Report on the Consultation Process. Washington, DC: IDB (http://www.iadb.org/SDS/IND/site_401_e.htm). Kingsbury, B. (1998) ‘“Indigenous Peoples” in International Law: A Constructivist Approach to the Asian Controversy’, American Journal of International Law 92: 414-57. Li, T. M. (2000) ‘Articulating Indigenous Identity in Indonesia: Resource Politics and the Tribal Slot’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 42 (1): 149-79. Marschke, Melissa, Szablowski, David and Vandergeest, Peter (2007) Indigenous Peoples Scoping Exercise Synthesis Report. Working Paper No. 21. Ottawa: Rural Poverty and Environment Programme of the International Development Research Centre (www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/11786494341RPE_Working_Paper_21.pdf). Muehlebach, A. (2003) ‘What Self in Self-Determination? Notes from the Frontiers of Transnational Indigenous Activism’, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 10: 214-68. Niezen, R. (2003) The Origins of Indigenism: Human Rights and the Politics of Identity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.  The Authors 2008. Journal compilation  2008 Overseas Development Institute. Development Policy Review 26 (4) 500 Melissa Marschke, David Szablowski and Peter Vandergeest Smith, R. C. (2003) A Tapestry Woven From the Vicissitudes of History, Place and Daily Life. Lima: Oxfam America and Ford Foundation. Szablowski, D. (2007) Transnational Law and Local Struggles: Mining, Communities, and the World Bank. Oxford: Hart Publishing. United Nations Economic and Social Council (2005) Report of the International Workshop on Methodologies regarding Free Prior and Informed Consent. New York: UN, 17-19 January, E/C.19/2005/3. Veer, C., Muny, M. and Marschke, M. (2006) ‘Community Based Natural Resource Management in Cambodia – Review of IDRC Supported Initiatives and Ideas for Future Programming’. Final Draft Report of a Mission. Singapore: IDRC RPE. World Commission on Dams (2000) Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making: The Report of the World Commission on Dams. London: Earthscan (http://www.dams.org/report/earthscan.htm). Yashar, D. J. (2005) Contesting Citizenship in Latin America: The Rise of Indigenous Movements and the Post-liberal Challenge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  The Authors 2008. Journal compilation  2008 Overseas Development Institute. Development Policy Review 26 (4) View publication stats