Ethnicity Strategies in China 2004

ETHNICITY STRATEGIES IN CHINA John Studley 21st July 2004 London Yunnan is unique both in terms of its biodiversity and its cultural diversity, especially in ethnic minority areas. This however is not a chance occurrence and global evidence is emerging of remarkable overlaps between areas of greatest biological and greatest cultural diversity. This suggests a casual process that is co-evolving and mutually supportive. The foreseeable consequences of disrupting such long-standing interactions need to be seriously considered. From this perspective any loss in cultural diversity, Indigenous Knowledge and practice will affect biodiversity. Every effort must be made to build on the nativization of culture taking place in China (See Appendix 4) to ensure that not only is biodiversity but ethno-cultural diversity is understood and protected in order to provide a sustainable platform for poverty alleviation, well-being enhancement and intervention (See Appendix 6) The erosion of ethnic and cultural diversity is one of the least discussed consequences of the modernization & globalization (Shiva 1993). There should be concern because it is linked to social cohesion and value systems that facilitate effective management of natural resources. Moreover there is a strong correlation between ethnic diversity and the conservation of biodiversity. Although the UN, the World Bank and ADB began to consider ethnicity issues and cultural protection in the 1980s development agencies have only mouthed rhetorical support but have continued to privilege conservation of biological resources over the preservation of ethnic cultures (Blench 2001). As of 2003 only 8 multilateral/ bilateral agencies out of 27 had a policy on indigenous people or ethnic minorities, 10 had operational guidance and only 3 had formal accountability mechanisms (Griffiths 2003). Although DFID is involved in projects that include ethnic groups, and encourages "ethnicity mainstreaming" in some of its projects it is not clear how it defines "ethnicity", or "mainstreaming" (Anon pers comm 21/7/04). In spite of these failings and largely as a result of pressure from indigenous groups best practices are beginning to emerge. Many governments and development agencies, remain uncomfortable with ethnic diversity because it a contested domain that challenges the homogenisation of "national culture" and economics. This has presented dilemmas for development agencies. ADB, for example insisted its programmes in Viet Naam should target ethnic groups on the basis of vernacular identification but in China they accepted official identification although this appears to be at odds with their policy of preventing assimilation and protecting cultures (ADB 2003). Ethnic considerations in Yunnan present unique challenges given 1) The artificial creation of "Minority Nationalities" and "Autonomous Areas" on political & strategic grounds rather than ethno-linguistic 2) The ontological perception (shared conceptualization) that the Han Chinese have of minority nationalities. 3) The reconfiguration of "Culture", "indigenous", and "minority nationality" in the light of recent government policy (Ethnic Pluralism, Agenda 21, Regional economic development, Great Western Development Strategy, and Multiculturalism) and official discourse.

John Studley Page 1 10/03/2011

4) The domain assumptions required to address ethnic issues on the basis of best practice (i.e. people-centred, knowledge system equity, synergy between knowledge systems, self-determination, endogenous development etc) Key concepts The development of ethnicity strategies for projects in China is particularly challenging, not only politically and historically, but semantically and ontologically (See Appendix 1). For example if we consider ethnicity:- In much of the world ethnicity is not viewed as being the same as race or nationality and is usually characterised by (1) an ethnonym; a collective self-name of the group; (2) a belief in common descent (either real or putative) and historical destiny; (3) a set of physical and/or cultural features, so called ethnic markers (such as language & worldviews) by which group members differentiate themselves from the other groups of such kind; (4) shared historical memories; (5) a sense of collective solidarity; and (6) and an association with a territory or homeland (Smith 1986) The Chinese, however draw no distinction between people (民族), nation (民族), nationality (民族) and ethnos (民族). There is no word in Chinese for ethnic group and the nearest term, Shaoshu minzu (少数民族) is best translated as minority nationality, which is a political construct, and has no ethno-linguistic basis at all (Heberer 1989) It is important that given the cross-cultural context we both define and understand certain key concepts. This is especially the case if projects are to be prosecuted on the basis of internationally accepted definitions and best practices. Key concepts include: - ethnicity, culture, ethnic identity, indigenous ethnic minorities, "Nationalities", ethnodevelopment, & ethnicity mainstreaming (See Appendix 1) Multilateral, Bilateral & NGO Experience The indigenous campaign for recognition of the rights of indigenous people and ethnic minorities by governments and development agencies began in the 1950s, gathered pace in the 1970s and consolidated in the 1980s. During the latter decade, indigenous organisations and human rights, environment and development NGOs were successful in publicising the devastating negative impacts on indigenous peoples of mega transport, energy, mining and agricultural colonisation projects financed by multilateral agencies. In response to this external pressure, the World Bank initiated an international standard-setting process on indigenous peoples and development when it adopted its first operational policy on ‘tribal people’ in 1982. In the late 1980s, indigenous representatives urged governments and development institutions to protect indigenous land, resource and participation rights and to value traditional knowledge and land use as alternative models for sustainable development. The WCED took up the cause that indigenous peoples and their communities should be recognised as a ‘touchstone’ for sustainable development policy (WCED 1987,The Barbados Declaration（http://www.drugwar.com/akhabarbadosdeclaration.shtm)


Indigenous peoples contributed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio in 1992. These declarations emphasised that sustainable development initiatives affecting indigenous communities and territories must be based on the prior full and effective recognition and realisation of indigenous peoples’ rights. Although the Rio process failed to acknowledge the essential role of human rights in development, the intergovernmental plan of action known as Agenda 21, the non-legally binding Forest Principles and the overall political statement stemming from the summit all recognise the potential valuable role of indigenous peoples in achieving sustainable development. Currently many multilateral and bilateral bodies continue to be involved in countries with ethnic minorities but most of them lack a policy on indigenous people, lack any formal accounting mechanism, have failed to adopt best international practice, and some (USAID) even consider that indigenous peoples’ issues are adequately covered by their general agency policies on human rights, good governance and poverty reduction. (see Griffiths 2003) The World Bank The World Bank was the first multilateral development bank to adopt a policy (OMS 2.34) on “tribal” peoples in 1982 (Davis 1977) Despite the adoption of this policy, the severe impact of World Bank projects on indigenous peoples continued although the Bank denied major problems until 1987 when it’s President finally admitted that many projects had failed to take into account social and environmental issues (Colchester 1986 a,b,c) As a result of a review and extensive consultations inside the World Bank, a new policy (OD 4.20) was adopted in 1991 with the aim of giving clearer guidance to staff. When it was first adopted, indigenous organisations complained that it had been developed and finalised without indigenous participation, it failed to make explicit reference to ILO Convention 169 and it disregarded the right to prior informed consent. In spite of these failings most indigenous commentators agree that, if implemented properly, it could help safeguard the rights of indigenous communities affected by World Bank projects. Independent case studies of World Bank projects in Latin America, Africa and Asia carried out by indigenous peoples themselves have found compliance with OD4.20 is often weak and sometimes highly unsatisfactory, especially with regard to the critical needs for indigenous peoples’ participation and secure land rights. Since 1996 the Bank's commitment to "indigenous peoples development" made way for the more broadly conceived policy of "ethnodevelopment" (Roper et al 1996) Indigenous organisations acknowledge some of the Bank’s ethnodevelopment and natural resource management projects have brought benefits. However, indigenous organisations and civil society groups monitoring the World Bank point out that much of the Bank’s business continues to directly or indirectly promote unsustainable, top-down development based on foreign direct investment, export-led growth, structural adjustment and the industrial extraction of natural resources. They complain that these largely unaccountable development interventions continue to have severe negative consequences for indigenous peoples and their territories throughout the world (Corpuz 1997)


Since the mid-1990s, OD4.20 has been undergoing a process of revision but the process has been surrounded by controversy as NGOs and academics have detected regressive forces shaping the redrafting of the policies to minimise binding rules and limit coverage of the policy provisions. In the second round of public consultations (2001) the process was also roundly condemned for being rushed and for lacking informed and representative indigenous participation. Overall there is a general feeling in the indigenous movement that the World Bank has lost its way in standard-setting and that its policies are falling unacceptably far behind international standards (Tebtebba Foundation 2001a, b) The final version of the Policy was advanced to a limited number of indigenous advocates in May 2004 who replied on 21st May. The policy was scheduled to be sent to the policy committee of the Board of Directors for approval on June 7, but that date has been postponed indefinitely (See Appendix 2 for fuller text) DFID The UK government has for a number of years been reluctant to adopt a development policy on indigenous peoples. DFID policies address the needs of poor people in general, and ‘vulnerable’ and ‘marginal’ social groups in particular. In 1995, the Overseas Development Administration (ODA) compiled internal good practice guidelines for staff and field managers on Ethnicity, Ethnic Minorities and Indigenous Peoples. These guidelines are out of step with international policies and instruments as they combine ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples in a single policy and focus on individual human rights rather than collective rights In some parts of DFIDs recent policy statement on Realising Human Rights for Poor People there is recognition of the importance of international instruments that relate to the human rights of indigenous peoples (DFID 2000a). DFID combines its rights-based approach with a ‘Sustainable Livelihood Approach’ (SLA), which is supposed to inform the design of its poverty reduction projects (DFID 2000b) There is a growing realisation inside DFID that rights-based and livelihood approaches can complement each other. DFID emphasises, however, that principles contained in its public policy documents are not necessarily binding on its staff and have no operational status. Instead, they are meant to publicise DFIDs overall approach to development and, as such, are aspirational strategic documents that shape overall priorities for UK official overseas development assistance (Griffiths 2003) Some of DFIDs Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) make reference to indigenous development issues (DFID 1999c 2002 a,b) but in others indigenous issues do not feature in the analysis, even where countries have a significant indigenous population, such as Bangladesh and Peru (DFID 1998 2002c 2002d Servindi 2002). Although DFID has no dedicated formal policy on indigenous peoples, significant parts of its aid programme affects indigenous communities in developing countries. In India with rural livelihood projects, in Brazil with agro-forestry, in Bolivia with indigenous ethical research methods for the collection of traditional knowledge, in Indonesia with a multistakeholder forestry project, and in SW Cameroon with capacity building (Griffiths


2003) There is evidence, however that DFIDs poverty reduction and natural resource projects in Guyana & India have not always given adequate attention to indigenous issues (DFID 1999d Pimbert and Wakeford 2002)



At the end of 2002, DFID & FCO begun to produce an updated internal guidance note for staff on “indigenous people, poverty and the environment” in order to apply a more consistent approach to indigenous peoples across its development activities and DFIDs Environment Policy Department (EPD) provided funding for a briefing paper on “Indigenous Knowledge and Best Practice”. It is very unclear what happened to any of these papers, since EPD ceased to exist. Currently ethnicity issues within DFID are included under the aegis of the new Exclusion, Rights and Justice team (Policy Division) which was created on 1st July 2004. Because it's very early days they are still planning their work. They have commissioned a review of DFID work and experience on social exclusion, and this will guide them in the development of a workplan. Social exclusion on the basis of ethnicity will be included in the work they do, although they do not anticipate that they will do specific work on ethnicity (including developing policy or mainstreaming strategy) - at least at this stage.(DFID 21/7/04) (See Fuller text in Appendix 2) CBIK Although environmental NGO’s are emerging among Chinas Han population there are very few NGOs that promote ethnicity/nationality issues. CBIK is one of the few, but they appear to have changed tack since two expatriates were "released" from employment. Currently they are attempting to develop a perspective on 'official' and 'vernacular' identification that fits sufficiently well within official discourses, and yet allows room for critical perspectives on issues of identity in Yunnan in ways that are constructive. Although the Tibetans are managing to revitalise their culture within the confines of official discourse (See Barnett 1994 Schwartz 1994) in other parts of the world it has been necessary for indigenous groups (such as the James Bay Cree and Chipko activists) to develop counter discourses to protect their interests (Feit 2001) Emerging standards and best practice Development standards on indigenous peoples are evolving in a number of specific development sectors.

• The World Commission on Dams (WCD) has developed progressive best practice guidelines for infrastructure projects which incorporate a rights and risks approach that has been widely praised by indigenous peoples as well as environmental, human rights and development NGOs

• Rights-based approaches and the need to include participatory human rights impact assessments (HRIA) as part of social impact studies are also being promoted by NGOs and indigenous organisations

• There is a growing call for participatory monitoring and independent monitoring of development operations according to agreed standards and international norms

• The indigenous movement continues to press for new mandatory standards on requirements for social and cultural impact assessments.

(Fern 2001b Halifax Initiative 2002) (See Appendix 3 for WCD guidelines)


Chinese Development Strategies Ethnicity issues are complicated in China by the Han Chinese view of minority peoples (See Appendix 1) which are reflected in development and natural resource policies Although Han China now recognizes that its ethnic minorities are members of the human race (See Appendix 1) it continues to privilege Han culture and civilization over minority cultures. Since the establishment of new China almost all its development policies have been predicated on uplifting and civilizing minority peoples. Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek called for assimilation and by 1957 all of China's ethno-linguistic groups had been subsumed under 55 artificially created "nationality" (See Appendix 1) categories and in many cases groups who shared common cultural traits were divided and other groups who had unique cultural practices were merged. This led to an ethnic identity crisis with many groups petitioning for reclassification. Due to the failures of assimilation, new nationality policies of "ethnic pluralism" [1982] and "autonomy" [1984] were introduced and when a conference in Shanghai [1984] announced that there was "no contradiction between religion and socialism" many ethnic traditions, clan systems and customs were re-vitalised and celebrated [Harrell 2000] leading to a profound nativization of culture (See Appendix 4) Although the state tolerated cultural revitalization, as long as it helped tourism and fitted in with its vision of "sanitised" multiculturalism. It continued, to curb large scale endeavours [e.g. the Falung Gong and the Serthar Monastery] and to reduce popular culture to "superstitious", "local" ( 本地 bendi) and "of the ordinary people". Such practices were rarely shown on television or in school text books and when they were they are represented as "thin descriptions" (Anagnost 1994) or as a means of "commoditizing ethnicity" for tourism [Swain 1990] As a result of the Regional Development policy in 1992 minority regions were linked with the coastal areas in a new relationship best described as internal colonialism. This reversed earlier trends that substantiated economic and political claims that the minority regions were autonomous in their own right. The party-state began a process of systematically removing the foundations of minority autonomy by assentations of native or indigenous status for Han everywhere, including minority autonomous regions [He 1996] China’s Agenda 21 [PRC 1994] stressed the importance of the participation of ethnic and religious minorities in sustainable development, respect for unique ethnic cultures and the incorporation of minority value systems, traditional knowledge and resource management. This policy however was superseded by the Great Western Development Strategy, which was adopted by the national government in Feb 2000. The Great Western Development Strategy, which was modelled on outmoded 19th century models of the exploitation of the American West & 20th century models of the Development in Siberia (TIN 2000), is based on the unstated assumption that the west of


the country is inhabited by indigenous minorities who lack the skills and capacity to catch up with the development pace of the nation as a whole. The programme fails to address ways to support indigenous participation, and it ignores indigenous knowledge, in situ conservation, and co-management. This initiative is rooted in a conventional economic development paradigm whereby Yunnan's ethnic minorities, although geographically centred remain socially, culturally and politically peripheral [Xu & Salas 2003] As a substitute for minority political and economic autonomy, a multiculturalism has recently been promoted, celebrating the colourful and diverse cultures of the Chinese nation. Minority cultures and arts, symbols precisely of their inferiority in an era of modernization, have been invested with intrinsic value in this multiculturalism. Minorities and their cultures no longer exist in their own right but as part of the Chinese nation, in prominent positions in theme parks for national and international consumption (Bulag 1999) China’s New Forestry policies (post 1998) are strong on environmental justice at the expense of social & cultural justice. They appear to draw on an outmoded model of modernity, and be characterised by linear progress, social engineering and hierarchies of race, cognition, & knowledge. The raison d’etre of Social Forestry (Li & He nd) in Yunnan is apparently to "update overall subsistence and spiritual condition by applying modern science and social evolution, and by changing peoples forest values & attitudes" while the State "assumes the role of a civilizing centre with a mission to upgrade ethnic peripheral people" (Harrell 1995). China was criticized at the WSSD in S Africa for the "social exclusion" of minority peoples from re-forestation programmes. All the new forest policies appear to ignore Yunnan’s very rich ethno-ecological history and the unique process of human adaptation (See Appendix 5 for full text) CASE STUDY - NINGLANG Ninglang The Ninglang Project is located in the Luoshui Administrative Village (Longitude E100045’51”, Latitude N27041’45”, with a total area of 55km2 with a water surface of 3070 ha, agriculture land of 260 ha. and forest area of 520 ha.). The Luoshui AV has 11 natural villages (that can be divided into 16 sub-natural villages) and at the end of 2002, there were 562 families and 2,974 people (male 1,465, female 1,509) living in this area. The ethnic groups include Mosuo, Pumi, Yi and Han. The Nature Reserve and the New Forest Policies The Nature Reserve was established in 1986 the logging ban in 1998 and upland conversion in 2002 and plans exist to establish Natural Forest Protection in the forest areas beyond the reserve. Those surveyed (Studley 2003) appreciate the benefits of nature conservation, the logging ban, and upland conversion in terms of restoration of forest, and reduced flooding and soil erosion (The standing volume of the local forests has steadily increased since 1986 and is currently 210 m3/ha which is nearly the same as the Yunnan average 222 m3/ha). The ethnic poor felt the policies were undermining their well-being and were causing increased poverty, reduced common land and increased work load. They had not received compensation for the economic loss, loss of common land, loss of access to trees or forest products or the cultural loss (See Appendix 5) they suffered when


their intergenerational trusteeship, place identity and place attachment was removed. Lack of access to forests for firewood, roof shingles and NTFP has led to very heavy workloads for women who have had to go further and further, and resulted in houses that leak. This has led to major conflict with the nature reserve. Tourism has helped some who suffered loss of earning as a result of the logging ban, but it is dominated by the Mosuo at the expense of other ethnic groups. (For a more in-depth critique of the impact of forest policies see Studley 2001 and Studley 2004) Ethnic Resource Management There appears to be a strong tradition of natural resource management among the minority nationalities who live in NW Yunnan and the unique linguistic ecologies bears testimony to these traditions. Of those surveyed in the project area (Studley 2003 2004) the Pumi and Mosuo appear to have the strongest traditions of natural resource management followed by the Yi and Han. There appears to be evidence of explicit nature conservation in sacred landscape (See Appendix 7) Ethnic cultural SpecialistsIn terms of ethnic cultural specialists there are both Priests and Shamans in NW Yunnan. Both have a role in environmental education and mediation and often are very knowledgeable about trees, plants and animals. While the Priests are mostly interested in karma the Shaman are mediators between humankind-nature-the spirit world and ensuring harmony within the cosmos The Shaman include the Naxi Dongba, the Mosuo Daba, the Pumi hangui , and the Yi Bimo (Harrell 2001 Ayi 2001 Cai Huan 2001 Yang Fuquan 2003 Wellens 2002). The Priests include Tibetan Buddhist Lamas attached to monasteries and "Local Lamas" who were sent home during the cultural revolution, gave up their vows, but perform local household ceremonies mostly associated with rites of passage. Of those surveyed (Studley 2004) the Mosuo Daba and Tibetan Buddhist Lama continue to have a role in environmental education and mediation. Sacred landscape Sacred Landscape is a common phenomenon throughout Yunnan from Dai Holy Hills in S Yunnan to Tibetan sacred forest in Deqin (Pei 1999 Moseley nd). Of those surveyed (Studley 2003) all ethnic groups were able to identify sacred mountains, trees, animals and springs and the stewardship measures they were expected to adopt to ensure blessing and protection from the numina associated with territory or landscape features. Lion mountain is particularly auspicious, and all ethnic groups believe Gemmu (the goddess of Lion mountain) is being violated by the introduction of the cable car. They believe there is a causal link between her violation and the unseasonal hail and pine tree defoliation (Studley 2003 2004). Topocosmic (Robert 1999) harmony In common with the ethnic Tibetans of Sichuan (Studley et al 1999) a tradition of spirit-placation/community restitution, based on maintaining relational harmony exists in the project area. Of those surveyed (Studley 2003) the Musuo and Pumi detailed the measures required to placate local numina and make restitution with the local community when trees or animals were killed in sacred areas (intentionally or by mistake).


Shaman Status Both Shaman and Priests were heavily persecuted during the cultural revolution and although some Priests and Yi Bimo were allowed to practice again from the early 1980s, Shaman had to wait until the mid 1990s. As a result in local areas this tradition has almost died out and a number of abortive attempts have been made to revive this tradition, through training or mentoring more Shaman (TNC Lijiang pers comm 2004 Dongba Research Institute pers comm 2004). There are only 2 Daba left in the project area and only one that is familiar with all three Daba traditions. An attempt was made to train 3 volunteers but the lure of tourism proved too much (Studley 2004). Although in the region there is a revival among the Pumi hangui and Yi Bimo the nearest hangui live in Sichuan and the nearest Bimo lives 40 km away (although he does visit the area regularly). Community Plantations In order to address the firewood/NTFP crisis the Nature Reserve has agreed to release bare ground within the Reserve for Community plantations. The model envisaged is based on best ethnoforestry practice combining trees, shrubs and plants and address subsistence need, the environment, biodiversity, and cultural values by ethnic group. Economists typically exclude the ethnic or cultural values of forests and the CBA of community plantations not only excluded ethnic values but also agro-forestry Forest-related Ethnic values Many kinds of forest values are found among the ethnic peoples of SW China (Studley et al 1999) and a typology of 13 is widely recognized through out much of the world (Brown & Reed 2000). In the language of the economists the exchange value of some forest products gives commodity or utilitarian value to them. The use value of places, products, and experiences locates them in human experience. The existence value of places and qualities of the forest invests cultural meanings in forests of a different kind than either use or exchange values. Such spiritual or sacred values are usually central to important cultural institutions and may be viewed as impediments to utilitarian uses. In a society however that values rationality and empirical science, only values that can be empirically measured are most often counted as "real." The paradox is that the values which are the most difficult to measure appear to be of increasing importance in our society. The CBA of Community Plantations did not address all the "utilitarian" values (agro-forestry) or include Use, Existence, Option or Bequest values. Typically Commodity or Utilitarian values of forests only represent 7% of TEV and "Existence" values, typically range (globally) from USD 5-12 ha/yr (4.7 RMB/mu/yr). Originally the IRR for Community Plantations was only 1% but by adding agro-forestry and EV it rose to 26%. Ethnic Strategies It is suggested that where ethnic traditions exist rather than introducing alien paradigms of Natural Resource management, conservation and jurisprudence ethnicity strategy should be predicated on

• Indigenous ethnic knowledge and customary resource management • Shamanic roles in environmental education & mediation • The reconfiguration of nature reserves and community forests on the basis of indigenous

ethnic categories of sacred and non-sacred, "buffer" and "experimental".


• Ethnic mechanisms for maintaining relational topocosmic harmony (rather than alien rules based on jurisprudence)

• The cultural strengthening of ethnic specialists where they are becoming extinct • Community Plantations based on best ethnoforestry practice where land is available • Discussion with ethnic groups what mediation is required for a specific intervention to take

place, especially if it violates sacred space/landscape (This was necessary for tree felling (large cedar trees) the introduction of smokeless stoves and check-dams in NW Nepal - Studley 1992)

• Methods of accounting that address forest-related values by ethnic group • Natural Resource management training embedded within existing traditions and local

institutions rather than alien "scientific" management models. This will be cheaper and there is less danger of alienation people from historic traditions and lifestyle (See Norberg-Hodge 1992).

Challenges for YEDP Although it is too late in the project cycle to adopt many of these measures, the possibility remains for the Co-management committee to adopt some of them Most LSTC did not appear to learn from ethnicity training last summer Chinese Social foresters are trained in social engineering not community or ethno-forestry. They did not demonstrate any real committment to ethnicity mainstreaming. There are still gaps in our ethnological profile of Ninglang, namely ethnic forest values, the mapping of sacred landscape, interviews with a Yi Bimo, Local Lama and Pumi hangui The Need to recruit Local ethnicity & Community Forestry Consultants.


Bibliography ADB (2003) Operations Manual Section F3/BP http://www.adb.org/Documents/Manuals/Operations/OMF03_13may04.pdf AITPN (2002) The World Bank Defaults on Past Promises: why the World Bank抯 draft policy on Indigenous Peoples should be rejected, Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network -, New Delhi. Albert, B. (. (1990) Brésil: Indiens et développemont en, Amazonie Ethnies, No.11-12. Anagnost, A. (1994) "Who is speaking here? Discursive boundaries & representation in post-Mao China", In: Hay (ed.). Boundaries in China, London: Reaktion Books 257-79 Assies, W., van der Haar, G and Hoekema, A (Eds) (2001) The Challenge of Diversity: indigenous peoples and the reform of the state in Latin America. PhD Thesis. Cranfield University, School of Management. Ayi, B. (2001) "On the Nature and Transmission of Bimo Knowledge in Liangshan", In: Harrell, S. (ed.). Perspectives on the Yi of Southwest China, London: University of California Press 118-31 Barnett, R. (1994) "Symbols and Protest: The Iconigraphy of Demonstrations in Tibet 1987-1990", In: Barnett, R. and Akiner, S.e. (ed.). Resistance & Reform in Tibet, London: Hurst & Co 238-58 Bello, W., Kinley, D. and Elinson, E. (1982) Development Debacle: The World Bank in the Philippines. Institute for Food and Development Policy, , San Francisco. Blench, R. (2001) "Globalisation and policies towards cultural diversity", Natural Resource perspectives, Number 70, June 2001. Brown, G. and Reed, P. (2000) "Validation of a Forest Values Typology for Use in National Forest Planning", Forest Science, 46 (2)240. Bruun, O. (2002) "The construction of a discourse: Fengshui as environmental ethics", In: Bruun, O. (ed.). Fengshui in China, London: Curzon Press Bulag, U. (1999) "Ethnic resistance with socialist characteristics", In: Perry,E and Selden, M. (ed.). Chinese Society, London: Routledge 178-97 Cai Hua (1999) DABA ?Na shaman http://www.therai.org.uk/film/cai_hua.html Cai Hua (2001) A society without Fathers or Husbands: The Na of China, Zone Books, New York. Carrithers, M. (1992) 1992. Why Humans have Cultures., Oxford University Press, Oxford. CDES (2001) Centro de Derechos Económicos y Sociales - CDES (2001a) Análisis de Centro de Derechos Económicos y Culturales – CDES – del Borrador de la Political Operacional 4.10 sobre Pueblos Indígenas Letter sent to World Bank and circulated to international Colchester, M. 1986a " Unity and Diversity: Indonesian policy towards tribal peoples.", The Ecologist, 16 (2/3):61-70. Colchester, M. 1986b "The Struggle for Land: tribal peoples in the face of the TransmigrationProgramme.", The Ecologist, 16 (2/3):89-98. Colchester, M. 1986c " Banking on Disaster: International Support for the Transmigration Programme.", The Ecologist, 16 (2/3):99-110. CORE (2001) Statement of Core (Indigenous Peoples?Advocacy and Resource Centre for India抯 North East) external stakeholders consultation on the World Bank Draft Policy on Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP4.10), New Delhi, India, 26 November 2001.. Corpuz, V.-T. (1997) "The implementation of Agenda 21 and Indigenous Peoples", In: Alyanak, L.a.C., A (Eds) (ed.). Implementing Agenda 21: NGO experiences from around the world, Geneva: UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service (NGLS), 17-26 Davis, S. (1977) Victims of the Miracle, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DFID (1998) Bangladesh: Country Strategy Paper http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Pubs/files/bang_csp.pdf DFID 1999a Social Development Topic Sheets: social analysis ?children, older people, Indigenous people and gender Centre for Development Studies (Swansea) and Social Development Department http://62.189.42.51/DFIDstage/Pubs/files/s DFID 1999c DFID Central America: Regional Strategy Paper http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Pubs/files/camerica_csp.pdf


DFID 1999d India: Country Strategy Paper http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Pubs/files/india_csp.pdf DFID 2000a Realising Human Rights for Poor People International Development Target Strategy Paper http://62.189.42.51/DFIDstage/Pubs/files/tsd_human.pdf DFID 2000b Sustainable Livelihood Guidance Sheet [email protected] DFID 2002a Better Livelihoods for Poor People: the role of land policy Policy Division, DFID, London (ConsultationDraft) http://62.189.42.51/DFIDstage/Pubs/files/landpolicy_consult.pdf DFID 2002b Bolivia: Country Strategy Paper 2002 Latin America Department and DFID Bolivia, London and La Paz. DFID 2002c Peru: Country Assistance Plan 2002 - 2005 [Consultation Draft] http://62.189.42.51/DFIDstage/Pubs/files/cap_peru.pdf DFID 2002d A review of DFID Country Strategy for Bangladesh 1998-2002 http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Pubs/files/dfid_bangladesh_csp_review.pdf Downing T and Moles, J. (2002) "World Bank denies indigenous peoples?right to prior informed consent", Cultural Survival Quarterly, 25 (4) 68-69. Drucker, C. (1984) "Dam the Chico: Hydro Development & Tribal Resistance in the Philippines", In: Goldsmith, E.a.H., N (eds.) (ed.). The Social and Environmental Effects of Large Dams, Wadebridge Ecological Centre 304-31 Fei Xiaotong (1980) "On the Question of Identification of Nationalities in China(1980).", Chinese Social Sciences, 1. Feit, H. (2001) "Hunting, Nature & Metaphor: Political and Discursive strategies in James Bay resistance and autonomy", In: ed, G. (ed.). Indigenous Traditions and Ecology, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press 411-52 Fern 2001b Forests of Fear: the abuse of human rights in forest conflicts Fern, Moreton in Marsh http://www.fern.org/pubs/reports/fear.pdf FPP. 2002a World Bank Safeguard Policies: accountability and development quality issues FPP briefing, October 2002 http://forestpeoples.gn.apc.org FPP 2002b . Concerns about the revision of the World Bank Policy on Indigenous Peoples FPP briefing, October 2002 http://forestpeoples.gn.apc.org FPP 2002c. Poverty Alleviation, Property Rights and the World Bank抯 Draft Operational Policy 4.10 on Indigenous Peoples FPP briefing, October 2002 http://forestpeoples.gn.apc.org FPP 2002d. The World Bank and Human Rights FPP briefing, October 2002 http://forestpeoples.gn.apc.org FPP 2002e. Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Draft OP/BP 4.10 (Part I) FPP briefing, October 2002 http://forestpeoples.gn.apc.org FPP 2002f. Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Draft OP/BP 4.10 (Part II) FPP briefing, October 2002 http://forestpeoples.gn.apc.org Germano, D. (1998) "Remembering the dismembered body of Tibet: Contemporary Tibetan Visionary movements in PRC", In: Goldstein and Kapstein, M. (ed.). Buddhism in Contemporary Tibet . Berkeley: University of California Press Goldstein, M. (1997) The snow lion and the dragon: China, Tibet and the Dalai Lama, University of California Press, London. Goldstein, M. and Kapstein, M. (1998) Buddhism in Contemporary Tibet : Religious Revival and Cultural Identity, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi. Griffiths, T. (2003) A failure of Accountability: Indigenous Peoples, Human Rights and Development Agency Standards, FPP, Morton-in-Marsh. Griffiths, T. (. (1999) World Bank Projects and Indigenous Peoples in Ecuador and Bolivia Latin America Review for the Biodiversity Support Program, Consultant Report. Griffiths, T. Colchester., M (2000) Indigenous Peoples, Forests and the World Bank: policiesand practice, FPP, Moreton-in-Marsh. Gupta, A. Ura, K. (1990) Blending Cultural Values, Indigenous Technology & Environment : The Experience of Bhutan, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad India.


Halifax Initiative,. (2002) Linking Investment and human rights: the case of export credit agencies Report of an NGO Strategy Session, London, December 6-7, 2002. Harrell, S. (1995) "The history of the history of the Yi", In: Harrell (ed.). Cultural encounters in China's Ethnic Frontiers, Seattle: University of Washington Harrell, S. (2001) Perspectives on the Yi of Southwest China, University of California Press, London. Heberer, T. (1989) China and its National Minorities: Autonomy or Assimilation?, M. E. Sharpe, Armonk NY. IWGIA (1990) International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs ?IWGIA (1990) The Indigenous World 1989-, IWGIA, Copenhagen. Karmay, S. (1994) "Mountain Cults and National Identity", In: Barnett, R. and Akiner, S., eds (ed.). Resistance & Reform in Tibet, London: Hurst & Co 112-20 Levi-Strauss, C. (1977) Identity, Grasset, Paris. Li Youyi (1980) Ethnology in China , Griffith University Press. Li, W. and He, P. Social Forestry Theories and practice, Yunnan NationalityPress, Kunming. Lin Yuehua (1984) "Zhongguo Xinan Diqu De Minzu Shibie [Ethnic Studies in Southwest China],", Yunnan Shehui Kexue, 2 (1). Litzinger, R. (2000) Other Chinas: The Yao and the Politics of National Belonging, Duke University Press, Durham & London. Macas, L. (2001) Banco mundial y Prodepine: ¿hacia un neoliberalismo étnico? ICCI Boletín No.25, April, 2001. Email journal from [email protected] MacKay, F. 2002a Universal Rights or a Universe Unto Itself? Indigenous peoples’ human rights and the World Bank’s draft OP4.10 on Indigenous Peoples” American University International Law Review, 17 (3) 527-624 Morse, B., and T. R. Berger. (1992) Sardar Sarovar. The Report of the Independent Review, Resource Futures International Inc, Ottawa. Moseley, B. http://nature.org/tncscience/scientists/misc/moseley.html NORBERG-HODGE, H. (1992) ANCIENT FUTURES : LEARNING FROM LADAKH, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, DELHI. OSAGI Gender Mainstreaming http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/gendermainstreaming.htm Partridge WL Uquillas JE and Johns K (1996) " Including the Excluded: Ethnodevelopment in Latin America", In: The Annual World Bank Conference on Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, Bogota Colombia June 30-July 2 1996 Pei Shengji (1999) "The holy hills of the Dai", In: Posey, D.e. (ed.). Cultural & Spiritual Values of Biodiversity, London: IT & UNEP, 381 Pimbert, M. P. a. W., T (Eds) (2002) Prajateerpu: a citizens jury/secenario workshop on food and farming futures for Andhra Pradesh, India IIED, London and IDS, Sussex. Rack,M (2000) Progress, superstition and the production of locality in West Hunan (paper: ASA 2000 2-5/4/2000), SOAS, London. Rich, B. (1986) "Environmental Management and Multilateral Development Banks", Cultural Survival Quarterly, 10 (1) 4-13. Rich, B. (1994) Mortgaging the Earth, The World Bank, Environmental Impoverishment and The Crisis of Development., Beacon Press, Boston. Robert, J. (1999) A sense of place:Some historical symbols, myths and rituals of "placeness" http://www.pudel.uni-bremen.de/pdf/HSPACE3.pdf Roper JM Frechione J and DeWalt B (1996) Indigenous People and Development in Latin America: a literature survey and recommendations Report prepared for the Environment Division (LATEN), Technical Department, Latin America and the Caribbean Regiona, The World Bank, Center for Latin American Studies, University of Pittsburg. Salas, M. (2003) CBIK, Kunming. Salomon, M E and Sengupta, A (2003) The Right to Development: Obligations of States and the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples, Minority Rights Group International, London.


Samuel, G. (2002) "The Epic and Nationalism in Tibet", In: Penny, B. (ed.). Religion and Biography in China and Tibet, Richmond Surrey: Curzon Press Schwartz, R. (1994) "The anti-splittist campaign and Tibetan Political Consiousness", In: Barnett, R. and Akiner, S.e. (ed.). Resistance & Reform in Tibet, London: Hurst & Co 207-37 Servindi (2002) Proyecto Camisea no cumple standares del Banco Mundial”, February 2002, Servicio de Información Indígena (SERVINDI), e-mail: [email protected] Seymour-Smith, C. (1986) Macmillan Dictionary of Anthropology, London. Shiva, V. (1993) Monocultures of the mind: Perspectives on biodiversity & biotechnology, Zed Books, London. Smith, A. (1986) The Ethnic Origins of Nations, Blackwell, Oxford. Stuart, K. e. a. (1995) "Mountain Gods and Trance Mediums: A Qinghai Tibetan Summer Festival", Asian Folklore Studies, 54 219-237. Studley J Richardson K & Ewing S (1999) Vignettes of Bengda http://www.geocities.com/john_f_studley/Bengda/Vignettes.htm, Care & Share Foundation, Loughborough. Studley, J. (2003) YEDP Ninglang : Notes & Diary http://members.lycos.co.uk/johnfstudley/NINGFIND.htm Studley, J. (2004) Maintaining Ethnic diversity without threatening the Status Quo http://members.lycos.co.uk/johnfstudley/Ethnicity%20Paper.pdf Swain, M. (1990) "Commoditizing Ethnicity in Southwest China", Cultural Survival Quarterly, 14 (1). Swartz, K J; Uquillas, J E 1999 Aplicación de la Política del Banco Sobre las Poblaciones Indígenas (OD 4.20) en América Latina (1992-97) Oficina Regional de América Latina y el Caribe, WB www.worldbank.org Tebtebba Foundation, 2001a Report on the Stakeholders consultation on the World Bank抯 draft policy on Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP4.10), 22 October 2001, Tebtebba Foundation. Tebtebba Foundation, 2001b Statement of the TEBTEBBA Foundation ((Indigenous Peoples?International Centre for Policy Research and Education) and the Cordillera Peoples?Alliance on the Stakeholder Consultation on the World Bank Draft Policy on Indigenous Peoples(OP/BP4., Tebtebba Foundation. Thierry, F. (1989) "'Empire and Minority in China'. In Minority Peoples in the Age of Nation States pp. 76-99. (Edited by Chaliand)", In: , London: Pluto Press TIN (2000) China's great leap west, Tibet Information Network (TIN); London : Tibet Information Network (TIN), London. Treakle, K. (1998) Accountability at the World Bank: What Does It Take? Lessons from the Yacyreta Hydroelectric Project, Argentina/ Paraguay http://www.bicusa.org/publications/yacyreta.htm Treece, D. (1987) Bound in Misery and Iron: the impact of the Grande Carajas Programme on the Indians of Brazil., Survival International, London. Tsering Shakya (2002) "Blood in the Snows : Reply to Wang Lixiong", New Left Review, 15 (May-June) 15-60. UN HCHR,. (1992) Convention (No. 169) concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/62.htm UNDP Gender Mainstreaming http://www.undp.org/gender/tools.htm van den Berg, M. H. J. (2002) Mainstreaming Ethnodevelopment: poverty and ethnicity in World Bank policy http://www.risq.nl WCED (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Wellens, K. (2002) "The Premi", In: Ember, M.&.C. and Skoggard, I eds (ed.). Encyclopedia of World Cultures Supplement, New York: Macmillan Reference Weller,R (1999) Alternative Civilities: Democracy and Culture in China and Taiwan, Westview Press. WB (1999) Consultation on Approach Paper on Revision of Indigenous People's Operational Directive OD 4.20 http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/28354584d9d97c29852567cc00780e2a/5e23e566bed37cd6852567cc0077f48d?OpenDocument


WB. (2002) (2002) Summary of Consultations with External Stakeholders regarding the World Bank Draft Indigenous Peoples Policy (OP/BP 4.10) ?last updated 7 October 2002 http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/essd.nsf/1a8011b1ed265afd85256a4f00768797/c4 WB (1997) Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Loan in the Amount of US$25 Million to the Republic of Ecuador for an Indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian Peoples Development Project Environmentally and Social Sustainable Development Sector Management Unit, World Bank, Washington D.C. Ning, Wu (1998) "Indigenous knowledge of yak breeding and cross-breeding among nomads in western Sichuan China in IK&DM 6 (1) pp 7-9", Yang Fuquan (2002), Lijiang. The Mentorship of Indigenous Specialists: TheCase of Training Dongba Naxi priests III MMSEA


APPENDIX 1 KEY CONCEPTS Ethnicity Typically Ethnicity is not viewed as being the same as race or nationality and is usually characterised by (1) an ethnonym; a collective self-name of the group; (2) a belief in common descent (either real or putative) and historical destiny; (3) a set of physical and/or cultural features, so called ethnic markers (such as language & worldviews) by which group members differentiate themselves from the other groups of such kind; (4) shared historical memories; (5) a sense of collective solidarity; and (6) and an association with a territory or homeland (Smith 1986) The Chinese draw no distinction between people (民族 minzu), nation (民族), nationality (民族) and ethnos (民族). There is no word in Chinese for ethnic group and the nearest term, Shaoshu minzu (少数民族) is best translated as minority nationality, which is a political construct, and has no ethno-linguistic basis (Heberer 1989) On the basis of ancient Chinese philosophy it is impossible to conceive of a common "socialised space" for all humankind and for non-Han Chinese (Barbarians) to belong to the human race (Thierry 1989). The basis for difference between the Han Chinese and the Barbarian rested on their relationship to Han Civilization, and a lifestyle based on sedentarization and agriculture. Because the nature of the Barbarian was to wander like animals for their subsistence their animal nature was reflected by the Han in the names given them. It was an ontological necessity for the Han to depict each Barbarian group under an ideogram marking his animal nature (reptile, worm, dog, pig or grass). This denial of humanity evolved over centuries but it underlays Confucian ideology and the relations the Han formed with their neighbours. The Han not only established a protective belt around the socialized space by subjugating or buying off Barbarian tribes but attempted to impose Han values, through non-violent assimilation. Culture Cultural, used in the context of ecological anthropology stresses different ways people interact with each other and create different livelihood strategies [farmers, nomads, city dwellers]. The culture associated with these ways of life encompasses language, knowledge, means of livelihood, political organisation, social arrangements, religious institutions, psychological ideas, cosmologies, and value systems. From this perspective each way of life is a unique and complex human creation and none is superior to any other (Carrithers 1992) This contrasts with the classical definition of culture [文化 wen hua ] originating in Chinese Confucianism, which refers to literary transformation connotating a higher form of civilization. In the past this distinguished the culture of the Han majority from those on the peripheries who historically did not possess a writing system. From this perspective ethnic groups were viewed as more backward in their development compared to the Han and by adopting Han written language and customs they could attain "culture"[Xu and Salas 2003].


Additionally this view reduced the complex customs and traditions of ethnic groups to crude stereotypes, categories or living museums requiring protection [Guldin 1994] Ethnic Identity Article 1 (2) of ILO Convention 169 (concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries) predicates Self-identification as indigenous or tribal as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply (UN-HCHR 1991) China only recognizes "official" identification on the basis of 55 "nationalities" Indigenous ethnic minorities The World Bank (OD 4.20 September 1991) defines indigenous ethnic minorities on the basis of the following characteristics:- (a) a close attachment to ancestral territories and to the natural resources in these areas; (b) self-identification and identification by others as members of a distinct cultural group; (c) an indigenous language, often different from the national language; (d) presence of customary social and political institutions; and (e) primarily subsistence-oriented production. The Asian Development Bank (ADB 2004) defines "indigenous peoples" as groups with social or cultural identities distinct from that of the dominant or mainstream society. "Indigenous peoples" is a generic concept that includes cultural minorities, ethnic minorities, indigenous cultural communities, tribal people, natives, and aboriginals. In its view they are characterised by

• descent from population groups present in a given area before modern states or territories were created,

• the maintenance of cultural and social identities separate from mainstream or dominant societies or cultures

• self-identification and identification by others as being part of a distinct indigenous cultural group, and the display of the desire to preserve their cultural identity;

• a linguistic identity different from that of the mainstream or dominant society; • social, economic, and political traditions and institutions distinct from the

mainstream society; • an economic system oriented more toward a traditional system of production than

toward the mainstream production system • a unique tie with and attachment to traditional habitat and ancestral territory and its

natural resources. Nationality is the official term adopted in Chinese policy to refer to the cultural diversity of minority peoples. In order to determine "nationality" [民族minzu], China relied heavily on Stalin's theory of national identity, Morgan's theory of social evolution, and Engel’s'


reworking of Morgan's "Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" in order to integrate them into the national state. [See McKhann 1996 Harrell 1996 Grunfeld 1985 Eronen 1996 Cannon 1989 Bulag 1999 Howard 1994]. They were delineated fundamentally according to state concerns about political stability in the border areas and administrative integration. Ethnodevelopment Best practices in Ethnodevelopment are premised on racial & knowledge equity, ethnic inclusion, synergy between knowledge systems and the deconstruction of outmoded views of ethnic mountain peoples only as the problem (Salas 2003). Conceptually it refers to the participation of indigenous groups in the formation and implementation of development projects in accordance with their own needs and aspirations. Ethnodevelopment projects are designed by rather than for the people concerned, which implies the revaluation of their own culture as the basis upon which future development is to be constructed. Ethnodevelopment is thus opposed to ethnocidal development projects imposed upon local communities by dominant national elites (see Seymour-Smith 1986). The core premise of the World Bank's ethnodevelopment policy is to provide ethnic groups with the means to partake in development on their own terms (Partridge & Uquillas, 1996: par. 13-14) The Banks objective of ethnodevelopment (for poverty reduction) is to improve the quality of life of poor indigenous and other ethnic communities by: (1) improving their access to social services and natural resources, with due regard for their specific forms of land use and tenure; (2) strengthening their cultures, communities, and social organisations; (3) fostering their capacity to design and manage their own development projects (World Bank, 1997: 1). Despite China’s rhetoric, "ethnodevelopment" (民俗发展 minsu fazhan) continues to be predicated on the "uplifting and civilization" of the minorities. There remains tension between centre concerns about political stability in a multi-cultural state and peripheral efforts to open space for ethnic membership in the larger polity.

Ethnicity Mainstreaming

Although there are many definitions of gender mainstreaming (OSAGI nd UNDP nd), few exist for ethnicity mainstreaming in English or Chinese.

By extrapolation from gender mainstreaming, ethnicity mainstreaming is the integration and embedding of ethnicity perspectives in the creation of policy making, project design and implementation. Mainstreaming should bring consideration of ethnicity issues right into the core of all policy work, so that they are central to all activities (i.e. policy development, research, advocacy, dialogue, legislation, resource allocation, planning, cost-benefit analysis, cultural impact assessment, implementation and monitoring of programmes and projects)

APPENDIX 2 DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES World Bank Group In response to severe international criticism of the destructive impacts of its projects on indigenous peoples during the 1960s and 1970s, the World Bank was the first multilateral development bank to adopt a policy on “tribal” peoples in 1982 (Davis 1977, Bello et al 1982, Drucker 1984, Colchester 1986 a, b, c, Rich 1986 1994, Treece 1987 and Albert 1990). Known as Operational Manual Statement 2.34 (OMS 2.34), this policy required Bank staff to include measures to protect affected peoples’ land rights, health, cultural integrity and ensure their participation in project planning and implementation. Despite the adoption of this policy, the severe impact of World Bank projects on indigenous peoples continued but the World Bank denied major problems until 1987 when it’s President finally admitted that many of World Bank projects had failed to take into account social and environmental issues (Colchester 1986 a,b,c; Treece 1987; Morse and Berger 1992; Rich 1986, 1994) As a result of a review and extensive consultations inside the World Bank, a new policy was adopted in 1991 with the aim of giving clearer guidance to staff. This policy, titled ‘Indigenous Peoples’ and referred to as ‘Operational Directive 4.20’ which is currently being revised. At the time it was adopted, indigenous organisations complained that it had been developed and finalised without indigenous participation. Indigenous organisations such as COICA criticised the World Bank for its approach in 1990 (IWGIA Yearbook 1990) Although the policy has significant deficiencies such as its failure to make explicit reference to ILO Convention 169 and its disregard for the right to prior informed consent, most indigenous commentators agree that, if implemented properly, it could help safeguard the rights of indigenous communities affected by World Bank projects. Although it contains useful requirements, unfortunately, the quality of implementation of the policy in the 1990s was patchy and sometimes poor. A 1999 Bank study of the application of the 1991 Indigenous Peoples policy in Latin America between 1992 and 1997 found that more than one third of projects affecting indigenous peoples had failed to include an Indigenous Peoples Component or Indigenous Peoples Development Plan (Swartz K. J. and Uquillas J. E. 1999) Independent case studies of World Bank projects in Latin America, Africa and Asia carried out by indigenous peoples themselves have also found compliance with OD4.20 is often weak and sometimes highly unsatisfactory, especially with regard to the critical needs for indigenous peoples’ participation and secure land rights. Poor compliance means that poor indigenous peoples often find themselves worse off after Bank projects. Even projects targeting indigenous peoples can cause serious harm where social and environmental policies are not applied properly. Likewise, conservation projects that fund the establishment of Protected Areas can curtail the traditional resource rights of indigenous communities. In the worst cases conservation projects can result in forced relocation (Griffiths and Colchester 2000, Griffiths 1999 2002).


In 1995, the World Bank announced it had reached an agreement with the government of Ecuador to initiate preparations for a poverty alleviation project set to "mainstream" ethnodevelopment. More specifically, the project would aim to: (1) strengthen the capacity of indigenous organisations to participate in the design of the project and to provide services to their members; (2) improve the access of indigenous peoples to land and water resources; and (3) finance small community-based investments and increase the capacity of indigenous communities to manage the fund. The agreement itself was already a major achievement. Ecuador had just witnessed the largest uprising of indigenous peoples in its history and it had taken a year or so to obtain the support of indigenous organisations. Since 1996 the Bank set out to seek new ways of including indigenous peoples in its poverty reduction strategy, it decided to extend its policy to other national minorities. The Bank's commitment to "indigenous peoples development" made way for the more broadly conceived policy of "ethnodevelopment" (Roper et al 1996, Partridge et al 1996 and Nieuwkoop and Uquillas 1999). Critics argue that this approach causes divisions in national and local indigenous movements, it fails to address the underlying structural causes of indigenous poverty and so far has not been very effective in addressing the policy and practical problems that undermine indigenous land and resource security (Macas 2001, Assies et al 2001 and van den Berg 2002). Indigenous organisations acknowledge some of the Bank’s ethnodevelopment and natural resource management projects have brought benefits. However, indigenous organisations and civil society groups monitoring the World Bank point out that much of the Bank’s business continues to directly or indirectly promote unsustainable, top-down development based on foreign direct investment, export-led growth, structural adjustment and the industrial extraction of natural resources. They complain that these largely unaccountable development interventions continue to have severe negative consequences for indigenous peoples and their territories throughout the world (Corpuz 1997 Treakle 1998 Griffiths 1999 Tebtebba 2001). Since the mid-1990s, OD4.20 has been undergoing a process of revision but the process has been surrounded by controversy as NGOs and academics have detected regressive forces shaping the redrafting of the policies to minimise binding rules and limit coverage of the policy provisions. NGOs fear that policies are being “panel proofed” to restrict the grounds for claims to the Inspection Panel. In the Bank’s first round of public consultations on the policy revision held in 1998, indigenous peoples’ organisations sent a strong message to the Bank that any new policy should be stronger than the existing one, particularly regarding its provisions on land and resource security (World Bank 1999, 2002) When the World Bank finally released its revised draft policy in March 2001, indigenous peoples were dismayed to see that it is actually weaker than the existing policy and that it had disregarded almost all the key indigenous recommendations made to the Bank in its 1998/99 public consultation. (FPP 2002a,b,c,d,e,f MacKay 2002a CDES 2001a AITPN 2002 Downing and Moles 2002). In the second round of public consultations (2001) the process was also roundly condemned for being rushed and for lacking informed and representative indigenous participation. Overall there is a general feeling in the indigenous movement that the World Bank has lost


its way in standard-setting and that its policies are falling unacceptably far behind international standards (Tebtebba Foundation 2001a,b CORE, Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration 2001 CDES 2001 AITPN 2002). In October 2002, fifteen indigenous representatives met with senior World Bank managers and policy makers to make their concerns known once again in a face-to-face dialogue. They criticised the Bank for failing to require action to safeguard indigenous land rights and for failing to ensure that the policy is consistent with indigenous peoples’ rights guaranteed under international law (MacKay 2002a Salomon and Sengupta 2003). The final version of the Policy was advanced to a limited number of indigenous advocates in May 2004 who replied on 21st May. The policy was scheduled to be sent to the policy committee of the Board of Directors (CODE) for approval on June 7, but that date has been postponed indefinitely. The Bank Information Centre coordinated an unprecedented briefing for World Bank Executive Directors about Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) on June 14, 2004. Indigenous leaders plan to send comments on the new version of the policy directly to the Board of Directors (http://www.bicusa.org/bicusa/issues/indigenous_peoples/1474.php) Department for International Development The UK government has for a number of years been reluctant to adopt a public specific development policy on indigenous peoples. DFID policies address the needs of poor people in general, and ‘vulnerable’ and ‘marginal’ social groups in particular. In 1995, the Overseas Development Administration (ODA) compiled internal good practice guidelines for staff and field managers on Ethnicity, Ethnic Minorities and Indigenous Peoples. These guidelines are out of step with international policies and instruments as they combine ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples in a single policy and focus on individual human rights rather than collective rights. Despite these serious and controversial shortcomings, the guidelines recognise the value of detailed baseline studies prior to implementation. The guide also contains useful operational checklists for social and environmental screening to deal with key concerns associated with land and resource rights, resettlement and indigenous knowledge.273 ODA (1995) More recently, DFID has produced guidelines on social analysis, which includes a section on indigenous peoples. This guidance document directs policy advisors to some relevant literature and advises DFID staff dealing with indigenous people’s issues to draw on the 1995 ODA guidelines as well as the EU 1998 Working Document on Indigenous Peoples. Mention is also made of relevant UN declarations and principles developed in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit (DFID 1999a) Other indirect guidance of potential significance to indigenous peoples is contained in published DFID policy briefings, memos and discussion papers on general topics such as land tenure and sustainable livelihoods. Unfortunately, treatment of collective land and resource rights is deficient in these guidelines. It is noteworthy, however, that a recent DFID discussion document on land policy and poverty reduction advises that:


“Institutions need to adapt to recognise customary land rights; to understand indigenous land management systems; and to respect the rights of women and marginal groups. This requires institutional reform and capacity building, improvements in transparency and accountability and representation of poor people in decision-making processes” Despite some constructive advice on customary rights, the document contains ambiguous and superficial observations relating to collective resource rights (DFID 2002d) In some parts DFIDs recent policy statement on Realising Human Rights for Poor People notes the importance of international instruments that relate to the human rights of indigenous peoples and acknowledges that: “Human rights that are of particular concern to indigenous and minority peoples include rights to land, cultural integrity, participation in decision making, health and a healthy environment.” (DFID 2000a pp 14)

DFID combines its rights-based approach with a ‘Sustainable Livelihood Approach’ (SLA), which is also supposed to inform the design of its poverty reduction projects (DFID 2000b) There is a growing realisation inside DFID that rights-based and livelihood approaches can complement each other. DFID emphasises, however, that principles contained in its public policy documents are not necessarily binding on its staff and have no operational status. Instead, they are meant to publicise DFIDs overall approach to development and, as such, are aspirational strategic documents that shape overall priorities for UK official overseas development assistance (Griffiths 2003) Some of DFIDs Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) make reference to indigenous development issues (DFID 1999c 2002 a,b) In other CSP papers, however, indigenous issues do not feature in the analysis, even where countries have a significant indigenous population, such as Bangladesh (DFID 1998 2002d) and Peru. The latter has 10 million indigenous people (c. 47% of the national population) who are demanding recognition of their human rights and policy and legal reform measures to safeguard their livelihood security (DFID 2002c Servindi 2002). Although DFID has no dedicated formal policy on indigenous peoples, significant parts of its aid programme affects indigenous communities in developing countries. In India with rural livelihood projects , in Brazil with agro-forestry, in Bolivia with indigenous ethical research methods for the collection of traditional knowledge, in Indonesia with a Multistakeholder Forestry Project, and in SW Cameroon with capacity building. (DFID India http://www.dfid.gov.uk/DFIDAroundWorld/aida.htm AMAN 2003, http://forestpeoples.gn.apc.org/FPProj/FPProj_base.htm DFID (1999d) http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Pubs/files/india_csp.pdf There is evidence that DFIDs poverty reduction and natural resource projects have not always given adequate attention to indigenous issues. In Guyana, for example, the DFID-funded 1995-2001 Guyana Forestry Commission Support Project failed in practice to include clear components to deal with indigenous land tenure, resource rights and poverty (http://www.odi.org.uk/tropics/projects/3223.htm)


In India, the indigenous and tribal movement complains that it has little say in DFIDs policy dialogues on development with the national and state governments. They point out that although DFIDs CSP for India and its state-level policy papers talk of human rights and empowering poor people, the outward signs are that there is an emphasis on the macro-economic aspects of UK aid policy, which promote privatisation, foreign direct investment and reductions in public subsidies DFID (1999d) India: Country Strategy Paper http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Pubs/files/india_csp.pdf Pimbert and Wakeford (2002) At the end of 2002, DFID begun to produce an updated internal guidance note for staff on “indigenous people, poverty and the environment” in order to apply a more consistent approach to indigenous peoples across its development activities. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) is also involved in drawing up the internal guidelines. At the same time, DFIDs Environment Policy Department (EPD) is also funding the compilation of a briefing paper on “Indigenous Knowledge and Best Practice”. APPENDIX 3 Some Principles and Guidelines of the World Commission on Dams of

relevance to Indigenous Peoples and local communitiesa

Human Rights: • “Recognise existing rights and those who hold them. Those groups whose

livelihoods, human rights and property and resource rights may be affected by an intervention are major rights holders and thus core stakeholders in a stakeholder forum” [Guideline 1, 1st

bullet]

Baseline studies, rights, impacts and risks assessments: • Recognition of rights and assessment of risks are the basis for the identification and

inclusion of stakeholders in decision-making...” [Ch 8, policy principle 1.1] Identify those at risk through vulnerability and risk analysis, including those who face risk to their livelihoods, human rights, and property and resource rights. Special attention should be given to indigenous and tribal peoples, women and other vulnerable groups...”[Guideline 1, 2nd bullet]

• Apply Strategic Impact Assessment for environmental, social, health and cultural heritage issues upstream at the planning and options assessment stage for ... “recognising the rights of stakeholders and assessing risks” [Guideline 4]

• Project-level impact assessment should be carried out in two stages: “...the first is a scoping phase, including full public participation that identified key issues of concern and defines the terms of reference for the second, assessment phase [Guideline 5. 1st bullet]

• Impact assessment “...should include Environmental Impact Assessment, a Social Impact Assessment, a Health Impact Assessment and Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment. The assessments should be sufficiently detailed to provide a pre-project baseline against which post-project monitoring results can be compared [Guideline 5, 4th bullet, Guidelines 14,15,16,17].

• Use Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) to assess options in a step-wise process that involves the discussion of alternative options in a stakeholder forum and with the public [Guideline 6]


• Use a poverty risk assessment and Impoverishment Risk Analysis to quantify and assess financial, social and environmental impacts and inform the overall project impact assessment and options assessment processes[Guidelines 9,10, 11,18]

Free and prior informed consent: • Decisions on projects affecting indigenous and tribal peoples are guided by their

free, prior and informed consent achieved through formal and informal representative bodies” [Ch 8, principle 1.4]

• Free and prior informed consent... “involves a continuous, iterative process of communication and negotiation spanning the entire planning and project cycles. Progress to each stage in the cycle – options assessment...and selection of preferred options... – should be guided by the agreement of the potentially affected indigenous and tribal peoples” [Guideline 3, 1st para]

Participation and accountability mechanisms:

• “Effective participation in a stakeholder forum must be facilitated through timely access to information and legal and other necessary support. This is particularly the case with indigenous and tribal peoples...” [Guideline 1, penultimate para]

• “Negotiations should result in demonstrable public acceptance of binding and implementable agreements and in the necessary institutional arrangements for monitoring compliance and redressing grievances” [Guideline 2, 1st para]

• “Adequate time is allowed for stakeholders to assess, consult and participate” [Guideline 2, 3rd bullet]

• Stakeholders should “...agree on the appropriate structures and processes for decision-making, the required mechanisms for dispute resolution (including any third party involvement)...” [Guideline 2, 8th bullet]

• “Guarantee access to all relevant information to the stakeholder forum in an appropriate language”;

• “Public hearings may be held at each stage of the options assessment process” [Guideline 7, step 6.]

• A compliance plan is prepared for each project “...prior to commencement...specifying binding arrangements for project-specific technical, social and environmental commitments...” [Ch 8, principle 6.2]

Compensation: • All recognised adversely affected people negotiate mutually agreed, formal and

legally enforceable mitigation, resettlement and development entitlements” [Ch 8, principle 5.3]

• “Adversely affected peoples are recognised as first among beneficiaries of the project. Mutually agreed and legally protected benefit sharing mechanisms are negotiated to ensure implementation.” [Ch 8, principle 5.4]

“A New Policy Framework” and “A Set of Guidelines for Good Practice” at pages 213-307 in WCD (2000) Dams and Development: a new framework for decision making Earthscan, London and Sterling


APPENDIX 4 Chinas Development Policies 1911-2004 When the Republic of China was formed in 1911 Sun Yat-sen only partially recognized the existence of ethnic minorities in China, but he called for their gradual assimilation. His successor, Chiang Kai-shek denied the existence of different nationalities, and viewed them as "branch-clans" of the Han, who were to be deliberately assimilated. This made ethnic identification and classification impossible. In the early fifties the new government begun a Nationalities investigation project and adopted a more flexible policy for naming minorities. The discriminatory appellations dog, pig, worm, snake were abolished by legislative decree in 1951. Detailed studies and field research was initiated in 1953 and by 1957 all of China's ethno-linguistic groups were subsumed under 55 artificially created "nationality" categories and in many cases groups who shared common cultural traits were divided and other groups who had unique cultural practices were merged. This has led to an ethnic identity crisis and the development of psychological coping strategies, with many groups petitioning for recognition. In Guizhou Province alone 80 groups petitioned for recognition (Heberer 1989) The Minzu Project In the early 1950s leaders from Yunnan’s minority groups were invited to come forward and be considered for official recognition. Although more than 260 people groups (with 138 ethnonyms & 157 exonyms) applied only 21 "nationalities" and later 6,172 "unclassified" people were officially recognized (Fei Xiaotong 1980 Li Youyi 1980, Lin Yuehua 1984). Many groups contested their official nationality. For example the Mosuo objected to being classified as Naxizu because they see themselves as a distinct group. Some identify more with the Tibetan nationality (zangzu) than the Naxi, with whom they share neither a common language, culture, economy, nor territory. （Eventually after re-petitioning for recognition as a distinct group they were recognized as Mosuo ren (人） Ethnic Pluralism In the early 1980s, possibly as a result of Hu Yaobang's visit to Tibet in 1980 (Goldstein 1997), and the failures of assimilation, new nationality policies of "ethnic pluralism" [1982] and "autonomy" [1984] were introduced and when a conference in Shanghai [1984] announced that there was "no contradiction between religion and socialism" many ethnic traditions, clan systems and customs were re-vitalised and celebrated [Harrell 2000] and a profound nativization of culture has begun to take place. As a result Yunnan’s Yi peoples moved immediately to change the status of their bimo ["shaman"] from "feudal superstitious practitioner" to "ethnic intellectual" and the Tibetans revitalized their nuministic territorial cults [yul-lha] and Tibetan Buddhism [Goldstein & Kapstein 1998, Huber 1999, Barnett 1994] Shaman (Dongba, Hangui & Daba), however were not accepted until 1994 (Cai Hua 1999) This was followed in 1990’s by an increased interest in indigenous cosmology, medicine, kinship ties, place attachment and popular religions (Bruun 2002 Rack 2000) Although some of this interest stems from a national assuredness stemming from economic success among the elite, much of it is a psychological reaction to ethnic erosion & stigmatization , modernization, social exclusion, and the expropriation of natural resources, common land and customary rights (Levi-Strauss 1977 Weller 1999) It is worth mentioning these revival processes because they are cultural responses to exogenous development and are transcendental forms of ethnic identity empowerment


We find evidence of cultural revival in Yunnan among the Yao, Dai, Miao, Tibetans, Naxi, Mosuo, Pumi & Yi, expressed in Daoism (Litzinger 2000), Buddhism (Goldstein & Kapstein 1998) Visionary movements (Germano 1998) Millenarianism (Tsering Shakya 2002) Animism/Shamanism (Harrel 1995) Territorial Cults (Karmay 1994 Stuart K et al 1995) and Epic Literature (Samuel 2002). Parallel to the revival of popular religion there is a process of local reinforcement of key knowledge-holders of Indigenous Institutions. They often have a role in nature conservation, and often act as intermediaries between humankind, the spirit world and natural resources. These include (in NW Yunnan/SW Sichuan) :- the Naxi Dongba, Yi Bimo, Mosuo Daba and Pumi hangui ( Wellens 2002 Salas 2003 Yang Fuquan 2002 Cai Hua 1999 2001 Bamo Ayi 2001) Although these Shaman were heavily persecuted they are undergoing a renaissance (albeit with a tourist spin-off) and subsequently

• a Dongba Research Institute has been established • Meigu County (Liangshan Prefecture) has 5000-8000 Bimo students • Muli has a hangui school and the surviving Hangui (Dingba) are teaching their

skills to many young students • there is increasing research interest in Daba

Although the state tolerated cultural revitalization, as long as it helped tourism and fitted in with its vision of "sanitised" multiculturalism. It continued, to curb large scale endeavours [e.g. the Falung Gong and the Serthar Monastery] and to reduce popular culture to "superstitious", "local" ( bendi) and "of the ordinary people". Such practices were rarely shown on television or in school text books and when they were they are represented as "thin descriptions" (Anagnost 1994) or as a means of "commoditizing ethnicity" for tourism [Swain 1990] . They were emptied of any value except for the purpose of negating them, and presented as the antithesis of the modern and progressive. This process was not new, and in late Imperial China elite culture permeated popular culture through writing and the policy on local culture reinforces the connection between the heterodox and the local. Regional Development Policy As a result of Regional Development policy [1992] minority regions were linked with the coastal areas in a new relationship best described as internal colonialism. This reversed earlier trends that substantiated economic and political claims that the minority regions were autonomous in their own right. The party-state began a process of systematically removing the foundations of minority autonomy by assentations of native status for Han everywhere, including minority autonomous regions [He 1996] China’s Agenda 21 [PRC 1994] stressed the importance of the participation of ethnic and religious minorities in sustainable development , respect for unique ethnic cultures and the incorporation of minority value systems, traditional knowledge and resource management. This policy was superseded by the Great Western Development Strategy, which was adopted by the national government in Feb 2000. The Great Western Development Strategy, This was modelled on outmoded 19th century models of the exploitation of the American West & 20th century models of the Development in Siberia (TIN 2000), is based on the unstated assumption that the west of the country is inhabited by indigenous


minorities who lack the skills and capacity to catch up with the development pace of the nation as a whole. The programme fails to address ways to support indigenous participation, and it ignores indigenous knowledge, in situ conservation, and co-management. This initiative is rooted in a conventional economic development paradigm whereby Yunnan's ethnic minorities, although geographically centred remain socially, culturally and politically peripheral [Xu & Salas 2003] Multiculturalism As a substitute for minority political and economic autonomy, a multiculturalism has recently been promoted, celebrating the colourful and diverse cultures of the Chinese nation. Minority cultures and arts, symbols precisely of their inferiority in an era of modernization, have been invested with intrinsic value in this multiculturalism. Minorities and their cultures no longer exist in their own right but as part of the Chinese nation, in prominent positions in theme parks for national and international consumption. In this new celebratory mode of multiculturalism, history and ethnopolitics are conveniently forgotten, and sanitised ethnic cultures are selectively deployed as the new property of the Chinese nation. Any ethnic inequality unresolved in the economic and political domains will seemingly be resolved by their contribution to the multicultural domain [Bulag 1999] New Forest Policies China’s New Forestry policies are strong on environmental justice at the expense of social & cultural justice. They appear to draw on an outmoded model of modernity, and be characterised by linear progress, social engineering and hierarchies of race, cognition, & knowledge. The raison d’etre of Social Forestry (Li & He nd) in Yunnan is apparently to "update overall subsistence and spiritual condition by applying modern science and social evolution, and by changing peoples forest values & attitudes" while the State "assumes the role of a civilizing centre with a mission to upgrade ethnic peripheral people" (Harrell 1995). China was criticized at the WSSD in S Africa for the "social exclusion" of minority peoples from re-forestation programmes. All the new forest policies appear to ignore Yunnan’s very rich ethno-ecological history and the unique process of human adaptation. APPENDIX 5 Cultural Loss Cultural Loss occurs when - their ethnic traditions and customs are diminished - their linguistic ecologies are not recognized - their traditional conservation practices are not recognized - their environmental mediators [shaman] are persecuted or their practices diminished - their traditional social & kinship groups are destroyed [means of traditional collective action and self-help] - they are ethnically or socially excluded [Tibetans & New Forest Policies] - they suffer loss of ethnic identity [ethnic identity not recognized] - they suffer loss of ethnic self-image or respect [ethnicity demeaned, Harijans] - their ethnic attachment to place is not recognized [peoples moved out for nature reserves] - their sacred landscapes are not recognized - there is a lack of synergy between ethnic knowledge & exogenous knowledge - no attempt is made to understand their worldview or cosmovision - development agencies make no attempt to learn from them - their traditional systems of tenure are not recognized


- they are not recognized as the traditional guardians and trustees of their ancestral lands - they are reduced to ethnic exotic stereotypes. - their cultures are reduced to tourist commodities APPENDIX 6 Yunnan Traditionally Yunnan’s ethnic peoples have established a close relationship with nature and the bio-environment in which man and nature are in relative harmony. This is a result of subsistence agriculture, forestry and animal husbandry practices, relative isolation and the role that their cultural beliefs have played in nature conservation and biodiversity protection. These traditions still exist among many ethnic minority communities today. For example the Dai people's "Holy Hills" and temple plants [Pei 1991], the Hani's Rattan & Sacred Forest [Chen & Pei 1993] and the Yi's plant worship [Wang & Pei 1999] The use of herbal medicine for health care has been a common practice among all ethnic peoples in the region. Indigenous medical knowledge is not only a cultural tradition but represents a local knowledge system that has contributed to health and income generation in a sustainable manner [Pei 2000] Customary ethnic practices, indigenous knowledge and technologies have been applied to forest management, the maintenance of agricultural crop diversity, agro-forestry, rangeland management, and natural resource management sustainably throughout history. Ethnic cultural specialists continue to play an important role in environmental education and mediation between humankind-nature-spirit world (Yang Fuquan 2003, Ayi 2001, Wellens 2002) There are some good examples in Yunnan of agroforestry systems, NTFP management, fuel-wood plantations & medicinal plant management [Wu Ning 1998] The relationship between environment & people has been forged within moral, cultural, political economic and ecological boundaries. Respect for these boundaries by communities and social groups is the result of historically accepted formal and informal rules and norms [Gupta & Ura 1990 Studley Feb 2003] The transition from centuries of isolation to exposure to the outside world since the founding of New China [1949] and the "opening & reform" policies [1980s] has been rapid and abrupt. This has led to the degradation of traditional natural resource management systems in the region. The modern market economy is impacting all cultural groups and indigenous & cultural knowledge is disappearing. It is important before this bio-cultural legacy becomes moribund to not only recognize it but use it as a platform to enhance both the local environment and the wellbeing of those who depend on it. APPENDIX 7 The Pumi traditionally appear to have conserved forests, plants, & wild animals. Those guilty of killing trees/animals in sacred areas were forced either:

a) to butcher a ploughing animal for all the village to eat b) go to a Lama - if the crime was big even a Lama cant forgive them c) go to a hangui [a Pumi Shaman] who will act as an intermediary between man and the territorial numina offended by the killing.


* The hangui were persecuted during the Cultural Revolution and there are none in Luoshui Township. There are, however a number in Muli [in Sichuan], including a Hangui School. Lake Lugu [named “mother lake” or Shelame in Pumi] is embodied by a Pumi goddess, Tai an Yang soo, and was created from the tears of the goddess of Lion Mountain, Gemu. They believe that if they pollute the lake, Tai an Yang soo will punish them and they traditionally used a system of zoned fishing by family. They have several sacred mountains in Luoshui Township including Thuwa, Lhagong, and Zutsay, several sacred animals, including Wild Frog [their Uncle] Crane [a Lama] and Magpie and several sacred trees, often Large Walnut Trees. They believe that if the black footed crane [Grus spp] returns to the Lake it will bring prosperity. The Mosuo believe that animals and trees are innocent and do not kill them without reason. They have sacred mountains, Jura and Lion , trees and a well. It is not known if the Mosuo daba [Shaman] acts as in intermediary between man and sacred landscapes. There are few daba left in Luoshi (in Wenquan & XiaoLuoshui) because they were persecuted during the Cultural Revolution and only allowed to practice since 1994 [Cai Hua 2001]. They are not happy about the proposed cable car that is planned for Lion Mountain. The Han Chinese in Luoshui do not appear to have much of a tradition of forest or wildlife conservation. Some respondents said that traditionally they “did not care for the forest” and “killed wildlife for fun”. Others, however mentioned a tradition of only cutting oak [which naturally regenerates] and of several sacred mountains, Funpinza (a grave yard) and Guanying Mountain. Both these mountains appear to be sacred by association rather than explicitly sacred due to embodiment by a numina [Huber 1999]. The Yi have a tradition of hunting and no tradition of forest conservation. They felled trees on demand and practiced slash and burn until it became illegal. They do not have any sacred mountains but consider the eagle to be sacred. The Yi Bimo (Lama) is very knowledgeable about forests, plants and animals [Harrell 2001], but the nearest one to Luoshui is in Hong Qiao. He does visit Luoshui , however for ceremonies associated with “rites of passage”. These traditions and the indigenous knowledge and vernacular institutions that support them should not be ignored and they should be incorporated into co-management.
