Ethnicity Strategy in China

7/29/2019 Ethnicity Strategy in China

1/30

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 culturaldiversity. 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 andpractice 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 sustainableplatform 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 ofthe 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 theconservation 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 8multilateral/ 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, andencourages "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 andlargely 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 exampleinsisted 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-linguistic2) 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 ofrecent 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


2/30

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, notonly 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 physicaland/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 associationwith a territory orhomeland(Smith 1986)

The Chinese, however draw no distinction between people (), nation (),

nationality () and ethnos (). There is no word in Chinese for ethnic group and the

nearest term, Shaoshuminzu () 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 organisationsand human rights, environment and development NGOs were successful in publicising the

devastating negative impacts on indigenous peoples of mega transport, energy, mining andagricultural 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 tribalpeople in 1982. In the late 1980s, indigenous representatives urged governments anddevelopment 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 berecognised as a touchstone for sustainable development policy (WCED 1987,The

Barbados Declarationhttp://www.drugwar.com/akhabarbadosdeclaration.shtm)



3/30

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 mustbe 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 allrecognise 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 its President finally admitted that many projects hadfailed 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 andfinalised withoutindigenous 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 helpsafeguard 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 weakand 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 themore broadly conceived policy of "ethnodevelopment" (Roper et al 1996) Indigenous

organisations acknowledge some of the Banks ethnodevelopment and natural resource

management projects have brought benefits. However, indigenous organisations and civilsociety groups monitoring the World Bank point out that much of the Banks business

continues to directly or indirectly promote unsustainable, top-down development based on

foreign direct investment, export-led growth, structural adjustment and the industrialextraction 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)



4/30

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 thepolicy 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 fallingunacceptably far behind international standards (Tebtebba Foundation 2001a, b)

The final version of the Policy was advanced to a limited number of indigenous advocatesin 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 OverseasDevelopment Administration (ODA) compiled internal good practice guidelines for staff

and field managers onEthnicity, EthnicMinorities 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 rightsrather than collective rights

In some parts of DFIDs recent policy statement onRealising Human Rights for PoorPeople there is recognition of the importance of international instruments that relate to the

human rights of indigenous peoples (DFID 2000a). DFID combines its rights-basedapproach 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 topublicise DFIDs overall approach to development and, as such, are aspirationalstrategic

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 asBangladesh and Peru (DFID 1998 2002c 2002d Servindi 2002).

Although DFID has no dedicated formal policy on indigenous peoples, significant parts ofits 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



5/30

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)



6/30


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 DFIDsEnvironment 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 ofDFID 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 onethnicity (including developing policy or mainstreaming strategy) - at least at this

stage.(DFID 21/7/04)

(See Fuller text in Appendix 2)

CBIK

Although environmental NGOs 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 counterdiscourses 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 practiceguidelines for infrastructure projects which incorporate a rights and risks approachthat has been widely praised by indigenous peoples as well as environmental,

human rights and development NGOs

Rights-based approaches and the need to includeparticipatory human rights impactassessments (HRIA) as part of social impact studies are also being promoted byNGOs and indigenous organisations

There is a growing call forparticipatory monitoring and independent monitoring ofdevelopment operations according to agreed standards and internationalnorms

The indigenous movement continues to press for newmandatory standards onrequirements for social and cultural impact assessments.

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


7/30


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 minoritycultures. 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 weredivided 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 ethnictraditions, 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 inwith 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]

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 reversedearlier 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 indigenousstatus for Han everywhere, including minority autonomous regions [He 1996]

Chinas Agenda 21 [PRC 1994] stressed the importance of the participation of ethnic and

religious minorities in sustainable development, respect for unique ethnic cultures and theincorporation 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 theDevelopment in Siberia (TIN 2000), is based on the unstated assumption that the west of


8/30


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 situconservation, 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)

Chinas 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 ofmodernity, and be characterised by linear progress, social engineering and hierarchies of

race, cognition, & knowledge. The raison detre of Social Forestry (Li & He nd) in Yunnan

is apparently to "update overall subsistence and spiritual condition by applying modernscience 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 policiesappear to ignore Yunnans 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

E10004551, Latitude N27

04145, with a total area of 55km

2with 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 ethnicgroups 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 andupland 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 offorest, 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


9/30


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. Thishas 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 Studley2004)

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 tothese 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 sacredlandscape (See Appendix 7)

Ethnic cultural Specialists

In 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 inkarma 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 2003Wellens 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 thosesurveyed (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 andsprings 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 Lionmountain) 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 theproject 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).


10/30


Shaman Status

Both Shaman and Priests were heavily persecuted during the cultural revolution andalthough 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 ResearchInstitute 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 revivalamong 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 onbest 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 notonly 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 al1999) 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, andexperiences 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 orexchange 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 aremost 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 indigenousethnic categories of sacred and non-sacred, "buffer" and "experimental".


11/30


Ethnic mechanisms for maintaining relational topocosmic harmony (rather than alien rulesbased 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 takeplace, 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.


12/30


BibliographyADB (2003) Operations Manual Section F3/BPhttp://www.adb.org/Documents/Manuals/Operations/OMF03_13may04.pdf

AITPN (2002) The World Bank Defaults on Past Promises: why the World Bankdraft policy on Indigenous Peoples shouldbe rejected, Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network -, New Delhi.

Albert, B. (. (1990) Brsil: Indiens et dveloppemont 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 ofthe 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 theYi 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 andDevelopment Policy, , San Francisco.

Blench, R. (2001) "Globalisation and policies towards cultural diversity", Natural Resource perspectives, Number 70, June2001.

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 shamanhttp://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 Econmicos y Sociales - CDES (2001a) Anlisis de Centro de DerechosEconmicos y Culturales CDES del Borrador de la Political Operacional 4.10 sobre PueblosIndgenas 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 IndiaNorth East) externalstakeholders consultation on the World Bank Draft Policy on Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP4.10), New Delhi, India, 26November 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 Paperhttp://www.dfid.gov.uk/Pubs/files/bang_csp.pdf

DFID 1999a Social Development Topic Sheets: social analysis ?children, older people, Indigenous people and genderCentre for Development Studies (Swansea) and Social Development Departmenthttp://62.189.42.51/DFIDstage/Pubs/files/s

DFID 1999c DFID Central America: Regional Strategy Paperhttp://www.dfid.gov.uk/Pubs/files/camerica_csp.pdf


13/30


DFID 1999d India: Country Strategy Paperhttp://www.dfid.gov.uk/Pubs/files/india_csp.pdf

DFID 2000a Realising Human Rights for Poor People International Development Target Strategy Paperhttp://62.189.42.51/DFIDstage/Pubs/files/tsd_human.pdf

DFID 2000b Sustainable Livelihood Guidance [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 1998-2002http://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 SurvivalQuarterly, 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 Marshhttp://www.fern.org/pubs/reports/fear.pdf

FPP. 2002a World Bank Safeguard Policies: accountability and development quality issues FPP briefing, October 2002http://forestpeoples.gn.apc.org

FPP 2002b . Concerns about the revision of the World Bank Policy on Indigenous Peoples FPP briefing, October 2002http://forestpeoples.gn.apc.org

FPP 2002c. Poverty Alleviation, Property Rights and the World BankDraft Operational Policy 4.10 on Indigenous PeoplesFPP briefing, October 2002http://forestpeoples.gn.apc.org

FPP 2002d. The World Bank and Human Rights FPP briefing, October 2002http://forestpeoples.gn.apc.org

FPP 2002e. Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Draft OP/BP 4.10 (Part I) FPP briefing, October 2002http://forestpeoples.gn.apc.org

FPP 2002f. Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Draft OP/BP 4.10 (Part II) FPP briefing, October 2002http://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, MotilalBanarsidass 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 theBiodiversity 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.


14/30


Halifax Initiative,. (2002) Linking Investment and human rights: the case of export credit agencies Report of an NGO StrategySession, 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 inTibet, 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 tnico? ICCI Boletn No.25, April, 2001. Emailjournal from [email protected]

MacKay, F. 2002a Universal Rights or a Universe Unto Itself? Indigenous peoples human rights and the World Banks draftOP4.10 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 InternationalInc, 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 AndhraPradesh, 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 andrecommendations Report prepared for the Environment Division (LATEN), Technical Department, Latin America and theCaribbean 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 andindigenous peoples, Minority Rights Group International, London.


15/30


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 InformacinIndgena (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 Bengdahttp://www.geocities.com/john_f_studley/Bengda/Vignettes.htm, Care & Share Foundation, Loughborough.

Studley, J. (2003) YEDP Ninglang : Notes & Diaryhttp://members.lycos.co.uk/johnfstudley/NINGFIND.htm

Studley, J. (2004) Maintaining Ethnic diversity without threatening the Status Quohttp://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 Aplicacin de la Poltica del Banco Sobre las Poblaciones Indgenas (OD 4.20) en AmricaLatina (1992-97) Oficina Regional de Amrica Latina y el Caribe, WB www.worldbank.org

Tebtebba Foundation, 2001a Report on the Stakeholders consultation on the World Bankdraft policy on IndigenousPeoples (OP/BP4.10), 22 October 2001, Tebtebba Foundation.

Tebtebba Foundation, 2001b Statement of the TEBTEBBA Foundation ((Indigenous Peoples?International Centre for PolicyResearch and Education) and the Cordillera Peoples?Alliance on the Stakeholder Consultation on the World Bank DraftPolicy 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 byChaliand)", 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/ Paraguayhttp://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., SurvivalInternational, 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 Countrieshttp://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/62.htm

UNDP Gender Mainstreaminghttp://www.undp.org/gender/tools.htm

van den Berg, M. H. J. (2002) Mainstreaming Ethnodevelopment: poverty and ethnicity in World Bank policyhttp://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 4.20http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/28354584d9d97c29852567cc00780e2a/5e23e566bed37cd6852567cc0077f48d?OpenDocument


16/30


WB. (2002) (2002) Summary of Consultations with External Stakeholders regarding the World Bank Draft IndigenousPeoples Policy (OP/BP 4.10) ?last updated 7 October 2002http://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 foran Indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian Peoples Development Project Environmentally and Social Sustainable DevelopmentSector Management Unit, World Bank, Washington D.C.

Ning, Wu (1998) "Indigenous knowledge of yak breeding and cross-breeding among nomads in western Sichuan China inIK&DM 6 (1) pp 7-9",

Yang Fuquan (2002), Lijiang. The Mentorship of Indigenous Specialists: TheCase of Training Dongba Naxi priests I IIMMSEA


17/30


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/orcultural 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 aterritory orhomeland(Smith 1986)

The Chinese draw no distinction between people (minzu), nation (), nationality

() and ethnos (). There is no word in Chinese for ethnic group and the nearest

term, Shaoshuminzu () 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 thehuman 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 likeanimals 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 relationsthe 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 oflife is a unique and complex human creation and none is superior to any other (Carrithers

1992)

This contrasts with the classical definition of culture [ wen hua ] originating inChinese 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 theperipheries 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].


18/30


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 afundamental 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 withsocial 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 itsview they are characterised by

descent from population groups present in a given area before modern states orterritories were created,

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

self-identification and identification by others as being part of a distinct indigenouscultural 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 themainstream society;

an economic system oriented more toward a traditional system of production thantoward the mainstream production system

a unique tie with and attachment to traditional habitat and ancestral territory and itsnatural resources.

Nationality is the official term adopted in Chinese policy to refer to the cultural diversity of

minority peoples. In order to determine "nationality" [minzu], China relied heavily on

Stalin's theory of national identity, Morgan's theory of social evolution, and Engels'


19/30


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 fundamentallyaccording to state concerns about political stability in the border areas and administrative

integration.

EthnodevelopmentBest 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 theparticipation 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 theirown 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 Chinas rhetoric, "ethnodevelopment" (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 designand 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)


20/30

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 al1982, 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, culturalintegrity 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 its President finallyadmitted 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, titledIndigenous 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 withoutindigenous participation. Indigenous organisations

such as COICA criticised the World Bank for its approach in 1990 (IWGIA Yearbook1990)

Although the policy has significant deficiencies such as its failure to make explicitreference 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 safeguardthe 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 the1991 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 forindigenous peoples participation and secure land rights.

Poor compliance means that poor indigenous peoples often find themselves worse off afterBank 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 ofindigenous communities. In the worst cases conservation projects can result in forced

relocation (Griffiths and Colchester 2000, Griffiths 1999 2002).



21/30

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 capacityof 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 majorachievement. 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 broadlyconceived 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 ofindigenous 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 Banks 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 Banksbusiness 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 unaccountabledevelopment interventions continue to have severe negative consequences for indigenous

peoples and their territories throughout the world (Corpuz 1997 Treakle 1998 Griffiths1999 Tebtebba 2001).

Since the mid-1990s, OD4.20 has been undergoing a process of revision but the process hasbeen 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 groundsfor claims to the Inspection Panel. In the Banks 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 strongerthan 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 weakerthan the existing policy and that ithad 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 Moles2002).

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



22/30

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 rightsand 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 beenpostponed 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 thepolicy 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 peoplein 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 onEthnicity, EthnicMinorities 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 humanrights 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 todeal 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 peoples 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)

Otherindirectguidance 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:



23/30

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 andaccountability 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 onRealising 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 aspirationalstrategic 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, indigenousissues 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 millionindigenous 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 withrural 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.htmAMAN 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 notalways given adequate attention to indigenous issues.

In Guyana, for example, the DFID-funded 1995-2001 Guyana Forestry CommissionSupport Projectfailed 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)



24/30

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 rightsand 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.pdfPimbert and Wakeford (2002)

At the end of 2002, DFID begun to produce an updated internal guidance note for staff onindigenous 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 thesame 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 communities

a

Human Rights:

Recognise existing rights and those who hold them. Those groups whoselivelihoods, 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 andinclusion 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 othervulnerable groups...[Guideline 1, 2nd bullet]

Apply Strategic Impact Assessment for environmental, social, health and culturalheritage 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 ascoping 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 SocialImpact 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 thatinvolves the discussion of alternative options in a stakeholder forum and with the

public [Guideline 6]



25/30

Use a poverty risk assessment and Impoverishment Risk Analysis to quantify andassess 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 theirfree, 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 preferredoptions... 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 timelyaccess 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 andimplementable 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 fordecision-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 anappropriate 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 andlegally enforceable mitigation, resettlement and development entitlements [Ch 8,

principle 5.3]

Adversely affected peoples are recognised as first among beneficiaries of theproject. 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 213-307in WCD (2000)Dams and Development: a new framework for decision making Earthscan,

London and Sterling



26/30

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 Yunnans 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 (

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 Yunnans Yi peoples moved immediately to change the status of theirbimo["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), howeverwere not accepted until 1994 (Cai Hua 1999) This was followed in

1990s 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 aretranscendental forms of ethnic identity empowerment



27/30

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 theirskills 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]

Chinas 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), isbased on the unstated assumption that the west of the country is inhabited by indigenous



28/30

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 tothe multicultural domain [Bulag 1999]

New Forest Policies

Chinas 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 detre 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 Yunnans very rich ethno-ecological history and the

unique process of