INDIGENOUS PEOPLES/ETHNIC MINORITIES · his publication is one of a series of reports on indigenous peoples/ethnic minorities undertaken by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to strengthen

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES/ETHNIC MINORITIES

ANDANDANDANDAND

POVERTY REDUCTION

PACIFIC REGION

Roger Plant

EnEnEnEnEnvironment and Social Safeguard Divisionvironment and Social Safeguard Divisionvironment and Social Safeguard Divisionvironment and Social Safeguard Divisionvironment and Social Safeguard DivisionRegional and Sustainable Development DepartmentRegional and Sustainable Development DepartmentRegional and Sustainable Development DepartmentRegional and Sustainable Development DepartmentRegional and Sustainable Development Department

Asian Development Bank, Manila, PhilippinesAsian Development Bank, Manila, PhilippinesAsian Development Bank, Manila, PhilippinesAsian Development Bank, Manila, PhilippinesAsian Development Bank, Manila, PhilippinesJune 2002June 2002June 2002June 2002June 2002

© Asian Development Bank 2002

All rights reserved

Published June 2002

The views and interpretations in this report are those of the authorand do not necessarily reflect those of the Asian Development Bank.

ISBN No. 971-561-436-1

Publication Stock No.030502

Published by the Asian Development BankP.O. Box 789, 0980, Manila, Philippines

This publication is one of a series of reports on indigenous peoples/ethnic minoritiesundertaken by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to strengthen the capacity of itsdeveloping member countries (DMCs) to combat poverty in the region and to improve the

quality of ADB’s interventions as they affect indigenous peoples. The purpose of the report is toprovide information on the main issues of indigenous poverty and development in Pacific DMCsinsofar as they are relevant for ADB programming, project preparation, and implementation.

The report is based mainly on numerous discussions with governments and concernedstakeholders in several Pacific DMCs (Fiji Islands, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu); with academic andpolicy institutions and Pacific islanders in Australia, New Zealand, and Hawaii; and within ADB.

Mr. Roger Plant, a consultant, prepared this report under the supervision of Dr. IndiraSimbolon, ADB’s Social Development Specialist and Focal Point for Indigenous Peoples. Mr. Plantis an international development consultant who has had extensive experience in social aspectsof development, including indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities, poverty reduction and socialpolicy, land rights and resource management, human rights, and social protection.

It is hoped that the information in this publication series on the issues and concerns ofindigenous peoples/ethnic minorities will help guide national governments and developmentpartners in improving future interventions to recognize, promote, and protect the rights of thesepeoples.

AKIRA SEKIDirector-General

Regional and Sustainable Development Department

JEREMY H. HOVLANDDirector-General

Pacific Department

FOREWORD

Anumber of institutions and individuals provided welcome advice and assistance duringthe preparation of this report. The governments of Australia, Fiji Islands, New Zealand,Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu were all extremely helpful in setting up programs and

meetings; as were the Australian National University, University of the South Pacific, Universityof Victoria at Wellington, University of Hawaii, East-West Center, Pacific Islands DevelopmentProgram, Pacific Forum, and others.

Of the many individuals who gave their time, provided materials, or made comments ondrafts, I am grateful to Chris Ballard, Satish Chand, Donald Denoon, Bronwen Douglas, ColinFiler, Rex Horoi, Anthony Hooper, Bob Kiste, Peter Larmour, Chris Lightfoot, V.J. Naidoo, SteveRatuva, Tony Ryan, Penelope Schoeffel, Asofou So’o, Teresia Teaiwa, Koroseta To’o, HowardVan der Trease, Gerry Ward, and Geoff White.

I would also like to thank the many ADB officers who provided comments and adviceduring the report preparation. Robert Siy of the Office of Pacific Operations and Anita Kelles-Viitanen of the Social Development Division arranged a seminar at which preliminaryrecommendations were discussed. Finally, I thank Jay Maclean, who edited the manuscript, andLily Bernal for copyediting.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Roger Plant

Foreword ................................................................................................................ iii

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................... iv

Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... vii

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1

Objectives and Issues .................................................................................................................. 1

Methodological approach ........................................................................................................... 3

2. Indigenous Identity and Rights in the Pacific ........................................................... 5

Ethnic Diversity in the Pacific: An Overview ............................................................................. 5

Indigenous Identity: Its Meaning for the Pacific ........................................................................ 6

3. Ethnicity and Poverty ................................................................................................ 9

The Meaning of Poverty: Conceptual Issues .............................................................................. 9

Ethnicity and Poverty in the Fiji Islands ................................................................................... 10

4. Traditional Institutions of Governance, Land Tenure, and Poverty Reduction ................. 11

Indigenous Institutions of Governance .................................................................................... 11

Indigenous Land Tenure and Poverty Reduction: Contemporary Dilemmas ......................... 16

5. Practical Concerns for the Asian Development Bank .............................................. 25

Past Experience ......................................................................................................................... 25

Prospects and Opportunities .................................................................................................... 27

Specific Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 29

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................... 31

Annex. The Asian Development Bank’s Policy on Indigenous Peoples........................ 37

CONTENTS

ADB – Asian Development Bank

DMC – developing member country

FSM – Federated States of Micronesia

ILO – International Labour Organization

ISA – initial social assessment

NLTB – Native Land Trust Board (Fiji Islands)

OESD – Office of Environment and Social Development

PDMC – Pacific developing member country (ADB)

PPTA – project preparatory technical assistance

PNG – Papua New Guinea

RETA – regional technical assistance (ADB)

RRP – Report and Recommendation of the President (ADB)

UNCED – United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment

UNDP – United Nations Development Programme

ABBREVIATIONS

OBJECTIVES AND ISSUES

C an a better understanding of “indigenous”issues be of practical value for povertyreduction programs and approaches in the

Pacific? How do such terms as indigenous rights andindigenous identity, or indigenous institutions tend tobe used in the Pacific context? Is the indigenousparadigm a meaningful one in a region of tremendousethnic and cultural diversity, but where the vastmajority of the population can claim to be indigenouson the grounds of descent from aboriginal populations?

This study aims to explore these conceptual andpolicy issues, insofar as they are potentially relevant toAsian Development Bank (ADB) operations in its 12Pacific developing member countries (PDMCs). Thereport has its origins in an initial request to the authorto prepare a set of “indigenous/ethnic peoples’ povertyprofiles” for each of the PDMCs.1 The purpose was tofamiliarize ADB staff with the main issues of indigenouspoverty and development in the Pacific region asrelevant for ADB project preparation andimplementation. After consultations with both ADB’s(former) Social Development Division and Office ofPacific Operations, it was agreed that an analytical paperdiscussing the meaning of the terms indigenous peoplesand poverty reduction for the Pacific region, and theimplications for program and project interventions,could be of more practical value than a country-by-country treatment of these issues.

Widespread discussions within ADB itself, withgovernments and other stakeholders in several PDMCs,and with governments and academics and policymakersin Australia and New Zealand, would appear to confirmthese impressions.2 At the present time, there has beensome escalation of interethnic tensions in different partsof the Pacific region. One clear example is in SolomonIslands where the recent civil conflict, despite its

complexities, is generally perceived as an ethnic onebetween the original inhabitants of different islands.Another clear example is the Fiji Islands, where theindigenous paradigm has been used by politicians andpolicymakers to promote the interests of the populationindigenous to those islands, who compriseapproximately half of the overall population, to thepossible economic detriment of the substantial Indo-Fijian population.

Whether or not there is open conflict betweendifferent ethnic groups in any one island, there arelongstanding tensions between what may be termedtraditional indigenous institutions in the Pacific region,and those that are often referred to as extraneous or“western” institutions. These are complex issues thatneed to be examined at some length. Suffice it to saythat concerns are being expressed at the highest levelsof political leadership concerning the implications forPacific cultures and societies of certain aspects ofglobalization. An example is the view expressed byparticipants at the Sixth Pacific Islands Conference ofLeaders (Hawaii, January 2001) that “Real conflicts existand need to be reconciled between economic and politicalprinciples of traditional forms of Pacific Islands’governance and western liberal democracies.”3 Thatconference discussed at some length the tensionsbetween “global and local cultural values,” examiningwhat might be the right mix of communal values andliberal democratic principles for island societies.

Some similar sentiments were expressed by Pacificleaders in their “Biketawa” Declaration, adopted by thePacific Forum at Biketawa, Kiribati, in October 2000.While stressing their commitment to good governanceand the upholding of democratic processes andinstitutions, the leaders also recognized the “importanceof respecting and protecting indigenous rights andcultural values, traditions and customs”. They stressedthat the Forum must “constructively address difficult andsensitive issues including underlying causes of tensions

INTRODUCTION1

Indigenous Peoples/Ethnic Minorities and Poverty Reduction: Pacific Region2

and conflict (ethnic tensions, socioeconomic disparities,lack of good governance, land disputes, and erosion ofcultural values).”4

Of all the Pacific indigenous values that can beseen as under threat from the forces of modernization,those related to customary forms of land tenure areprobably the most crucial. For decades, there have beendifficult debates concerning the way in which land canbe used more productively without undermining thesecustomary values and institutions. Attempts to introduceindividual forms of land registration and to promotemore open land markets have sometimes met with fierceopposition and have generally floundered. Underindigenous tenure systems, control of land tends to liewith a group of kin or a residential community, withleaders of the group having a high degree of controlover land rights. But very different opinions areexpressed about the purpose of these indigenouscustomary tenures and their effect in preventing theemergence of social differentiation and poverty. Manyanalysts argue that customary land tenure systems, byguaranteeing every family at least some access toproductive land, have played a fundamental role inguaranteeing subsistence livelihoods. Others argue thatsome customary tenure systems, rather than serving thewelfare interests of the community as a whole, canreinforce the status of elite groups. In the words of oneanalyst: “Meanwhile social and political elites continueto use the rhetoric of custom to equate customary landtenure rights and conventions with national or ethnicidentity. In so doing they seek to bolster their own statusand power by advocating maintenance of customaryforms of social interaction and authority.”5

A recent session of the Forum Regional SecurityCommittee identified “ethnic differences, land disputes,economic disparities, and a lack of confidence ingovernments’ ability to resolve these differences fairly,”as key factors underlying political unrest in the region.6

The same opinions were subsequently expressed byPacific Forum Foreign Affairs ministers7 and in theBiketawa Declaration mentioned above. Based on theseconsiderations, the Forum prepared a special report onland issues in the Pacific for its 2001 Forum EconomicMinisters Meeting. Some of its main findings, as theyrelate to indigenous and customary land tenureconcerns, are reviewed further below.

Thus, ethnicity and the broader issues of culturalvalues and indigenous institutions are matters of very

pressing concern throughout the Pacific region at thistime. Probably the main reason for this concern is thatpolicymakers sense a very real threat to the region’ssecurity if these issues are not addressed. They may beseen as issues of “governance” rather than “povertyreduction” in the narrower sense. However, as ADB’songoing work on the general aspects of povertyreduction in the Pacific has emphasized quite clearly,the questions of poverty reduction and governance haveto be addressed in an integrated way. Poverty reductionstrategies for PDMCs identify civil and social order inthe Melanesian group of countries as the overridingpriority. They also stress that effective poverty strategieshave to be built on an understanding of traditional socialinstitutions, including the reciprocity systems that haveprovided traditional social safety nets through kinshiparrangements. At the same time, these systems andinstitutions should not be unduly “idealized” or“romanticized”. There is an increase in the “incidence,depth and severity of poverty throughout the Pacific, asthe economies become increasingly monetized andtraditional support systems are breaking down.”8

Questions of indigenous identity and rights in thePacific are important for ADB, not least because in 1998it adopted a Policy on Indigenous Peoples, which is primafacie applicable to its Pacific operations. The policystates that “With a substantial portion of the world’sindigenous peoples living in Asia and the Pacific,virtually every country in the ADB’s region has anindigenous population.” In the section on organizationalimplications, it specifies that the Office of PacificOperations (now the Pacific Department) holdsresponsibility for the policy as it applies to operationsin the PDMCs. The full text of the ADB Policy onIndigeneous Peoples is given in the Annex.

And yet certain things became apparent in thecourse of discussions in several PDMCs. First, this policyis virtually unknown in the Pacific to governments, otherstakeholders, and even most ADB operational staff inthe region. There has been no attempt to apply it at theproject level, for example by preparing the indigenouspeoples’ development plans that have been quite widelyutilized in the Asian context. Second, concerns wereexpressed that the application of the policy could bedivisive in the Pacific context. ADB’s policy was seen asapplicable to vulnerable or disadvantaged minorities,rather than to a region where most or all of thepopulation could be classified as indigenous.

Introduction 3

Nevertheless, some views were expressed that theADB Policy on Indigenous Peoples could play a usefulrole in the Pacific. Rather than see the issues in terms ofvulnerable minorities versus dominant majorities. onemight instead focus on the totality of indigenousinstitutions in the Pacific, and on their use as instrumentsfor devising and implementing poverty reductionprograms. In other words, the ADB policy might be usedto support more institutional analysis, placing particularemphasis on the role of indigenous institutions in thedevelopment and poverty reduction process.

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

This report adopts the broader sense of the ADBpolicy, focusing in particular on the nature of indigenousinstitutions. The report is structured as follows.

The next chapter concerns the issues ofindigenous identity and rights in the Pacific context. Itexamines how indigenous identity and indigenousinstitutions are defined in ADB’s Policy on IndigenousPeoples. It then tries to apply these concepts to the

Pacific region to learn where aspects of this policy mayand may not be relevant.

The third chapter attempts a typology of“indigenous peoples” in the Pacific, examining wherethere are minorities that have either been accorded aspecial status, or for whom there could be certaingrounds for providing a special status for the protectionof their livelihood, culture, and institutions.

The fourth chapter—the main body of this paper—pursues institutional analysis as considered relevant tothe issues of poverty reduction, broadly defined. Muchof the analysis is concerned with traditional institutionsof governance, particularly the “chiefly” systems ofgovernance at different levels. Land tenure concernsalso receive particular attention. Gender implicationsare considered throughout in the thematic analysis,although particular attention is given to the problemsfaced by Pacific women with regard to land rights andadjudication.

The fifth and final chapter turns to operationalconcerns for ADB itself, and the possible implicationsof the earlier analysis for country projects andprograms. Certain recommendations are put forwardaccordingly.

ETHNIC DIVERSITY IN THE PACIFIC:AN OVERVIEW

For ethnographic analysis, conventionaldistinctions tend to be drawn between threeseparate groups of the Pacific Islands, namely

Melanesia, Polynesia, and Micronesia. The mostcomplex region with the greatest cultural and linguisticdiversity is Melanesia, comprising Papua New Guinea(PNG), Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and the Fiji Islands(which shares many affinities with Polynesia). There isgreat linguistic diversity. In Vanuatu, with a populationof fewer than 200,000, there are no less than 105Melanesian languages. In PNG, with a population ofapproximately 4 million, there are some 800 languages.In Solomon Islands, some 400,000 people share about80 languages. Social systems in most of Melanesia alsotend to be small scale, with local chiefs and “bigmen”having strong influence at the local village level, but inmost cases very limited influence outside. In places likehighland PNG, where colonial contact was late and quiterecent, indigenous cultures and belief systems play animportant role in everyday life.

The ethnographic structure of the Fiji Islands canbe considered exceptional because of the highproportion of settlers of Indian extraction. The Fiji Islandsconsist of about 100 populated islands, withapproximately 90% living on the two main islands ofViti Levu and Vanua Levu. The bulk of the population isdivided between indigenous Melanesians and Indo-Fijians descended mainly from indentured laborersimported as agricultural workers during the colonialperiod. The indigenous population is now the majority,after significant Indo-Fijian emigration as a result ofethnic tensions in recent years. There is, nevertheless,considerable ethnic diversity outside the main

population groups. There is a significant Polynesiangroup from the outlying island of Rotuma and animportant presence of Europeans and Chinese.Inhabitants of the Kiribati island of Banaba were settledin the Fiji Islands during the 1940s after their island waslargely destroyed by phosphate mining. Recent researchhas also identified small minorities from other parts ofthe Pacific (including immigrants from Samoa, Tonga,Tuvalu, and Wallis and Futuna), who often live in smallcommunal settlements and can be considered not to beintegrated within mainstream Fijian society.

Polynesia covers a huge area of the Pacific Ocean,stretching from Hawaii to New Zealand. In those twocountries, the Polynesian populations have, of course,become small minorities in their original homelands,although in numerical terms, compared with the smallpopulation of the average Pacific island, they are large.Social organization in Polynesian society tends to beformal, hierarchical, and rigid, with hereditary leadershipsometimes being an important factor. Royalty remainsimportant in some Polynesian states. Compared withMelanesia, Polynesia displays much ethno-linguistic andcultural uniformity. Samoa and Tonga, for example, onlyhave one national language.

Micronesia also covers a vast area, and there aresubstantial ethnographic differences within its mainisland groups. In the Republic of the Marshall Islands,consisting mainly of coral atolls and reef islands, therehas been considerable displacement as a result ofnuclear testing. There are also many immigrants fromcountries outside the region, particularly the People’sRepublic of China and the Philippines, leading toreported concerns over the extent of alien employment.In the Federated States of Micronesia, there areconsiderable cultural differences between the fourseparate states of Truk, Kosrae, Pohnpei, and Yap. Thepeople of Yap and Palau have ethnic links to Melanesia

INDIGENOUS IDENTITYAND RIGHTS IN THE PACIFIC

2


and eastern Indonesia, whereas the people of Pohnpeiand Kosrae have more links to Polynesia.10 ADB hasobserved that traditional leaders in Pohnpei and Yapcontinue to exert political influence.11 Analysts havenoted strong cultural distinctions between the outerislands and the “high” volcanic islands. In Pohnpei forexample, populations in the two areas speak differentlanguages from each other and have different forms ofsocial organization. High islanders have tended todominate the outer islanders. And aspects of a feudalsituation have been detected in islands such as Yap,noted for its cultural conservatism. A complex castesystem of social order survives.

An important factor in parts of the Pacific isemigration to wealthier countries, perhaps mostparticularly New Zealand and the US. The populations ofsome Micronesian states, the former US Trust Territories,have free access to the US. And there is a specialrelationship between New Zealand and severalPolynesian islands. There is effectively free access to NewZealand for the populations of the Cook Islands, Niue,Samoa, and Tokelau. For the Cook Islands, Niue, andTokelau, a far higher percentage of the population livesin New Zealand than in the home country. Even in thecase of Samoa, 102,000 or 37% of the population live inNew Zealand, and 63% in Samoa. Also, 31,000 Tongansor 24% of the population reside in New Zealand.12

This emigration has a number of effects, whichwill be discussed further below in the institutionalanalysis. It means that the elite groups are largelyeducated abroad, sometimes spending their entire youthout of their country. In the Polynesian case, many areexposed to New Zealand “mainstream” cultural values,at variance with those of traditional Pacific societies.Yet, they are also exposed to a different kind of influence.In New Zealand, there is at present a strong resurgenceof Maori indigenous identity, and educated Pacificislanders can easily empathize with the situation of theirPolynesian brethren. Moreover, many of the Samoanmatai or traditional chiefs reside in New Zealand,returning to their homeland for important ceremonialand other events. Thus, traditional chiefs may be asmuch exposed to external cultures as to those in theirown island.

The effect on cultural identity of this large-scaleemigration and resulting remittances to the homecountry, and of the fiscal flows from major donors, is anundoubtedly complex issue. Government officials as well

as individuals and families can end up with a “foot inboth cultures.” The influence of these destination anddonor countries on Pacific values and cultures can beenormous, even if it is sometimes denied. The extent towhich PDMCs become extensions of other and wealthiereconomies within the region is an issue requiring carefulexamination, given its implications for poverty reductionstrategies

For example, Melanesia does not have theeconomic “safety-valve” of easy emigration. Not onlydoes this drastically reduce the scope for increasingfamily incomes through remittances, but also it meansthat population and land pressures are becoming farmore acute than in Polynesia. This, more than anyinherent aspects of ethnic or cultural diversity, is likelyto account for the sharp growth in interethnic tensionsthroughout Melanesia at present. However, while itmeans that the Melanesian countries now have greaterchallenges with regard to the material aspects ofdevelopment and poverty reduction, it may also resultin greater real independence to determine the path oftheir own development.

INDIGENOUS IDENTITY:ITS MEANING FOR THE PACIFIC

The Definition of Indigenous in the AsianDevelopment Bank’s Policy

The definition of indigenous peoples is consideredat some length in ADB’s 1998 policy on the subject. Itis made clear that the term indigenous peoplesencompasses a generic concept, and is used by ADBonly as a “working definition”. It can also embrace theconcepts and terms of cultural minorities, ethnicminorities, tribals, natives, and aboriginals. The ADBworking definition states that

Indigenous peoples should be regarded asthose with a social or cultural identity distinct fromthe dominant or mainstream society, which makesthem vulnerable to being disadvantaged in theprocesses of development.

There are two main functional criteria in thisdefinition. One is that there should be a dominant ethnic

Indigenous Identity and Rights in the Pacific 7

group, and that indigenous peoples are somehow distinctfrom it. The other is that indigenous peoples may bedisadvantaged. As will be discussed further below, theseconcepts can only with difficulty be applied to most Pacificislands and societies.

ADB—following the trends in emerginginternational law on indigenous issues—identifies two“significant” characteristics that serve to identifyindigenous peoples. One is descent from populationgroups present in a given area, most often beforemodern states or territories were created and beforemodern borders were defined. The other is main-tenance of cultural and social identities; and social,economic, cultural, and political institutions separatefrom mainstream or dominant societies and cultures.

ADB’s definition identifies some additionalcharacteristics, which are not necessarily part of the“vulnerable minority versus dominant majority”paradigm, and which seem to relate more to themanner in which certain peoples conduct their livesand livelihoods. Two of these characteristics areeconomic systems oriented more toward traditionalthan mainstream systems of production; and uniqueties and attachments to traditional habitats andancestral territories, and natural resources in thesehabitats and territories.

The ADB Policy on Indigenous Peoples alsodiscusses the significance of indigenous identity foroverall approaches to development. It draws somedistinctions between what are perceived as the “specificinterests of indigenous peoples” on the one hand, and“national goals” or the “interests of dominant andmainstream societies” on the other. It is clarified that“protection of indigenous peoples from development”or the “maintenance of a status quo for indigenouspeoples” should not be a development objective. At thesame time, the policy places much emphasis on theparticular characteristics of indigenous cultures andinstitutions, accepting that these are differentiated fromdominant or mainstream ones.

Indigenous peoples’ desires to protect theircultural identities and to preserve aspects of culturebased in ancestral lands and resources are receivingincreasing recognition within the internationaldevelopment community. Increasing recognition isbeing given to the principle of indigenous peoplesdetermining their own pace and path of

development, and there is increasing recognition thatsocial and cultural diversity is in the interest of societyand is not an obstacle to national development oreconomic stability.

Defining Indigenous in the Pacific:The Complexities

The term indigenous is quite widely used in thePacific, both in academic discourse and in policydocuments. The meaning and implications are inevitablysomewhat different from those in other parts of the world,including Asia. It tends to refer to all of those “customary”or “traditional” institutions, whether of governance or ofland tenure, which are perceived as different from thoseof western parliamentary democracies, or of typicallywestern market economies. To an extent, the so-calledtraditional institutions may predate Europeancolonialism. But this is not necessarily the case. Theinstitutions are themselves fluid, undergoing continuoustransformations alongside broader economic and socialchanges. As will be seen later, some of the so-calledtraditional institutions are colonial creations, examplesbeing some national structures to permit chieflyparticipation in policymaking.

In only a limited number of cases can vulnerableminorities be identified. There are some exceptionalcases, such as French Polynesia, where indigenousislanders such as the Kanaks of New Caledonia aresubject to overseas rule. In most islands, almost all thepopulation can claim to be indigenous on the groundsof descent. There are again important exceptions, suchas the Fiji Islands, which will be considered at somelength below. And there are several cases where smallpockets of the population have moved from one islandto another and may retain a different ethnic identity inthe island of their eventual settlement (or resettlement).Examples are the Banabans in the Fiji Islands (settledfrom Kiribati in the 1940s after their island was severelydamaged by phosphate mining); the Solomon Islandersin Samoa (imported through organized labor migrationfor plantation agriculture in the past century); theKapingamargi peoples resident in Pohnpei since the eraof German colonization; the Gilbertese resident inSolomon Islands since the 1960s, following theunsuccessful efforts of the British colonial governmentto settle the Phoenix Islands; and other landless outer


islanders squatting in the major islands and urbancenters of various countries in the region.

The key issue is self-perception as indigenous.Why do organizations identify themselves asindigenous? In what circumstances do they campaignunder a banner of indigenous rights? How does the useof the “indigenous umbrella” help them defend theirinterests against outsiders? Some examples follow.

In PNG, where almost the entire population canbe perceived as indigenous on the grounds of descent,the issue of indigenous identity, among other things,has arisen in the context of mining agreements. As oneanalyst has observed however, villagers would notnormally perceive themselves as disadvantaged ethnicminorities. Nevertheless, they may realize that theystand to negotiate improved benefits and compensationwith mining companies if they identify themselves asindigenous. As Colin Filer has described the situation:

In PNG at least, there is a certain irony in thefact that the State does treat its local landowningcommunities as if they were disadvantaged ethnicminorities, by giving them all sorts of specialprivileges and preferences as soon as they havethe good fortune to find that they are the landlordsof a large-scale mining project. But it does notmatter whether these local landlords put on their“tribal” hats, in their dealings with lucrativetenants—unless, like the landowners of the lowerOk Tedi River, they find that they can only get areasonable share of the benefits (and a smallershare of the costs) by winning the support ofinternational allies who really do care about thecorrect choice of hat.13

The argument here is that local villagers, if wellinformed, can use indigenous identity as a rationalchoice because they realize that internationalagreements and current trends can hold out greaterbenefits for those who identify themselves as such. Inthe case of PNG, one reference point can be thenegotiations between aboriginal communities and theState in nearby Australia (where recent trends havebeen to provide significant benefits to aboriginals onthese matters). Another can be the World Bank’soperational directive on indigenous peoples, the latestversion of which aims to ensure that indigenous

peoples derive “culturally appropriate” benefits fromany commercial exploitation of natural resourceswithin their traditional lands.

In Solomon Islands, an “indigenous paradigm” hasbeen used by some analysts to account for the currentinterethnic conflict, in particular that between theoriginal island population of Guadalcanal and theMalaitans who are now settled there. In the words ofone analyst:

From the point of view of Guadalcanal people,land is not the issue but is used to draw attentionto the real cause of the civil unrest. For them, thecauses are the imposition of settlers’ traditions,customs and laws on the peoples of Guadalcanal,and the use of the Constitution as a basis for notrespecting host provinces’ customs andproperties.14

In fact, the origins and causes of the interethnictensions remain a hotly debated issue in SolomonIslands. Some analysts argue that cultural differencesbetween the inhabitants of the different islands areminimal, and that the causes should instead be soughtin such economic factors as land accumulation byMalaitans, or the disruptive impact of mining activitieson Guadalcanal.15 One author recently pleaded that“…there is a need to look beyond ethnicity as the onlycause of the crisis…..Ethnicity is merely the avenuethrough which peoples’ frustration becomesmanifested.”16 Whatever the immediate causes ofconflict, Solomon Islands seems to represent a clear caseof an aggressive reinforcement of local identities, inwhich the “indigenous paradigm” can also be used toexacerbate resentment against a settler population.

In Melanesian countries, with their extraordinarydiversity of language and cultural institutions, theconcept of indigenous identity may be very much linkedto local value systems. In the Polynesian islands—asshown further below—there can be a stronger senseof national indigenous identity vis-à-vis externalvalues, and economic and political institutions. A singleindigenous language, widely used in both oral andwritten communication, can be a vital factor inpromoting this sense of indigenous identity. Samoa isperhaps the most important country in this regard inPolynesia.

Ethnicity and Poverty 9

INTRODUCTION1

I s it possible to measure any correlation betweenethnicity and poverty in the Pacific? Is it even worthattempting to do so? It would be rather pointless in

most islands to attempt such an exercise, for conceptualas well as data limitations. The data are not available,and it is often meaningless to draw distinctionsbetween indigenous and nonindigenous populations.At the same time, there is some evidence that pocketsof immigrants from other islands can endure povertyand hardship in certain PDMCs when they live inisolated communities, and can be excluded frombroader systems of social protection.

The Fiji Islands appears to be the only PDMC wheresystematic data are available concerning the relativeincidence of poverty for different ethnic groups. In othercases, there has been very limited poverty assessment.Indeed, as ADB analysts have frequently found, it canbe difficult to discuss poverty in the Pacific context.Pacific governments are often reluctant to discuss theissue, insisting that the essence of their social systemsis a safety net (based on communal land access andvarious forms of kinship-based reciprocity) that preventsthe emergence of the material poverty and extremepoverty that are now affecting other developing regions.

THE MEANING OF POVERTY:CONCEPTUAL ISSUES

As international finance institutions including ADBgive increasing attention to poverty reduction, indeedmaking this an overarching strategy for all interventions,there are some understandable concerns to identify whichsectors or groups of any national population tend to bemost affected by the incidence of poverty or extremepoverty. In many parts of the world, and for manyinstitutions, ethnicity has been one of the factors takeninto account in poverty mapping. This has been the case

in Latin America, for example, ever since World Bankeconomists identified a correlation between ethnicity andpoverty, demonstrating that indigenous peoples tendedto be represented disproportionately among the extremepoor.17 The policy implications of such analysis and thecircumstances in which it may be advisable to targetpoverty reduction programs specifically at indigenouscommunities have been discussed elsewhere.18

When it comes to poverty concerns in the Pacificas they relate to indigenous peoples or ethnic groups,the issues are doubly complex. Not only is it almostimpossible to differentiate between indigenous andnonindigenous (except in the Fiji Islands where the ethnicdifferences are clear and a good database on incomesand poverty is available), but also there is muchcontroversy concerning the nature of poverty in thePacific, and even whether it is a serious concern. As otherongoing ADB analysis has argued, there is an increase inthe incidence, depth, and severity of poverty throughoutthe Pacific, as the economies become increasinglymonetized and traditional support systems are breakingdown.19 ADB’s new Pacific strategy also observes thatpoverty is beginning to increase in the Pacific, and appearsto link this to the partial collapse of traditional supportmechanisms:

Until recently, poverty was not regarded as asignificant problem among the PDMCs, which havehigh per capita incomes by developing countrystandards and relatively productive subsistencesectors. Cases of need that did exist were thoughtto be taken care of by the redistributive mechanismsof the kinship networks. However, poverty is asignificant and growing problem in the PDMCs dueto two decades of weak economic performance,fairly rapid population growth and urban drift, andgrowing inequalities. Traditional supportmechanisms are under strain, and in someinstances are breaking down.

ETHNICITY AND POVERTY3


It is certainly true that poverty—sometimes quiteacute poverty in the form of deprivation of basic assetsand income—is on the increase in parts of the Pacific.It is well known that rootless persons in the growingurban areas of Melanesia, most notably Port Moresby,are experiencing a form of asset deprivation povertythat is leading to frustration, violence, and some socialbreakdown. This is a very different matter from thepoverty of those in some outer islands, measured aslack of access to education, income, and basic socialservices. The latter groups have access to the fruits ofsubsistence. The extent to which they have a perceptionof poverty should probably be measured by suchindicators as emigration, either overseas or to urbanareas of the same island.

A term somewhat in vogue among developmentanalysts and practitioners today is poverty of opportunity.This term is prominent in the most recent humandevelopment report by United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP) for the Pacific.20 More conventionaldefinitions of poverty are in terms of income levels anddifferentials; or through a more holistic definition of thehuman poverty index, covering such dimensions ashealth, education, access to services, and wealth. Thepoverty of opportunity approach assumes a broaderfocus, the underlying idea being that many more peopleare denied basic human opportunities than are denieda minimum income. In UNDP’s view, this is a “usefuldescription of the Pacific.” Poverty in this broader sensecould also “refer to a denial of opportunities in materialwellbeing, access to markets, job security, political andsocial freedoms, and other dimensions that are moredifficult to quantify.”

Some ongoing ADB analysis has also been usingthe poverty of opportunity approach, examining, forexample, the manifold constraints that can preventPacific islanders from having more effective marketparticipation, and from competing more effectively inthe global economy. The approach can lend itself to

analyzing constraints in traditional land tenuresystems, or in forms of governance that are based ontraditional institutions. But it is a potentially open-ended paradigm, because it can be led by ideologicalpreconceptions with regard to public policy issues (theneed for more privatization, the need to promote moreopen land markets, etc.), rather than attempting tounderstand local institutions and values, and why theretend to be particular perceptions and aspirations withregard to poverty reduction and the creation of wealth.Furthermore, many of the introduced systems ofmodern government in the PDMCs have failed even tomaintain, let alone to improve, the productivity ofessential public services.

ETHNICITY AND POVERTYIN THE FIJI ISLANDS

In 1997, the Government of the Fiji Islands andUNDP published a poverty study,21 which included dataon income inequality by ethnicity between three maingroups, namely the indigenous Fijians, the Indo-Fijians,and the smaller group of “others” comprising people ofall other races. More than anything else, the datademonstrated the complexity of this kind of analysis forthe purposes of devising poverty reduction strategies.Overall, incomes were lowest for Fijian households andhighest for “other” households. “Other” householdsincluded the generally wealthier European and Chinesecommunities, as well as the poor mixed-race andSolomon islander communities that accounted for someof the most disadvantaged groups in the Fiji Islands.Indo-Fijian households were over-represented amongthe very poor and very rich households. On average,the lower-income Indo-Fijian households faredsomewhat worse than their lower-income Fijiancounterparts.

Traditional Institutions of Governance, Land Tenure, and Poverty Reduction 11

TRADITIONAL INSTITUTIONSOF GOVERNANCE, LAND TENURE,

AND POVERTY REDUCTION

4

INDIGENOUS INSTITUTIONSOF GOVERNANCE

Why is Governance such a Vital Aspect ofPoverty Reduction?

SSSSS ome views of Pacific leaders regarding basicdilemmas of governance were mentioned in theintroductory chapter. But the parameters of a

discussion on governance need to be set out quitecarefully. ADB analysis has often focused on economicaspects of governance, with particular reference to suchissues as transparency, accountability, and corruption.As tensions grow in the region, however, it isincreasingly recognized that the basic politicalinstitutions of governance, although apparently basedon open democratic principles, may lack the legitimacyand support that enable them to operate effectively.

Nation building and national identity are at stakein some multi-island Pacific countries. In particular,the Melanesian multi-island states are very weak,perhaps constructed rather rapidly in the late colonialperiod without any unifying cultural or linguisticidentity. In Micronesia and Polynesia, politicalinstitutions may be more stable. In these twosubregions, there is still a complex array of institutionsat both local and national levels, involved in differentdimensions of economic and resource management.Many investment decisions concerning infrastructuredevelopment, construction of schools or other publicfacilities, or other forms of land use, require theapproval of local and traditional authorities. Thus,poverty reduction programs can in many cases beimplemented more effectively by supporting such

institutions, rather than seeing them as potentialimpediments to market-oriented development.

Moreover, for the broader dimensions of povertyreduction strategies, an understanding of the local andnational dimensions of traditional forms of PacificIsland governance is of equal importance. If traditionalleaders enjoy genuine community support, they willbe the persons best able to reflect the perceptions andconcerns of local communities before nationaldecision-taking bodies. In this sense, it would beappropriate to identify the most suitable mechanismsfor giving traditional leaders a voice in national affairs.In some cases, this is more easily said than donebecause local leaders may have no interest in orunderstanding of the concept of a nation, as wasapparently the problem with such late colonialconstructs as the National Council of Chiefs in Vanuatu.Traditional leaders can also represent their owneconomic interests and may have a strong bias againstgender or other forms of social equality within localcommunities.

Finally, it should be stressed that a focus on theregion’s economic and social systems and institutionsis warranted, because the economic options for smallislands are necessarily limited. Pacific islands areundoubtedly affected by globalization trends. Somemarket reforms and measures to promote greater privateinvestment can well have positive effects on materiallivelihoods. But there are very real constraints due tothe remoteness from most markets and the inevitabledependence on wealthier countries for fiscal resourcesand remittances. All of this calls for careful and gradualapproaches to poverty and development, andunderstanding and building on institutions that are wellentrenched within society.


This section does not pretend to provide acomprehensive assessment of traditional or indigenousinstitutions of governance. Instead, it aims to provide abroad overview of the kind of indigenous institutionsinvolved at all levels. This can set the stage foridentifying the type of institutional concerns ofgovernance that could merit more attention in futureADB programming.

Traditional Institutions of Governance:Some Intraregional Differrences

It is impossible to generalize as to the nature ofa traditional institution in the Pacific, or as to its roleand functions. There are considerable variationsbetween Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia. InMelanesia, the chief institutions of governance existmainly at the village or local level, although attemptshave been made to establish national advisory councils.In Micronesia, there can be great diversity between theislands that make up the separate PDMCs of theMarshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia(FSM). Polynesian society is more hierarchical, withlong established systems of nobility. Moreover, theindigenous institutions of governance have long beenadapted to external models, as part of colonialgovernment or modern democratic nation building.This section provides select examples, examining therole played by these institutions in the political arenaand in economic and social development.

Tonga: Monarchy and Nobility

Tonga has been a constitutional monarchy sincethe late 19th century and this—perhaps like the BritishCrown—has come to be a traditional institution. Underthe 1875 Constitution, some 20 persons were selectedfrom among several hundred thousand chiefs to be the“nobles” of Tonga with special rights and privileges.Significant tracts of land were attached as hereditaryestates to this nobility. Up to the present day, there is afixed number of eiki nopele nobles (usually 33), who enjoyspecial rights over land. The socially stratified system isnow quite widely equated with concepts of Tongancultural tradition. One explanation is “The strength of thepresent system lies less strictly in the imposition of chieflyvalues than in their dissemination throughout society so

that each segment of kin and household organizationessentially replicates the internal organization of thearistocratic structures of kindred. What appear to havebeen solely eiki customs of kinship rank are now followedby an emancipated population and have come torepresent Tongan culture and tradition.”22

The Samoan Matai System

In Samoa, a complex nobility divided intodifferent forms of chiefly status has immense impacton political, social, and economic life. The key elementof traditional governance is the chiefly matai system.This is a title bestowed through election by a descentgroup referred to as the aiga. There are some 20,000such matai titles at present, nearly all (some 95%) heldby males. The system plays a fundamental role in landallocation, with over 80% of the land under traditionalmatai control. The system has its clearest expressionat the village level, each village being made up of anumber of aiga which can have several matai titles attheir disposal. The village is governed by its mataicouncil referred to as the fono, which is responsiblefor law and order and for maintenance of health,education, and other social facilities.

At all levels of Samoan society, there are complexsystems of hierarchy and chiefly status. Given that theentire population of Samoa is less than 200,000, it canbe seen that the matai system is remarkably inclusive:at least one tenth of the entire population (although titlescan be held by overseas residents). Even at the villagelevel, matai titles are ranked in a level of hierarchy. Thereare also high-ranking titles held by groups of “orators”from Samoa’s different traditional districts. AnthonyHooper observed,23 “The titles are largely honorific(having no direct connection with the administration ofland or other material resources) but they are by nomeans insignificant for that reason. Indeed, they cancarry enormous weight, influence and prestige withintheir districts, and some of them are of widersignificance, not only within the traditional sphere butalso on the wider national scene.”

The formal role of chiefs in the national politicalsystem has evolved over recent decades. Afterindependence in 1962, there were efforts to combine“traditional” and “western democratic” forms ofgovernment. Under a 1963 Electoral Act, only the mataiwere enfranchised and able to stand for national


Parliament. A national plebiscite in 1990 then decided infavor of universal suffrage, although still under theprinciple that only matai could stand for Parliament.24 Atthe same time, there tends to be corporate decision takingat the village level concerning parliamentary candidates.In the 1991 and 1996 general elections, for example, onevillage ruled that all village members were to vote for aparticular candidate in their constituency.25

The introduction of universal suffrage in Samoahas been balanced by some strengthening of villageauthority. The 1990 Village Fono Act gave legal sanctionto matai councils to manage their village affairsaccording to custom and tradition. There have sincebeen difficult cases in this regard, in particular withrespect to interreligious disputes when personspropagating a faith different from the predominant onein a village have been expelled from the community, oreven had their lives threatened. Indeed, religion can bean all pervasive aspect of “traditional” life in a Samoancommunity, and has in itself to be considered part oftraditional institutions. Immense sums, including a largeshare of remittances from abroad, are spent oninfrastructure and churches for different religiousdenominations.

For the most part, the balance between traditionaland western institutions in Samoa appears to have beenmanaged quite successfully to date. There can be veryclear tensions over economic and resourcemanagement, and particular land tenure issues, whichwill be examined in later sections. But it is a moot pointwhether the relative stability of the chiefly systems inSamoa can be attributed more to their inherentcharacteristics, to the substantial cultural and linguisticuniformity in a country that comprises only two mainislands, or also to certain economic factors. Remittancesand the close connections with overseas Samoanfamilies have certainly played a key role in underpinningthis economic stability. It is also a moot point whetherthe matai system may gradually lose influence as moreindividual wealth accumulates.

The Fijian Great Council of Chiefs

This section focuses on the political institutionsof governance at different levels of Fijian society. Since1987, the Fiji Islands has given particular attention tothis issue in its attempt to protect and promote the statusof indigenous Fijians. Significantly, it is the only country

in all of Asia and the Pacific so far to have ratified theInternational Labour Organisation’s Indigenous andTribal Peoples’ Convention, No. 169 of 1989. During theterm of the interim Government, the author was givenby the Prime Minister’s office a copy of a draft “Blueprintfor the Protection and Advancement of IndigenousFijians and Rotumans.” This formulates certainproposals to “enable indigenous Fijians and Rotumansto fully exercise their rights of self-determination withinthe unitary State of the Republic of the Fiji Islands. It isto safeguard the paramountcy of their interests in ourmulti-ethnic and multi-cultural society.” Among otherthings it proposed that a new Constitution bepromulgated before July 2001, to “give effect to thecollective desire of Fijians that the national leadershippositions of Head of State and Head of Governmentshould always be held by them.” Under the Blueprintproposals, the new Constitution should also addressother issues of importance to Fijians and Rotumans inline with terms of reference as approved by the GreatCouncil of Chiefs.

Any understanding of these “indigenousinstitutions” in the Fiji Islands needs a sense of history.The country was colonized by Britain under an 1874Deed of Cession that bound it to “preserve the Fijianway of life.” To this effect, although immigrant workerswere steadily introduced from India after the late 1870s,British policy was to establish a Native FijianAdministration through which the Fijians were governedindirectly. Fijian chiefs continued to govern their peopleand attempts were made to recognize the preexistingpolitical structures. However, it is often argued that theBritish gave undue importance to the more hierarchicalstructures in the east of the country, failing to incorporatethe more equitable elements of its predominantlyMelanesian society.26 Moreover, when popularrepresentation was first introduced in the Fiji Islands inthe early 20th century, the growing Indian populationwas left without any representation.

Under colonial rule, the highest body in the Fijianpolitical hierarchy was the Great Council of Chiefs (orBose Levu Vakaturaga). A series of other institutions wasestablished to protect Fijian economic and politicalinterests. One Fijian analyst observed:

Fijian ethno-nationalism was very much acolonial construct when diverse social groups werecentralized under a patronizing colonial system


through colonially constructed neo-traditionalinstitutions such as the Great Council of Chiefs,Ministry of Fijian Affairs, Native Land Trust Board,Provincial Councils and Fijian Affairs Board. Theseinstitutions officially defined the political andcultural boundaries of ‘Fijianess,’ and also providedthe cultural prism through which Fijians definedtheir identity and worldview in relation to ‘others,’especially the emerging “Indian threat.” Althoughthey were colonial constructions, over the yearsthese institutions came to be regarded as“traditional” and immemorial part of the Fijianvanua (socio-cultural formation).27

Since independence in 1970, a critical issue hasbeen how to balance Fijian and Indo-Fijian interests.Indigenous Fijians continue to enjoy control over themajority of the land (see below). The Constitutionprovided for a parliamentary democracy on theWestminster model, although seats were divided alongethnic lines to ethnic Fijians, Indo-Fijians and “otherraces.” The Great Council of Chiefs held approximatelyone third of the seats in the Senate.

As a result of a military coup in 1987 on thegrounds of defending indigenous Fijian interests,measures to protect the economic and political statusof ethnic Fijians have sparked growing interethnictensions. ADB’s most recent economic report on theFiji Islands28 states:

In 1990 a new Constitution was drafted andpromulgated. The principal difference between itand the 1970 independence Constitution was theinclusion of additional safeguards for indigenousFijian interests: in particular, a majority of seats inthe House of Representatives were reserved forFijians. The Constitution also required that thePrime Minister be a Fijian. These measures wereintended to ensure that Fijians would retain controlof the Government regardless of the ethniccomposition of the population. The racial base ofthe 1990 Constitution explicitly discriminatedagainst the Indo-Fijian population and remaineda source of discontent to that community and manyoverseas observers.

Indo-Fijians subsequently began to emigrate insignificant numbers.

The influence of the Great Council of Chiefs hascertainly increased in recent years, partly as aconsequence of the political crisis. In the drafting of thedemocratic 1997 Constitution, the coalition of Indo-Fijianparties advocated a strong position for the Council ofChiefs, recognizing that it could play a conciliatory rolein response to interethnic tensions. With the escalationof the crisis, the Council has played an important power-broking role. It has also been seen as promoting a moremoderate position than the advocates of a Fijian“ethnonationalist” vision who use the discourse ofindigenous rights to promote Fijian rights and privilegesat the deliberate expense of the Indo-Fijian population.One academic writer has strongly put forward this view,arguing that recognition of the prerogative of Fijian chiefsin the Great Council of Chiefs is central to the concept of“political inequality supporting a partnership acrossdifference,” together with a “reciprocal responsibility ofindigenous people to meet the needs of the non-indigenous.”29 At the same time, it would appear thatthe more extreme “ethnonationalists” have also beentrying to strengthen the role of the Council of Chiefs inorder to further entrench indigenous Fijian interests atthe expense of more openly democratic and accountablesystems of political representation.

Melanesian Examples: Local Chiefs,“Bigmen,” and Wantoks

In the Melanesian PDMCs of PNG, SolomonIslands, and Vanuatu, the role of chiefs in governanceappears to be very different from the cases so fardescribed. Their role is far more prominent at the locallevel; attempts to create broader mechanisms to givetraditional authorities an effective role in national policymaking have not so far met with success. Formalstructures may exist, as in Vanuatu, but they have nothad significant impact. The failure to incorporate thesepowerful local actors in national identity building is nowcausing much concern. Many analysts, as noted, seethis as an important factor behind the growing conflictsin the Melanesian region.

As in the Fiji Islands, colonial rulers in the rest ofMelanesia sought out local leaders as theirrepresentatives for “indirect rule.” After indepen-dence,both Solomon Islands and Vanuatu undertookconstitutional reviews that attempted to increase therole of chiefs in government. In Vanuatu, a ceremonial


Nakamal building was constructed for the NationalCouncil of Chiefs in the capital, Port Vila. In SolomonIslands, chiefs were empowered in 1985 to act asmagistrates in land disputes. However, there aregeneral perceptions that with democratic rule the chiefsbecame increasingly marginal to economic andpolitical decision making.30

In PNG—with its relatively huge size, linguisticdiversity, and islands distant from the mainland—theconcept of traditional authorities has taken on a differentmeaning. These are the local “bigmen,” leaders whohave exercised authority over large territorial areas.Distinctions are generally drawn between thehighlanders, who have their own tribal means of disputesettlement, and the coastal area inhabitants.Commercial agriculture was vigorously pursued bycolonial powers in the lowlands, but, except for themissionary presence, contact with highlanders wasexceedingly limited. The same can be said for the remotebut often large outer islands, such as New Britain, NewIreland, Manus, and Bougainville. A common theme ofanalysis has been the “dysfunctionalism” between bothcolonial and modern state institutions on the one hand,and traditional institutions on the other. Colonialgovernments established local development councils atthe village level, which the “bigmen” apparently tried toavoid. A western-style parliamentary democracy hasexisted since independence. The capital city of PortMoresby and its modern state institutions are a differentworld from the highlands, although modern leaders“who have dormant positions of traditional leadership,act to protect their own future in their home villages bystrengthening ‘traditional values’ there.” 31

The main problems in PNG have been governanceand law and order issues in all their dimensions.Growing crime has been the problem in Port Moresby.Much has been written about the role of traditionalwantok (kinship support) system in providing aninformal safety net, although there are indications of itsgradual breakdown among the urban population. At thebroader level, there have been widespread secessionisttendencies. Bougainville has been the best known ofthese, following disputes over a large miningconcession. Other islands have pursued demands forgreater autonomy, leading to the establishment of aprovincial government system designed to weakensecessionist tendencies. John Connell observed:

Although there have been elements ofnational unity, including the rapid growth of theprincipal lingua franca, Tok Pisin, the sense ofnational unity has been overshadowed by thepervasiveness of localism and regionalism. Ethnicand cultural identities in PNG are not quaint relicsof traditional times, but contributing elements topowerful local nationalist struggles that maydevelop further.32

In the years preceding Solomon Islandsindependence in 1978, there were intensive discussionsconcerning the role of kastom and chiefs in the country’snew political institutions. A Council of Chiefs wasactually established on the island of Santa Isabel, theonly one where a “paramount chief” was recognized.Subsequently, traditional leaders appear to have becomefairly marginal to political life.

In response to the recent civil unrest in SolomonIslands, the role of civil society including traditionalinstitutions has again become an important issue ofnegotiation and debate. Given that the tensions havebeen largely between the inhabitants of differentislands, much of the debate has concerned theappropriate form of decentralized government, ratherthan the respective roles of “modern” parliamentaryand traditional institutions in national government.There have been proposals for a loose federalismbased on island states with stronger powers. At thesame time the need to build on community-basedinstitutions has certainly surfaced in the discussions.One set of proposals has been to design a new formof provincial government, with youth and women’sgroups as well as chiefs represented in a governancestructure alongside political leaders. This comestogether with proposals to safeguard the land rightsof indigenous people (including the recording ofcustomary land rights); and community educationprograms to be undertaken by the Ministry of HomeAffairs and Culture to promote respect for traditionalcustom, culture, and indigenous rights, together witha greater understanding of cultural diversity.33 Thiscould well be a glimpse of things to come in otherislands, particularly in Melanesia, where traditionalchiefly institutions can only be seen as one part of acivil society, for which improved mechanisms ofparticipation need to be established.34


Complex Hierarchies: FederatedStates of Micronesia

The tremendous variety of chiefly systems, andtheir different role in economic and social life, is wellillustrated by the four states that comprise the FSM.Some of these, as in Yap, are seen as extreme examplesof cultural conservatism and rigid social hierarchies. Buteach of the states displays much diversity between mainand outer islands. There have also been ample attemptsat social engineering during the respective periods ofSpanish, German, Japanese, and then US influence.

In Pohnpei, for example, a political order basedon the nahnmwarki paramount chief, with a ranked setof 11 royal titles below this, evolved several centuriesago. New settlement districts later established their ownlines of royal titles. The German colonial administrationaimed to undermine chiefly power, mainly byredistributing land to commoners through individualtitles of ownership. Yet, in modern times, chiefs retainan important status as leaders of traditional affairs. Asan ADB publication observes, “Chiefly feast houses(nahs) are focal points for the cultural life of Pohnpeians,which revolves around competitive feast giving andcompetition for prestige and traditional titles”.35 Despitemonetization of the economy, customary obligationsrequire feasting the community chief and the paramountchief for titles conferred. People seeking advancementmust provide for such occasions as propitiationceremonies, marriages, funerals, births, journeys, andarrival of visitors.

Yap has a particularly distinctive social system,dominated by the overlords of the main island of Yap.The inhabitants of the main island are divided amongthree social orders, which are further broken down intothe three levels of chiefs, nobles, and commoners. Acaste-like relationship prevails, in which the lowestranking groups act as the servants of higher-rankinggroups that provide the land.

Traditional Institutions and PovertyReduction: Strategic Concerns

Very different views can be put forwardconcerning the potential contribution of these diverseinstitutions to poverty reduction. When the institutionsthemselves are so varied throughout the Pacific and are

often changing over time, broad generalizations maybe of little value. Many of them provide for socialobligations from community members toward theirchiefs, which can entail the delivery of food and otheritems, and can easily add to the burden of materialpoverty. Under reciprocity arrangements, the key issueis the degree of responsibility accepted by traditionalleaders to provide for all community members accordingto need.

Despite the differences, some general issues doseem to stand out. Development and povertyinterventions, at either national or local levels, cannotafford to ignore these institutions. Social engineeringattempts, which have tried to brush them aside in landor other institutional reforms, have met with oppositionand have often floundered. The remaking of theseinstitutions can be very complex, particularly whentensions surface between different ethnic or islandgroups. Growing gender consciousness and the growthof church-based and other civil society organizationsare among the factors that affect the composition anddecision-making role of traditional institutions.

A framework of “social capital” would clearly beuseful, to examine the role of these institutions from apolitical economy perspective at both macro and microlevels, and as a conceptual tool for examining how suchinstitutions adapt to external factors.

INDIGENOUS LAND TENURE ANDPOVERTY REDUCTION:

CONTEMPORARY DILEMMAS

Land Tenure Debates: The Main Issues

Of the demands for special rights made byindigenous peoples worldwide, those for traditionallands and related natural resources tend to receive themost attention. Maintenance of customary land tenureregimes, in which traditional chiefs usually enjoyconsiderable powers over land allocation within thecommunity, can be an essential feature of indigenousidentity.

In some contexts, however, special protection forthe customary land rights of indigenous peoples cancome at a potential cost. The special status can involvecertain restrictions on the rights to sell, transfer, or


mortgage the lands in question. Some customary landtenure regimes can be prejudicial to land security forwomen. Others can prove inequitable, for example whensubstantial land areas are reserved for various categoriesof chiefs and nobles.

In recent times, agrarian policies throughout theworld have aimed to enhance security of private landtenure and ownership in order to promote the freeroperation of land markets. There have been certainnonmarket exceptions, adopted on environmental or evencultural grounds. Biospheres and environmentallyprotected areas are one such example. The ancestral landsof indigenous communities have been another. Notablyin Latin America, there has been a recent trend to vestcommunal title over very substantial land areas in thehands of the legal representatives of indigenouscommunities.36 Indigenous peoples can also enjoy ameasure of control over the natural resources pertainingto these lands, or at least the right to participate in theprofits deriving from mineral and other extractive activitieswithin their traditional land areas. There has been a recenttrend in parts of Latin America to legislate on these matters,permitting indigenous organizations to participate togetherwith state bodies in negotiations with oil, gas,hydroelectric, and other resource-use companies.

Yet, for indigenous peoples worldwide, there is abasic dilemma (which is amply recognized in ADB’s Policyon Indigenous Peoples). Indigenous peoples may have theirown particular forms of land use and allocation, based ontheir own cultural values, but they almost invariablyproduce for the market; thus, they need such basic inputsas credit, marketing outlets, and facilities in order tocompete with other producers and traders. There is noconvincing evidence that most indigenous peoples wishto pursue a purely subsistence economy insulated frommarket institutions. At the same time, they are usuallydetermined to avoid the fragmentation of their traditionalland areas and are for these reasons reluctant to pledgethe land itself as collateral for credit.

How do these concerns apply in the Pacific?Customary forms of tenure are not seen as exceptionalland tenure regimes for the protection of vulnerablegroups. Rather, the situation is the opposite of that foundin most developing countries. Freehold land tends to bethe exception, while the majority of land is held undercustomary tenure regimes. Thus, traditional land tenureregimes are sometimes perceived among the constraintsthat constitute traditional and cultural resistance to a

more dominant role for the private sector. This viewcan be seen, for example, in ADB’s most recent Pacificstrategy,37 which refers to land issues in its section onthe sociocultural context. It is observed that “Access toland, so critical to private investment, is substantiallyinfluenced by local custom.” This “prevents the use ofcollateral for credit.” Further, with insufficient land forsubsistence living, “rural people need to move into thecash economy and to bring customary lands into thecash economy.” Similar concerns are reflected in anumber of ADB country assistance plans for the Pacific.In the FSM, for example, a concern is that “Legal andregulatory frameworks, including those governingaccess to land, have also proven to be impediments toattracting and realizing new investment and, in somecases, have driven away potential investors.”38

However, attempts to promote individual formsof land registration and freehold ownership have a longand unsuccessful history in the Pacific. Smallholderfarming and plantation agriculture were quitevigorously promoted during the colonial period. Thelegacy survives in a limited amount of freeholdownership, for example in Samoa. Upon independencein some countries, there has been a trend away fromfreehold ownership and toward recognition ofcustomary forms of tenure. Perhaps the most extremecase has been in Vanuatu, where the concept offreehold ownership was terminated by law uponindependence in 1980. The new Vanuatu Constitutionruled that all land belonged to indigenous customowners, except the lands acquired by the Governmentin the public interest. In other Pacific countries,including PNG and Solomon Islands, customary formsof landownership have also been strengthened bypostindependence provisions.

There is, thus, a potential clash between“indigenous customary” and “western” forms of land andproperty ownership, which has never been effectivelyresolved since independence. Some analysts continueto advocate a gradual transition toward registeredprivate forms of ownership on both economic and socialgrounds. In practice, however, external funding agenciesgenerally refrained from intervening in Pacific landtenure issues, accepting their sensitivity and the degreeof attachment to customary land tenure arrangements.As observed in an earlier sociocultural analysisconducted for ADB, “…however strong the case formodest reforms of customary tenure, the issue is


surrounded with political land-mines, from which mostgovernments are likely to try to steer clear.”39

Pacific leaders have emphasized that land reformis a “problem that cuts much deeper than justeconomics.” Competition over land is at the heart of theconflicts, often referred to as ethnic conflicts, that havebroken out or threaten to do so in much of Melanesia.This is true in different ways for the Fiji Islands, PNG,and Solomon Islands, with some latent pressuresemerging more recently in Vanuatu.

The concept of indigenous land rights has hadvery different implications for different Pacificcountries, depending on their colonial legacy, theirdemographic composition, and also the investmentpolicies that have been pursued in recent times. Insome cases, indigenous paradigms of land use andownership can be in quite open conflict with westernparadigms based on individual and alienableownership. It might be assumed, for example, thatwestern models are introduced mainly to improvesecurity for foreign investors. Yet, some reforms toindigenous systems may be advisable, both to providelocal economic incentives and to bring about improvedland management. There have been cases whereclarification of rights under modified indigenoussystems has resulted in better production incentives,in improved land and environmental management, andin interim title solutions while parochial disputes arebeing negotiated. There are also cases where the issueis not so much of individual versus communal titles,as of clarification of individual rights under communalsystems of tenure.

In some cases moreover, population growth hasseverely affected the capacity of indigenous systems tohandle land disputes. This may not be an argument forthe outright replacement of local indigenous systems,but it may require the provision of assistance tooverwhelmed traditional land adjudicators as part of themodernization process. In such cases, it is important toassess where the improvements are needed, what theextent of such improvements should be, and what arethe acceptable alternatives.

Overall, the issue of comprehensive land tenurereform should not be confused with that ofimprovements in land management andadministration. Pacific islanders may resist the former,seeing it as externally imposed and driven in large partby the needs of overseas private investors. The latter

can proceed within the scope of existing traditionaland constitutional arrangements, but still requiresconsiderable investment in institutional capacitybuilding.

The following section compares the experiencein six Pacific countries, Fiji Islands, PNG, Samoa,Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and FSM. This prepares theground for a summary review of the main land policyconcerns, as relevant to poverty reduction.

Indigenous Land Rights in a MultiracialSociety: The Case of the Fiji Islands

In the Fiji Islands, the maintenance of a specialstatus for indigenous or “native” lands has been acornerstone of the policies for protecting the economicand social interests of indigenous Fijians vis-à-vis otherethnic groups. Formally, the land area is dividedbetween the three categories of native land, state land,and freehold land. The first category accounts for wellover 80% of the overall land area, although a far smallerproportion of the economic value because less than10% of this land is cultivable. Freehold land hasremained fairly stable at approximately 8% over the pastcentury, much of this prime commercial land ownedby persons of European descent. The Indo-Fijians, whocomprise slightly less than half the population, ownless than 2% of the land. The vast majority of Indo-Fijians are tenants and subtenants who depend onindigenous Fijians for leased land.

The concept of inalienable “native lands” was firstdeveloped by the British colonial government in the late19th century. A Native Land Commission was establishedin 1880 to survey holdings, record the owners, andregister ownership at the level of the mataqali or clan.According to one analyst, this Commission “ignored theinitial recommendations of the Council of Chiefs in the1870s that favored a more individualized approach.”40

This was apparently seen as a temporary measure, withthe policymakers of the period assuming that Fijian landswould eventually be parceled on an individual basis.Lands for which the Commission could find no claimants,or for which the registered landowning mataqalisubsequently died out, were recorded as state land.

In the early 20th century, the mataqali groups hadconsiderable freedom to lease out their native lands,and concerns were expressed at the growth of suchleasehold arrangements. In consequence, the colonial


government created a new category of Native ReserveLand, which could not be leased to nonFijians. In 1940,it also created the Native Land Trust Board (NLTB)—stillin existence today—as the only agency with the powersto lease any form of native land. The NLTB was instructedto administer all such lands “for the benefit of the Fijianowners,” but now appears to enjoy considerablediscretion to lease out native lands without requiringconsent from the mataqali groups concerned.

The Fiji Islands’ land tenure rules can be seen aspart of a delicate “balancing act” of the late colonialperiod, which aimed to guarantee security of theindigenous Fijian population over their lands, while atthe same time making land available to the Indo-Fijianpopulation through rentals and leasehold arrangements.However, when so much real authority has been vestedin an agency like the NLTB, issues of concern haveincluded the size and distribution of rental payments,and also the duration of the leases.

While much of the rental income has served topay the NLTB’s own administrative costs, theremainder has been distributed on a differential basisto mataqali members in accordance with chiefly rank.As described in ADB’s most recent economic reporton the Fiji Islands:41

Many of the traditional owners feel that theamount they receive is far less than the land isworth. In part this concern is a result of thedisbursement formula, which reflects thetraditional structure of Fijian society where thechiefly hierarchy (Tauranga) is responsible for theland. Under the current arrangements, paymentis divided according to the status of the recipient,with 5 percent going to the Tauranga ni Taukei,10 percent to the Tauranga ni Yavusa, 15 percentto the Tauranga ni Mataqali and the balance, 70percent, being shared among the members of theMataqali or kinship group. In some cases theTauranga share their receipts with the othermembers of the Mataqali, but in other cases theydo not. Quite often the individual members receivevery little income at all. When people are receivingonly a few cents per year for land that is yieldinghundreds of dollars, they can become resentful.This resentment has overflowed into thenegotiations over the renewal of long-term ALTAleases.

The term ALTA refers to the Agricultural Landlordand Tenants Act of 1966. This required the NLTB to offertenants an initial lease for a 10-year period, renewablefor 2 subsequent 10-year periods if the land was notrequired by Fijians. A 1976 amendment to the ALTA hadlater strengthened security of tenure for Indo-Fijians, bygranting initial leases for an extended 20-year period.ALTA lease rents have been low, fixed at a maximum of6% of the unimproved capital value of the land in question,but problems have arisen with regard to longer-term landsecurity for Indo-Fijian tenants once the leases haveexpired. ALTA itself is no longer in force, but certain leaseshave been renewed under existing provisions of theNative Land Trust Act. Thousands of other leases are nowreaching their termination date, or will do so over thenext decade, and the reluctance of certain mataqalilandowning groups to renew leases is one factor behindthe growing interethnic tensions in the Fiji Islands.Particular concerns have been expressed about the needfor an adequate degree of security to encourage sufficientinvestment by tenant farmers in leased sugar lands.

The Fiji Islands is sometimes put forward as amodel deserving replication in other Pacific islands, inthat it holds out strong guarantees for protectingindigenous Fijian land rights without impeding economicand social development. Yet, in the Fijian case, theconcept of indigenous land rights does not appear to belinked with a particular form of land use and allocation.Indeed, official policies dictate that formal control overthe use of indigenous lands is largely entrusted to theNLTB. As in other Pacific islands, there is evidence ofgrowing discrepancy between the formal rulesgoverning land use and the reality of everyday practice.Gerard Ward observed that informal deals over land arenow commonplace. Landowners who have customaryclaims to particular parts of a mataqali holding canobtain higher rents through such informal deals thanwhen the land is leased through the NLTB. They canalso eliminate the rental shares due to chiefs and canenter into lease arrangements for shorter periods thanthe NLTB would allow.42

PNG: Resistance to Land Registration

In PNG—with its large land mass on the mainisland and ample opportunities for plantationagriculture—there has been a series of efforts topromote land registration, including the registration of


customary lands on either an individual or collectivebasis. Yet, in a country with some 800 languagegroups, and where the most common landowninggroup is the clan, customary tenure continues tooperate on 97% of the land.

Early colonial land policies, while recognizing thebroad principle of native title, also promoted the forcedparticipation of indigenous Papuans in cash-cropfarming. Under the Native Plantations Ordinances of1918 and 1925, customary land areas could be declaredas Native Plantations, enabling compulsory forced laborunder official supervision.43 A Native Land RegistrationOrdinance of 1952 then provided for registration ofcustomary lands, with either communal or individualtitles of ownership, although no titles had beenregistered by the time this law was repealed in 1963.During the pre-independence period, Australian policywas to promote individual registered titles along thelines of the Australian Torrens system. An example wasthe Land (Tenure Conversion) Ordinance, 1963,providing for the registration of individual freehold titlesin customary land.

After PNG attained self-governance in 1973 andthen full independence in 1975, the tide shifted in formalterms toward greater recognition of customary landrights. The newly independent State was bound by itsConstitution to respect and safeguard customary formsof ownership. A Commission on land matters advocateda policy that built on the customary base of PNG society,avoiding the extremes of both collective and individualownership, and facilitating the spontaneous adaptationof customary tenures. An outcome was the Land GroupsIncorporation Act of 1974, providing for the registrationof group titles in the first instance. Land groups couldacquire or dispose of customary land or rights incustomary land, enter into agreements for land use andmanagement, and distribute any profits from the land.Land groups were to be governed by their own custom.They were required to adopt constitutions identifyingthe custom under which they should operate, but therewas no requirement for any written record. In otherwords, maximum flexibility was maintained for localgroups to manage their lands in accordance with theirown customs and traditions.

More recently the desire to stimulate commercialland use for both forestry and plantation developmenthas brought renewed pressures for land registrationprograms. A watershed was the World Bank-led Land

Mobilization Project of the early 1990s, which aimed topromote agricultural and forestry development throughmeasures including improved land administration. Oneanalyst observes that the “approach taken to customaryland registration under this project was ambivalent,” butthat certain measures were “effectively forindividualisation of customary tenure.”44 In any event,the proposals for land registration provoked seriousunrest in parts of the country and eventually persuadedthe Government to withdraw them.

No further attempts have been made since thento implement comprehensive land registrationprograms. However, the implications of customarytenure for agricultural productivity remain a source ofquite intensive debate. A substantial amount of cash-cropping, particularly coffee, and also commercialforestry take place on customary land. Customary tenureappears not to have impeded other commercialventures, for example mineral development, when therehave been satisfactory arrangements for participationin profits or compensation for damages.

Indeed—as observed earlier—negotiationsbetween local communities and large extractivecompanies appear to have given a new impetus to theconcept of “indigenous identity” in PNG.

Evolving Customary Tenure: The Caseof Samoa

Samoa provides an example of changing patternsof customary tenure, in accordance with demographictrends and development requirements. In formal terms,the vast majority of the land is held in inalienablecustomary tenure. The independence Constitution ofthe early 1960s prevented the permanent alienation ofsome 81% of the total land area, at the same timecreating a Land and Titles Court to deal with disputesover matai titles and customary land. Approximately15% of the land are classified as “public land,”consisting mainly of plantation lands under the controlof development corporations. The remaining 4% areheld under freehold tenure.

As in other parts of the Pacific, successivecolonial governments aimed to stimulate commercialagriculture through the promotion of individuallandownership. As of the late 19th century, British,American, and German colonial interests all acquiredsubstantial land areas for plantation development. In


the 1920s, the New Zealand colonial administrationthen tried without success to legislate a change toindividual land tenure, clearly undermining the powersof traditional chiefs. Under one proposal, the matai wasto be compelled to subdivide family lands for use byindividuals, and any uncultivated lands were to betransferred to district councils for redistribution.45 Suchattempts to introduce formal changes in land tenurewere a major factor behind the Samoan resistanceknown as the mau.

In the Samoan case—unlike that in some otherPacific islands—there can be no suggestion that pre-independence land tenure systems (or land allocationprocedures) were any kind of colonial creation. Thesurvival of customary tenure, closely linked totraditional forms of governance and resourceallocation, can instead be seen as a manifestation ofindigenous resistance to colonial pressures for landtenure reform. But the complex traditional systemshave since had to adapt to economic and social change.One author has documented a trend of “customaryindividualism,” in which individual families haveincreasingly been asserting rights over, and alsobequeathing, the farm plots used or cleared by them.46

Recent ADB analysis also observes that on-the-groundvillage practices have “for some time been divergingfrom what the court would regard as proper custom.”There has been a considerable degree ofindividualization.47

Because of these changes, it is becoming moredifficult to define exactly the nature of a “customaryland tenure institution.” In Samoa, “There is no writtenbody of law or even legal opinion covering customaryland and titles.”48 The Land and Titles Court has todeal with a myriad complex cases every year anddisputes over landownership are clearly quitefrequent. Where aiga clans have a great deal ofinfluence at the community level, the issue is oftenone of local control: “...even today some decisions ofthe Land and Titles Court are rejected by villagecommunities, and the national Government and policehave been unable to act.”49

For the future, a key issue is whether thecustomary tenure system as amended will be asignificant obstacle to commercial development,including the investments now being made by theSamoans resident overseas. The government’seconomic strategy has been to diversify agricultural

products for export as well as for domesticconsumption, together with increasing the output ofthe village agricultural sector.50 An ADB smallbusiness development project in Samoa, currentlyunder preparation, seeks reforms that includerevisions to existing registration procedures for customary land leases, with a view to simplifyingthese procedures to facilitate the more economic useof customary land. Under the project, the use ofcustomary land leases as security will be promotedamong finance institutions.51

Solomon Islands: Land Tensions andInterethnic Conflict

Throughout Solomon Islands, approximately 87%of the land are under customary tenure. The remaining13%, the alienated land, include the better coastal landand much of the land area that has been opened up forplantation agricultural development.

As elsewhere, early colonial policies had aimedto open up quite large land areas for commercialdevelopment by overseas corporations. Levers PacificPlantations Limited alone held claims to over 100,000hectares by 1914. But in the late colonial period, beforeindependence in 1978, steps were taken to passalienated freehold land back to customary tenure.Timber rights over customary land were leased, ratherthan purchased outright as under former forest policies,and several thousand hectares on Guadalcanal Islandwere returned to customary claimants in exchange forlong leases over the land areas taken up withcommercial crop production. A 1976 report of the SelectCommittee on Lands and Mining recommended that allrural land alienated before 1963 should be returned tothe descendants of its original customary owners. Since1977, the freehold lands previously owned by personswho were not Solomon islanders have been convertedinto government leases.52

The interethnic tensions since mid-1999, inparticular between the ethnic Guadalcanese and theMalaitans resident on Guadalcanal, have served todraw more attention to land disputes and claims. Theoriginal unrest has been attributed to frustration byGuadalcanal Provincial Assembly members over thegovernment’s failure to address grievances related toland dealings and interisland migration.53 IndigenousGuadalcanal villagers resent land acquisition by


migrants, in particular the Malaitans, whether or notthis occurred legally. Moreover, a breakdown ofcustomary patterns of land use and distribution amongthe ethnic Guadalcanese is seen as having contributedto the tensions. Guadalcanal males are known to havesold land in the vicinity of the capital city of Honiara topeople from other provinces, despite the traditionalmatrilineal practices of Guadalcanal society wherewomen are the custodians of the land. The land salesare reportedly resented by women and a youngergeneration of Guadalcanese who view them as a “saleof their birthright.”54 Other customary land, originallyappropriated by the colonial government, has been soldoff in more recent times without due regard for theeffects on indigenous communities.

For other analysts, the main issue is not theeconomic value of the land in dispute, but rather itssymbolic importance for the cultural integrity of theGuadalcanese people. In the words of two SolomonIslands authors:

From the viewpoint of Guadalcanal people,men, women and militants alike, land is not themain issue but is used to draw attention to theirreal grievance; the imposition on them of anotherisland’s traditions, customs and laws by settlerswho use the national constitution to justifyimposing their own ways and not respecting thecustoms and property of the host province.55

Thus, the recent unrest in Solomon Islands canbe attributed not so much to the tensions between“customary” and “individualizing western” forms ofland tenure—although this has been part of theproblem—as to the tensions between different formsof kastom among diverse islanders of this small nation.Proposed solutions have included customary landregistration; and the strengthening of customarylandowner associations to give them greater powersand control over the land, as well as greater communityinfluence in the affairs of their community and nation.56

As has also been recognized, the registration ofcustomary lands alone may pay little dividends unlessmore comprehensive support programs are envisaged.These would include development plans for thealienated lands returned to customary tenure, andtraining for landowners earning royalties from the useof their lands.

Vanuatu: A Radical Experiment inCustomary Tenure

Vanuatu, a country where there were substantialBritish- and French-owned land interests during thecolonial era, represents the most comprehensive effortto strengthen customary tenure after independence.Under the new Constitution, all land belonged tocustom owners unless acquired by the Government inthe public interest. Approximately 20% of the landreverted to customary ownership at that time. To dealwith the often difficult issue of identifying the truecustom owners, island courts were established toarbitrate on customary land matters. Governmentconsent is also required for land transactions betweencustom owners and other persons wishing to acquireland.

In rural areas and remote islands, thestrengthening of customary tenure has had to takeaccount of Vanuatu’s extraordinary cultural diversity.Although land disputes are to be settled in the village orisland courts presided over by the custom chiefs, therecan be very wide discrepancies between the customaryland tenure systems of the different communities. Thereare reports of protracted disputes, the solution of whichis not helped by the absence of chiefly authority systemsbeyond the local level. Courts have also been slow toarbitrate when land cases have been appealed. Stepshave now been taken to establish a land tribunal to dealwith customary land disputes with the assistance ofcustom chiefs.

Federated States of Micronesia:Indigenous Systems, Land Leases, andPrivate Sector Development

Land issues are unusually complex in the FSM,as a federation of the four states of Truk, Kosrae,Pohnpei, and Yap with their separate land tenurearrangements. There are nevertheless some broadsimilarities. The FSM Constitution forbidslandownership by foreigners and even by domesticcorporations that have nonFSM citizens among theirshareholders. Foreigners can lease land, currently witha maximum lease period of 25 years. Group andcommunal ownership of land is prevalent throughoutthe FSM. Moreover, there are differences concerningrights of land transfer within the FSM. In Truk, Kosrae,


and Yap, land can be transferred by law to all FSMcitizens. In Pohnpei, it can only be transferred topersons from that island.

Some of the main current concerns andsignificant interisland differences have been reviewedin a recent ADB program of technical assistance forprivate sector development.57 The limited land area inthe FSM, growing population, and increasingintegration with the market economy are placingincreasing pressure on the traditions of ownership, andhighlight the need for improved security of rights and ofland management and administration. Landownershiphas traditionally been reserved for inheritance within afamily or clan, and many land parcels continue to haveextended family or clan authority over use and alienationrights. Most lands are nevertheless occupied by privateland holders, influenced to varying degrees by customaryland tenure systems. Most privately held land has notbeen surveyed, mapped, registered, or titled.

Cadastral and registration programs have beenundertaken in each of the states with varying effects.In the main island of Yap, less than 10% of the landhave been registered and titled since a cadastralprogram commenced some 30 years ago. Truk andKosrae have made more progress in the initialdetermination of land parcels, although there is asubstantial backlog in the land parcels to be surveyedand mapped, and many outstanding disputes.Pohnpei appears to have made the greatest progressin the cadastral survey of private lands. Altogether,there appears to be growing acceptance that systemsfor determining landownership now requireimprovement to facilitate better land use anddevelopment.

The main challenge has been to devise aculturally acceptable means of promoting longer-termland leasing and mortgaging as an alternative to theuse of freeholds, which can only be owned by FSMcitizens. The challenges have been addressed in somerecent ADB technical assistance, as will be discussedfurther below.

Gender Dimensions

Any review of indigenous land tenure systemswould be incomplete without a discussion of the genderdimensions. Women have traditionally provided much

of the labor in subsistence agriculture. There areconcerns that women have suffered from recentchanges in land tenure and inheritance arrangements.Where cultures have been matrilineal, women haveenjoyed considerable influence over land distributionunder customary arrangements. There are cases wherecustomary land tenure systems recognize rights forwomen over paternal lands until the time of theirmarriage, and these rights can even be transferredwhen they move to their husband’s village orlandowning units. The introduction of individual formsof ownership, or the expansion of commercialagriculture, has tended to prejudice the traditional landrights of women. Widows in particular, as in otherdeveloping regions, have lost land security through theintroduction of registered forms of ownership.

Such concerns have been highlighted in severalcase studies on gender in development carried out byADB in different Pacific countries. In Kiribati, forexample, where women were traditionally able to ownand inherit land through the collective systems offamily-based land tenure, their rights neverthelesstended to be inferior to those of male family members.Codification of land laws has exacerbated genderinequalities, which have taken on greater significancein the context of present-day circumstances of growingland pressure and scarcity, and urban poverty. Problemsof landlessness have been detected in regions, such asSouth Tarawa, where land is scarce and of high value.A rising incidence of divorce has also added to theprecarious situation of women, especially if they haveno access to natal family land.58 Similarly, in theMarshall Islands, the commercialization of land has hada negative impact on women. In the past, matrilinealland traditions provided women with a firm economicbase, with security and a measure of economic power.As they have lost their traditional rights to land, theyhave increasingly tended to take land disputes to court.59

A recent ADB study60 observes that Tonga is the onlyPacific Island country in which land legislation expresslydiscriminates against women. While all land belongsconstitutionally to the King, Tongan men enjoy rightsover both town and country allotments. Women’s landrights are both circumscribed and indirect, theirinheritance rights being limited to temporary ones inthe event of all male lineage members dying out, andsuccession rights for widows until their death. Thereare concerns that gender inequalities in the Tongan land


tenure system assume more significance in the contextof land shortages in Tonga and the requirements foraccessing development loans. Women’s groups are also

concerned at the disadvantages for them of presentarrangements in view of the increasing opportunitiesto plant commercial crops.

Ethnicity and Poverty 25

INTRODUCTION1

T his chapter examines the relevance of theabove analyses for ADB operations in thePacific. First, it reviews some of the relevant

experience to date and the attention that has been givento indigenous or ethnic concerns in program and policyinterventions. This does not pretend to be acomprehensive analysis of ADB operations in thePacific—a theme that would be well beyond the scopeof the present study. It aims only to illustrate the way inwhich indigenous and ethnic concerns have beenaddressed in key strategy documents on povertyreduction and a limited range of program interventions.Second, it looks forward, asking whether the“indigenous paradigm” might be a useful entry point forfuture interventions.

PAST EXPERIENCE

Policy on Indigenous Peoples andSociocultural Issues

Although ADB’s 1998 Policy on Indigenous Peoplesis seen as potentially applicable to the Pacific region, therehave so far been no attempts to disseminate, discuss, orimplement it. Officials of ADB’s Office of PacificOperations (now Pacific Department) tended not to befamiliar with the policy and its implications, either atheadquarters or in the Vanuatu regional office. Thus, thepolicy as such has not been the entry point for any ADBanalysis, technical assistance, policy advice, or projectinterventions.

At the same time, the importance of culturalvalues and institutions is quite widely recognized inADB’s overall strategy documents, as well as in itscommissioned analytical research. There has been

general research into the implications of socioculturalissues for economic development.61 The roleof traditional institutions has been discussed incountry-specific analysis concerning gender anddevelopment.62 There has been considerable generalanalysis of land concerns, but this has tended not toenter into analytical depth concerning customarypractices or attempted to assess the changes sinceindependence in customary forms of land tenure asthey may relate to poverty reduction and generaleconomic development strategies.63

Strategy for the Pacific: OverallApproaches to Poverty Reduction

ADB’s most recent Pacific strategy64 refers to thesociocultural context, including the implications fortribally based cultures of modernization andglobalization, and the complexities of traditionallandownership. On the first issue, the strategy containscertain criticisms of a value system that elevates tribaland family allegiances above all else:

While this value system has served the Pacificpeople well over time, it also influences thesecountries’ economies in particular ways as theymodernize and adopt global trends. The tribalsystem influences the stability of governments(particularly when governments are formed not onthe basis of policy mandates but on tribalallegiances), the openness of governments toexternal investments, the ability of externalinvestors to access land for commercial operations,the capacity of indigenous entrepreneurs to initiateand manage successful businesses while copingwith extended family demands, and the ability of

PRACTICAL CONCERNS FORTHE ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK5


staff to reliably give time to employment rather thanfamily matters.

Despite certain caveats and implicit criticisms, theADB strategy does not suggest that there should be aconcerted effort to change these sociocultural traditions.Rather, it observes that:

Many traditions are extremely valuable evenfrom an economic point of view, particularly toprotect natural resources and provide socialsecurity safety nets. Their influence in addressingthe major development challenges is real andsignificant. This needs to be recognized in thedevelopment of strategic approaches to enhancedevelopment in the Pacific.

With specific regard to poverty reductionstrategies, some similar concerns have been raised inADB’s more recent analysis. One key factor behind theperceived increase in the incidence and severity ofpoverty throughout the Pacific is seen as the breakdownin traditional support systems, as the economies becomeincreasingly monetized and under the pressure ofincreasing population growth. One sign of this is thattraditional reciprocity systems and social safety nets areno longer truly comprehensive, in that many personsare not part of the system for reasons of ethnicbackground or local culture, have lived away from theirtraditional land for generations, and may find it difficultto call upon their traditional rights.65

Common themes throughout the islands have beenprivate sector development, reform and downsizing ofthe public sector, reducing the role of government inbusiness activities, and generally reforming economicmanagement in order to increase competitiveness. Therehas been some emphasis on health and education. Futureenvisaged strategies aim to continue the emphasis oneconomic, governance, and public sector reform; onprivate sector development; and on mainstreaminggender issues. Poverty reduction is to be a unifying theme,with special consideration given to the needs of the poorand vulnerable populations living on remote islands.Fragile environments are to be supported actively throughpolicy support and investments. Supporting strategicobjectives include capacity building, infrastructuredevelopment, financial sector development, andsupporting the role of civil society.

Customary institutions, values, and practices arevery often seen as a constraint to private sectordevelopment. An example is a recent study on financialsector development.66 Among the reasons put forwardfor a “difficult investment climate” are the “culturalissues that inhibit entrepreneurial drive” and which“through dissipation of the assets, often lead to thefailure of businesses run by indigenous peoples.” In thissame study, particular attention is given to customaryland issues, discussed below.

Customary Land Issues

ADB has given considerable attention tocustomary land issues, both in its general analysis forthe PDMCs and in policy interventions and advice inindividual countries. The main overall concern has beenthe constraints that traditional land tenure arrangementsconstitute for private sector development. The recentPacific strategy, for example, expresses the long-heldconcerns that access to land, so critical to privateinvestment, is substantially influenced by local custom:

Most land remains under complex traditionalownership structures that do not provide formalownership but provide access to land for family andcommunity members. This prevents the use of landas collateral for credit. However, with ruralpopulations growing there is not enough landavailable for subsistence living. Rural people needto move into the cash economy and to bringcustomary lands into the cash economy. In additionto constraining land structures, cultural andreligious obligations in the PDMCs affect theviability of businesses or the ability to handle casheconomy-type transactions.

The recent ADB study on financial sectordevelopment highlights the land issue and makesrecommendations for reform. Land tenure is singled outas one of the main reasons for a difficult investmentclimate. It recommends that governments review thepossibility of amending their relevant land acts to enablecustomary lands to be mortgaged or leased for businessand commercial purposes, or to enact legislation toauthorize the conversion of customary land to a formof freehold that could be mortgaged or leased. It

Practical Concerns for the Asian Development Bank 27

recommends furthermore that some PDMCs take thenecessary steps to remedy the uncertainty concerningthe ownership and boundaries of customary lands,which hampers their mortgaging and leasing. Actionsin these areas should emerge from a process ofconsultation with all stakeholders. Finally, it suggeststhat PDMC governments should establish a nonpoliticalpublic agency to manage customary lands, or at leastto supervise and facilitate their management.

Of the individual PDMCs, land tenure issues havefigured in ADB’s policy dialogue and programdevelopment in Samoa and the FSM. In Samoa, theyhave been addressed quite extensively in the context ofa loan and technical assistance grant for small businessdevelopment. The project, the main intendedbeneficiaries of which are from the rural sector,envisages reforms to promote the more economic useof customary land. Under the project’s assurances, aworking group is to formulate a pilot scheme to free upcustomary land for commercial activities in designatedareas. In the longer term, the Government is toundertake a comprehensive review of its laws relatingto land. However, the approach taken is a cautious andincremental one, aiming to introduce individualsmallholdings on a limited and pilot scale withoutchallenging the overall basis of communal land tenure.The project recognizes that issues relating to theeconomic use of customary land are sensitive and areunlikely to be resolved fully within the five years ofproject implementation.

In the FSM, land issues have been addressed insome detail through a technical assistance project,preparing a loan for private sector development. Thecontext, as seen earlier, is fairly similar to that inSamoa. With growing population pressures andincreased market integration, the slow process of landregistration is seen as an impediment to the improvedutilization and development of land. Severalconsultancies identified the “barriers” to opening upthe land system. In particular, one legal consultantidentified the options for long-term land leasing andleasehold mortgaging. The investment project hasbroad-ranging objectives, to establish a soundinfrastructure for land records and managementconsistent with private landownership and thedevelopment of markets in land and real estate rights.

The FSM technical assistance also sought to assessthe likely impact of the investment project on poverty

reduction. As is argued, the maintenance oflandownership within the traditional family clan orstructure and the uncertainty of land-use rights haveconsiderably limited the efficient and effective use ofland, and in some cases aggravated the exploitation ofweaker members of society. Thus, a key objective ofthe investment project is to clarify and secure land rights,to increase the possibility of land being used where theexpected economic and social returns are higher for bothindividuals and the community. While the program doesnot foresee any negative effects of improved landadministration on the poor, it will not necessarily leadto increased land distribution to the poor. However, themore productive use of land resulting from registrationand titling should directly benefit small landowners andthe entire community including the landless, throughthe anticipated increase in incomes. In the longer term,the new land arrangements should enable the landlessto purchase lease rights on land, thereby improving theireconomic and social conditions.

PROSPECTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Applying the Asian Development BankPolicy on Indigenous Peoples

It would be highly unwise to embrace artificiallythe issues of indigenous identity and indigenousinstitutions, simply because an ADB policy has beenadopted on the subject. Moreover, a large part of ADB’spolicy—notably those aspects that deal with indigenouspeoples as vulnerable groups, marginalized from theremainder of society—is quite clearly not applicable tothe Pacific context. The “indigenous paradigm” can alsobe highly divisive in such political and demographiccontexts as the Fiji Islands, where the promotion ofspecial rights and privileges for one ethnic group are atrisk of constituting discrimination in violation ofinternationally recognized human rights standards.

Thus, it is important to identify where and in whatcircumstances the indigenous and ethnic minorityconcepts can be of potential relevance to ADB’s strategicthinking and practical operations. It is also importantto consider what kind of intervention is most useful toaddress these issues. Are there circumstances whereindigenous/ethnic minority issues should be part of the


overall policy dialogue with governments? Are therearguments for providing specific support for indigenousinstitutions, as part of capacity building and support forcivil society and nongovernment organizations? Arethere issues that merit further analysis and research,perhaps through a regional technical assistance programof activities? In its general project preparation, mightADB refine its consultative procedures to ensure thatrepresentative indigenous authorities and institutionsare more involved in project and program selection andmonitoring? The following section discusses these andrelated issues.

Where are Indigenous IssuesMost Relevant?

The question of institutional relevance has to beaddressed in two different ways. First, where can weusefully identify indigenous and ethnic minoritypopulations, as target groups for operational purposes?Second, when and how should attention be given toindigenous institutions?

On the first point, there are some (admittedly few)ethnic minority groups that may be in need of specialprotection and attention. They have been identified inearlier sections in various islands. They are at risk ofdisproportionate poverty. Project preparation shouldgive special attention to them, in particular as newpoverty-oriented interventions focus on remote areasand outer islands. A small regional technical assistance,covering five or six PMDCs, could cover their numbers,location, socioeconomic situation, institutions ofgovernance, degree of interaction with wider society,and major concerns.

The far more important point is the so-called “clashof cultures” between the traditional, indigenous orcustomary institutions of the Pacific, and those of thewestern-oriented models of social and economicdevelopment. This is a matter of crucial importance forall aspects of governance, including economicmanagement. It will surely be impossible to design andimplement effective poverty reduction programs withadequate civil society and local participation, unless ADBgives full attention to these concerns in their futureprogram and policy interventions.

These issues have been addressed tangentiallyin several ADB reports and publications. However, the

findings appear often to be based more on assumptionsthan on empirical research and analysis. Moreover, itis assumed that indigenous institutions of governanceor land tenure are largely static, rather than adaptingto economic and social change. Further, there is atendency to perceive these institutions as some formof constraint—which have to be accepted, because ofthe degree of legitimacy that they appear to enjoy fromlocal societies—rather than as entities that might beencouraged and supported as positive partners in thedevelopment process.

The difficult issue, in multi-island states with verydiverse linguistic and other cultural traditions, is howto build on local value systems and institutions in orderto foster a wider sense of national identity. ThePolynesian islands are usually seen more as “successstories” because of the homogeneity of their languages,cultures, and institutions of local governance, whichhas perhaps made it easier to find the right mix ofnational elected institutions and local-level institutions.In Melanesian societies, this has proved much moredifficult; the problems of governance are now becomingso serious as to threaten national stability.

With the new emphasis on governance, localparticipation, and capacity building, the questions arewhether ADB and its PDMCs wish to address issuesof this nature in future technical assistance or evenloan operations. The references cited earlier in thispaper to the views echoed recently by Pacific leadersin their summit meetings and other high-level fora,suggest that these are indeed critical issues of highpolitical priority. Security, governance, law and order,and national cohesion are at the top of nationalagendas, at least in Melanesia, and the land tenureissue cuts across all of them. In Vanuatu, for example,a key aspect of the ADB program has been its supportfor the Comprehensive Reform Program (CRP)introduced in 1998 to improve efficiency in publicsector and economic management. One achievementof the CRP has been strong public participation in thereform process and a convergence of local ownershiparound the key theme of improved governance. Withinthis process, attention has also been paid to the roleof traditional institutions in governance. Indeed, therecent policy dialogue carried out under the CRP inVanuatu illustrates well how the role of chiefly andcustomary institutions can be addressed in a reformprocess of this kind.


Customary Land Rights

The portrayal of customary tenure models assubsistence or nonmarket institutions, as opposed towestern models, can be erroneous. Most informedanalysis demonstrates that Pacific islandersparticipate actively in the market economy, includingcommercial production for export, once given theopportunities. There are many examples of suchcommercial ventures on customary lands. But thereare huge differences between the experience of PNG,where local communities can negotiate directly withoverseas investors, and the more bureaucraticarrangements in the Fiji Islands where the NLTBassumes the right to represent indigenous interests.All of this suggests that a concerted effort would nowbe useful in order to examine ways in which villagecommunities can participate more actively in marketproduction without undermining their customarytenure.

A recent paper for the Pacific Forum Secretariat67

has aimed to identify the characteristics of a good landpolicy adapted to the present-day market environment.There has to be room for private sector initiatives,allowing for security of investment, a transparentprocess of land registration as appropriate, and fastand effective mechanisms for dispute resolution. Butgroup ownership needs to be recognized, access to landis required for traditional purposes, and some definedareas of land with particular spiritual importance needto be protected. As a general point, indigenouscommunities as landowners need to be directly andsystematically included in discussions on issuesrelating to their land.

As land tenure systems evolve, this final principleis arguably the most important. If local communitiesneed access to credit and other inputs, and if theyactively seek greater market integration, they will mostlikely display an interest in adapting their traditionalland tenure systems to the modern marketenvironment. There may be conflicts of interest,including gender and intergenerational differences, andsome new pressures from Pacific islanders residentabroad who are keen to invest their overseas earnings.But it is important to understand that traditionalsystems can adapt to modernization, if the groundworkis done carefully and in full consultation with localcommunities.

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

Applying the Asian Development BankPolicy on Indigenous Peoples

The existing policy may not be the most usefulstarting point for ADB operations in the Pacific, as theytouch upon the concerns of indigenous institutionsaddressed in this paper. It is unlikely that specificprojects would need, or benefit from, an indigenouspeoples’ development plan. While this can be a usefultool in the Asian context, where indigenous peoplesare more likely to comprise vulnerable minorities inneed of special protection, it would rarely be so in thePacific. However, it is still important that the policy bebetter known among Pacific Island governments andADB’s constituents. It may be advisable to hold aseminar on these issues in the near future, examiningthe relevance of the Policy on Indigenous Peoples tothe economic and social context in different parts ofthe Pacific. At the very least, such an interchange mightserve to strengthen the present policy and to identifyaspects that can be of operational relevance. It is alsoimportant to identify where vulnerable ethniccommunities exist in specific islands and to examinethrough participatory consultations the problems theymay have in benefiting from mainstream developmentprograms and institutions.

Addressing Indigenous Institutions ofGovernance

It is important to take stock of the diversetraditional institutions of governance, including thechiefly systems, and of their potential role indevelopment and poverty reduction programs. Thisseems of most importance in Melanesia. Improvedconsultation with these institutions at various levelswould facilitate the design of more effective povertyreduction programs, particularly in remote areas. It isimportant to identify in more detail than has at presentbeen the case how these institutions are changing, howthey are adapting to the challenges of modernization,how they interact with national institutions, and whattheir potential role can be in conflict resolution. Anobjective of an initial research or technical assistance


program could be to identify mechanisms forconsulting with traditional authorities in the design,implementation, and monitoring of poverty reductionprograms.

Land Tenure Concerns

While ADB has on many occasions addressedland tenure issues in the Pacific, it has done so with aparticular focus. The entry point has often been toassume that traditional systems are a constraint toefficiency and productive development, and thus toadvocate their reform. There has been little attempt tounderstand the actual working of customary regimes,their evolution over time, and the scope for devisingpoverty reduction strategies on the basis of customarytenure regimes. A better understanding of these issuesand of the cultural differences within the region wouldgreatly assist future ADB policy and programinterventions. Better understanding would allow us toidentify the conditions under which certain incrementalreforms may be advisable, for example, wherelandlessness is increasing and traditional forms ofdispute resolution are no longer operating effectively.Analytical work of this nature is necessary before ADBcan envisage or promote more comprehensive reformssuch as the creation of new entities to managecustomary land.

It is proposed that ADB now undertake a series ofstudies on customary land tenure issues that are linkedto operational concerns. For example, the issuesdiscussed earlier in this paper can have relevance forADB interventions such as its infrastructure projects,which deal with land acquisition. The gender dimensionsalso require more systematic analysis in the light ofcurrent trends toward commercial land use, so that clearpolicy advice can be given as to how to improvewomen’s land security through law and administrativereforms, legal literacy programs, or other measures toimprove women’s participation in the benefits ofeconomic and social development.

Moreover, where incremental reforms areintroduced with the aim of increasing agriculturalefficiency or promoting greater access of the landless toland parcels, the impact on poverty reduction needs tobe evaluated with great care. As ADB is now promotingcertain reforms or improvements of this nature inindividual countries, it would be advised to demonstratethe impact on poverty reduction through longitudinalstudies with community participation over a fixed periodof time. Such studies would need to be widelydisseminated and discussed. Otherwise, ADB and otherexternal actors would run the risk of being perceived asagencies that promote private sector development andinvestment for its own sake, with insufficient regard forthe longstanding cultural institutions and values of thePacific islanders concerned.


ADB (Asian Development Bank). 1991. Women in Development: Republic of the Marshall Islands.ADB, Manila.

. 1993. Women in Development: Federated States of Micronesia. ADB, Manila.

. 1995. Women in Development: Kiribati. ADB, Manila.

. 1996. Sociocultural Issues and Economic Development in the Pacific Islands. ADB, Manila.

. 1998a. Improving Growth Prospects in the Pacific. Pacific Studies Series, ADB, Manila.

. 1998b. Women in Tonga. ADB, Manila.

. 1999. Republic of the Fiji Islands 1999 Economic Report. Pacific Studies Series, ADB,Manila.

. 2000. Federated States of Micronesia, Country Assistance Plan, 2001-2003. ADB, Manila.

. 2001a. Poverty Reduction Strategies for Pacific DMCs. ADB, Manila (RETA 5907).Unpublished document.

. 2001b. Financial Sector Development in the Pacific Developing Member Countries. ADB,Manila.

. 2001c. A Pacific Strategy for the New Millennium. ADB, Manila.

Connell, J. 2000. World Directory of Minorities. Minority Rights Group, London.

Douglas, B. (ed.). 2000. Women and Governance from the Grassroots in Melanesia. DiscussionPaper 00/2, Australian National University, Canberra.

Filer, C. 1999. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Mining, ‘Indigenous People’ and theDevelopment of States. In: Entwicklungs-POLITIK, Frankfurt.

Fingleton, J.S. 1998. Legal Recognition of Indigenous Groups, FAO Legal Papers Online. FAO,Rome.

Government of Fiji and UNDP. 1997. Fiji Poverty Report. Suva, April.

Hooper, A. 1998. Pacific Islands Stakeholder Participation in Development: Samoa. World Bank,Pacific Islands Discussion Paper Series Number 3, East Asia and Pacific Region.

Hughes, A.V. 1999. Solomon Islands: The Guadalcanal Insurgency and the Policy andStructural Reform Programme. Unpublished paper.

James, K. 1997. Rank and Leadership in Tonga. In: Geoffrey White and Lamont Lindstrom(eds.), Chiefs Today: Traditional Pacific Leadership and the Postcolonial State. StanfordUniversity Press, Stanford.

Kabutaulaka, Tarcisius Tara. 2000. Beyond Ethnicity: Understanding the Crisis in the SolomonIslands, Pacific News Bulletin, May.

Kudu, D. 2000. An Overview of Structural and Development Issues related to the EthnicConflict in the Solomon Islands. Unpublished paper.

Lawson, S. 1997. Chiefs in Contemporary Fiji. In: Geoffrey White and Lamont Lindstrom(eds.), Chiefs Today: Traditional Pacific Leadership and the Postcolonial State. StanfordUniversity Press, Stanford.

Liloqula, R., and A. Pollard. 2000. Understanding the Conflict in the Solomon Islands as aPractical Means to Peacemaking. In: Conflict and Peacemaking in the Pacific.Development Bulletin No. 53, October, Canberra.

BIBLIOGRAPHY


Norton, R. 2000. Reconciling Ethnicity and Nation: Contending Discourses in Fiji’sConstitutional Reform. The Contemporary Pacific 12(1), Spring.

O’Meara, J.T. 1987. Samoa: Customary Individualism. In: Land Tenure in the Pacific. Universityof the South Pacific, Fiji Islands.

Plant, R. 1998. Issues in Indigenous Poverty and Development. Inter-American DevelopmentBank, Washington, DC.

Plant, R., and S. Hvalkof. 2001. Land Titling and Indigenous Peoples. Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank, Washington DC.

Psacharapoulos, G., and H.A. Patrinos. 1994. Indigenous People and Poverty in Latin America:An Empirical Analysis. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Ratuva, S. 2,000. The Failed Rebel Coup in Fiji. University of the South Pacific. Mimeo.

Scheffler, H., and P. Larmour. 1987. Solomon Islands: Evolving a New Custom. In: LandTenure in the Pacific. University of the South Pacific, Fiji Islands.

Schoeffel, P. 1996. Sociocultural Issues and Economic Development in the Pacific Islands. PacificStudies Series, ADB, Manila.

So’o, Asofou. 2000. Civil and Political Liberty: The Case of Samoa. In: Elise Huffer and AsofouSo’o (eds.), Governance in Samoa. Asia Pacific Press, University of the South Pacific,Fiji Islands; and Australian National University, Canberra.

UNDP. 1998. Samoa: A Situation Analysis of Human Development. UNDP, Apia, in cooperationwith the Government of Samoa.

. 1999. Pacific Human Development Report 1999: Creating Opportunities. UNDP, NewYork.

Va’a, Unasa. 2000. Local government in Samoa and the search for balance. In: Elise Hufferand Asofou So’o (Editors), Governance in Samoa. Asia Pacific Press, Institute of PacificStudies, University of South Pacific, Fiji Islands.

Wanek, A. 1996. The Modern State and its Enemies in Papua New Guinea. Nordic Institute ofAsian Studies, Monograph Series No. 68. Curzon Press Ltd., Richmond, UK.

Ward, R.G. 1998. Land Tenure in the Pacific Islands. In: Resettlement Policy and Practice inSoutheast Asia and the Pacific. ADB, Manila.

. 2000. Dilemmas in Pacific Island Land Tenure. Dialogue 20(3):16-22.

White, G.M. 1997. Discourse of Chiefs in the Solomon Islands. In: Geoffrey White and LamontLindstrom (eds.), Chiefs Today: Traditional Pacific Leadership and the Postcolonial State.Stanford University Press, Stanford.


ENDNOTES

1 Cook Islands, Fiji Islands, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia,Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

2 The report is based mainly on discussions with governments and other concernedstakeholders in Fiji Islands, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu; and with governments,academic and policy institutions, Pacific islanders, and other informants in Australia,New Zealand, and Hawaii. Several weeks were also spent at ADB’s headquarters todiscuss the issues with relevant project and program officers and to review loan andstrategy documents. While only a limited number of PDMCs could be visited inconnection with the study, every attempt has been made to consider the issues inother countries, and as far as possible to make the study of general application to thePacific region. Thus, in Australia, New Zealand, and Hawaii, particular attention wasgiven to meeting informed persons from Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, andthe Micronesian islands, and academic and policy specialists on these countries.

3 Cited from Communique, Sixth Pacific Islands Conference of Leaders, Pacific IslandsDevelopment Program, Honolulu, Hawaii, 30-31 January 2001.

4 Biketawa Declaration, Kiribati, 28 October 2000.

5 Ward (2000).

6 Pacific Forum Regional Security Meeting, 13-15 July 2000.

7 Pacific Forum Foreign Affairs Ministers Meeting, 10-11 August 2000.

8 See preliminary reports under RETA 5907, “Poverty Reduction Strategies for PacificDMCs.” ADB (2001).

9 This chapter draws heavily on the section on Oceania in Connell (2000).

10 ADB (1993).

11 ADB (2000).

12 Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs (2000).

13 Filer (1999).

14 Liloqula and Pollard (2000).

15 During conversations with the consultant, some Australian governmentrepresentatives in Canberra insisted that Solomon Islands’ conflict should not beinterpreted strictly speaking as an ethnic one, and that more attention should begiven to underlying economic factors.

16 Kabutaulaka (2000).

17 Psacharapoulos and Patrinos (1994).

18 Plant (1998).

19 See preliminary reports in ADB (2001b).

20 UNDP (1999).

21 Government of the Fiji Islands and UNDP (1997).

22 James (1997).

23 Hooper (1998).


24 UNDP (1998).

25 So’o, Asofou (2000).

26 Of the 12 high chiefs who signed the Deed of Cession, 11 were from eastern FijiIslands, where the style of chiefly rule apparently coincided most easily with Britishhierarchical notions of government. For more details see Lawson (1997).

27 Ratuva (2000).

28 ADB (1999).

29 Norton (2000).

30 White (1997).

31 See, for example, Wanek (1996).

32 Connell (2000).

33 Kudu (2000).

34 This point is being addressed in the research of the Australian National University’sState, Society and Governance in Melanesia project. See in particular Douglas (2000).

35 ADB (1993).

36 For more details, see Plant and Hvalkof (2001).

37 ADB (2001c).

38 ADB (2000).

39 Schoeffel (1996).

40 Ward (1998).

41 ADB (1999).

42 Ward (1998).

43 Fingleton (1998).

44 Fingleton (1998).

45 Va’a (2000).

46 O’Meara (1987).

47 Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on a ProposedTechnical Assistance Grant to the State of Samoa for the Small Business DevelopmentProject (RRP: SAM 33167). ADB, Manila, October 2000.

48 O’Meara (1987).

49 ADB (1998).

50 Government of Samoa. “Statement of Economic Strategy, 2001-2001.”

51 Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on a ProposedTechnical Assistance Grant to the State of Samoa for the Small Business DevelopmentProject (RRP: SAM 33167). ADB, Manila, October 2000.

52 Scheffler and Larmour (1987).

53 Hughes (1999).

54 Kabutaulaka (2000).

55 Liloqula and Pollard (2000).

56 Kudu (2000).

Endnotes 35

57 See Draft Final Report of the Project Preparation Technical Assistance Team on aProposed Loan to the Federated States of Micronesia for Private Sector Development(TA No. 32768-FSM). ADB, Manila, May 2000.

58 ADB (1995).

59 ADB (1991).

60 ADB (1998b).

61 See in particular ADB (1996).

62 The issues have been discussed in ADB country briefing papers on Women andDevelopment in Pacific islands including Fiji Islands, Kiribati, FSM, and Tonga. The1993 study on Women in Development in the FSM has a particularly well informedanalysis of culture, history, and gender concerns, examining the differences in theisland states of Truk, Kosrae, Pohnpei, and Yap.

63 The chapter on Land Tenure in the PDMCs in ADB (1998a) reviews the main policyconcerns and dilemmas, and sets out some proposals for future strategies. It examinesthe continuity and adaptation of traditional precedents. It warns against the pitfallsof land registration programs; and advises generally that measures are needed tofacilitate the passing of costs of administration of land tenure regimes morerealistically on to those who own, lease, or otherwise benefit from the land.

64 ADB (2001c).

65 ADB (2001a).

66 ADB (2001b).

67 Land Issues in the Pacific. Pacific Forum Economic Ministers Meeting, Rarotonga,Cook Islands, 19-20 June 2001.

Annex 37

ANNEXTHE ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK’S POLICY ON

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

Annex 39

INTRODUCTION

Indigenous peoples can be regarded as one ofthe largest vulnerable segments of society. Whilediffering significantly in terms of culture, identity,

economic systems, and social institutions, indigenouspeoples as a whole most often reflect specificdisadvantages in terms of social indicators, economicstatus, and quality of life. Indigenous peoples often arenot able to participate equally in development processesand share in the benefits of development, and often arenot adequately represented in national, social,economic, and political processes that directdevelopment. While constituting a relatively small partof the population of ADB’s region, indigenous peoplesand their potential vulnerability must be regarded assignificant in ADB’s development efforts andinterventions.

It is neither desirable nor possible to insulate orexclude indigenous peoples from development. Likedominant or mainstream populations—the group orgroups in a country that are politically, economically, andculturally most powerful—indigenous peoples havedevelopmental aspirations. However, indigenous peoplesmay not benefit from development programs designedto meet the needs and aspirations of dominant ormainstream populations, and may not be given theopportunity to participate in the planning of suchdevelopment. There is increasing concern in theinternational development community that indigenouspeoples be afforded opportunities to participate in andbenefit from development equally with other segmentsof society, and have a role and be able to participate inthe design of development interventions that affect them.

The legislation and policies of most membercountries of ADB recognize indigenous peoples ascitizens. In practice, however, indigenous peoples oftenexperience disadvantage in interaction with dominantand mainstream populations, especially as relates todevelopment. Beyond not benefiting from developmentor participating in the planning of development,

indigenous peoples can be disadvantaged by loss ofaccess to ancestral lands and the natural resources andother sources of income contained in these lands; lossof culture, social structures, and institutions; loss ofindigenous knowledge; loss of recognition as indigenouspeoples; and a lack of opportunities for effectiveparticipation in national, political, and economicprocesses. Lack of participation in developmentcombined with the loss of access to land and resourceshave in many cases marginalized indigenous peoples.In some extreme cases, indigenous peoples havesuffered physical oppression. In a few cases, indigenouscultures have disintegrated or disappeared.

In its operations, ADB recognizes and respects thesovereignty of its member countries, including nationallegislation and policy relating to indigenous peoples.However, at the same time, ADB recognizes aresponsibility for ensuring equality of opportunity forindigenous peoples and that its operations andassistance in its developing member countries (DMCs)do not negatively affect the welfare and interests ofindigenous peoples. If an ADB intervention does affectindigenous peoples negatively, adequate measures mustbe taken to mitigate the negative impact, or make certainthat a compensation plan ensuring that project-affectedpeople are as well off with the project as without it, isprepared and implemented.

ADB’s Policy on Indigenous Peoples definesapproaches that recognize the circumstances ofindigenous peoples and that identify measures towardsatisfying the needs and developmental aspirations ofindigenous peoples. The policy focuses on theparticipation of indigenous peoples in development andthe mitigation of undesired effects of development. Thepolicy provides a working definition of indigenouspeoples to apply to ADB operations. The policy alsoaddresses laws and international conventions that applyand practices of comparator institutions. Finally, thepolicy presents a set of objectives and operationalapproaches and procedures and considers theorganizational implications of a formal ADB policyaddressing indigenous peoples.

THE ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK’S POLICY ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES


DEFINITION OF INDIGENOUSPEOPLES

Developing a single, specific definition oridentification for indigenous peoples would be difficult.Within the Asian and Pacific region, individualindigenous peoples’ communities reflect tremendousdiversity in their cultures, histories, and currentcircumstances. Country by country, the relationshipsbetween indigenous peoples and dominant ormainstream groups of society vary.

From the perspective of developing a workingdefinition of indigenous peoples for use in ADBoperations, several aspects must be considered. Astarting point would be to define indigenous peopleson the basis of characteristics they display. Twosignificant characteristics would be

• descent from population groups present in a givenarea, most often before modern states orterritories were created and before modernborders were defined;

• maintenance of cultural and social identities; andsocial, economic, cultural, and politicalinstitutions separate from mainstream ordominant societies and cultures. In some cases,over recent centuries, tribal groups or culturalminorities have migrated into areas to which theyare not indigenous, but have established apresence and continue to maintain a definite andseparate social and cultural identity and relatedsocial institutions. In such cases, the secondidentifying characteristic would carry greaterweight.

Additional characteristics often ascribed toindigenous peoples include

• self-identification and identification by others asbeing part of a distinct indigenous cultural group,and the display of a desire to preserve that culturalidentity;

• a linguistic identity different from that of thedominant society;

• social, cultural, economic, and political traditionsand institutions distinct from the dominant culture;

• economic systems oriented more toward

traditional systems of production than mainstreamsystems;

• unique ties and attachments to traditional habitatsand ancestral territories and natural resources inthese habitats and territories.

Indigenous peoples also are described withreference to their ways of life. In many cases,indigenous peoples live in separated communities orcultural or ethnic groupings. Such communities andgroupings often are located in areas geographicallydistant from urban centers and often function at theperiphery of the political, social, cultural, andeconomic systems of the dominant or mainstreamsociety. At the same time, however, it is not unusualto find indigenous peoples’ communities on thefringes of urban areas, comprising indigenous peopleswho have migrated but remain distinct from themainstream. Indigenous peoples’ communities in agiven country can reflect varying degrees ofacculturation and integration into the dominant ormainstream society.

A working definition employed in ADB’soperations as they affect indigenous peoples is:

Indigenous peoples should be regarded asthose with a social or cultural identity distinct fromthe dominant or mainstream society, which makesthem vulnerable to being disadvantaged in theprocesses of development.

In specific development interventions supportedby ADB, the national legislation of the country in whichthe development intervention is taking placecontributes to a basis for defining indigenous peoples.This includes constitutional, statutory, and customarylaw, as well as international law, including anyinternational conventions to which the country is aparty. It would be necessary that other country-specificconsiderations be taken into account.

An operational determination of a distinct identityfor indigenous peoples would be based in therequirements of applicable national law and theapplicability of the definitions and characteristicsdescribed above. The application of any definition ofindigenous peoples should work to differentiatebetween indigenous peoples and other cultural andethnic minorities for which indigenous status is not an

Annex 41

issue. The broader protection of vulnerable groups is anissue addressed in other policies and practices of ADB.

Case-specific identification of indigenous peoplesaffected by ADB operations and approaches toaddressing specific indigenous peoples’ concernswould be addressed in the process of initial socialassessment and the preparation of an indigenouspeoples plan.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ANDDEVELOPMENT

As socioeconomic development takes place,many development initiatives are extending farther intogeographically remote areas often considered thetraditional homelands of indigenous peoples; theseareas often offer resources such as forests, minerals,and hydropower potential. Roads, power transmissionlines, and other infrastructure development initiativessimilarly are extending into the traditional areas ofindigenous peoples. In parallel with physical andeconomic development, dominant and mainstreampopulations and cultures also are extending themselvesinto the traditional areas of indigenous peoples.

Protection of indigenous peoples fromdevelopment or maintenance of a status quo forindigenous peoples should not be a developmentobjective. At the same time, it is not uncommon thatinterests of indigenous peoples differ from those of themainstream, and that development policies andapproaches addressing the interests of dominant andmainstream communities conflict with the interests ofindigenous peoples. What may be in the broad nationalinterest may not be in the specific interests ofindigenous peoples, and development emerging fromdominant and mainstream community-orientedinitiatives may arrive in forms not consistent withindigenous peoples’ interests or concerns.

Development, as it is most often pursued, isintended to meet national goals and the interests ofdominant and mainstream societies. Reducing povertyand improving the quality of life of people in generalmost often are the primary objectives of development.However, it is not always the case that povertyreduction and improvement in the quality of liferealized from development extend equally to allsegments of society, or that improvement reaches each

segment of society. Moreover, in mainstream-orientedeconomic development policies, indigenous peoplesmay bear a disproportionate burden of the negativesocial, economic, and environmental effects that suchdevelopment projects may bring, without realizingcommensurate benefits.

Goals and objectives of development

There may be differences in views betweendominant and mainstream societies and indigenouspeoples’ communities as to the broad goals andobjectives that development should pursue.Development viewed from the mainstream often ismeasured in terms of economic advancement or gainand improvement in a mainstream-based definition ofquality of life, and most often places emphasis oneconomic growth. From the development perspectiveof indigenous peoples, in addition to economicadvancement, there may also be concern for social,cultural, environmental, and community aspects ofdevelopment—development as a combination ofeconomic advancement and social, cultural, andcommunity development. Indigenous peoplessometimes view the principles and efforts ofmainstream development as inappropriate orunsustainable, and as an intrusion into traditional waysof life. The physical intrusions of developmentinterventions into the traditional domains of indigenouspeoples, and social intrusions into indigenous cultures,can be viewed by indigenous peoples and others as aviolation of rights—human rights, rights to land, andrights associated with the maintenance of culture.

Culture and development

Indigenous peoples’ desires to protect theircultural identities and to preserve aspects of culturebased in ancestral lands and resources is receivingincreasing recognition within the internationaldevelopment community. Increasing recognition isbeing given to the principle of indigenous peoplesdetermining their own pace and path of development,and there is increasing recognition that social andcultural diversity is in the interest of society and is notan obstacle to national development or economic


stability. There is increasing recognition that there isdignity in all cultures, that there should be equality inopportunity for all segments of society, and that allsegments of society deserve opportunities for equalaccess to both the factors and the benefits ofdevelopment.

LAWS AND CONVENTIONSAFFECTING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

National laws and practices

With a substantial portion of the world’sindigenous peoples living in Asia and the Pacific,virtually every country in the ADB’s region has anindigenous population. While the effectiveness ofprovisions may vary, some countries recognize theunique status of indigenous peoples and extend theprivileges and protections of citizenship. Few countrieshave enacted laws that recognize any rights ofindigenous peoples to ancestral lands, or that supportindigenous peoples regaining and strengthening theirsocial, cultural, and legal institutions. In many cases,enforcement of laws that may exist has beeninadequate.

Some countries have experienced conflictsbetween interests of indigenous peoples and interestsof dominant and mainstream communities. Theseconflicts most often relate to control over andexploitation of natural resources in the areasindigenous peoples claim as traditional domains.Appropriation of ancestral territories or resources inthese territories by governments or external interestsmost often is justified as a part of economicdevelopment and growth. Indigenous peoples’ sparseoccupation of large areas of land and nonintensive useof resources often is characterized by external interestsas economic inefficiency or lost opportunity.Indigenous peoples’ land and resource managementpractices sometimes are viewed as unsustainable orenvironmentally damaging.

At the national level, in some cases, new laws,policies, and other measures may be necessary toreconcile competing demands and conflicting interests,especially if interests of indigenous peoples are to beprotected. In any case, however, ADB must respect the

will of governments, including legislation and policythat exists and the power of eminent domain thatgovernments possess. Country programs and projectselection will be developed in cooperation withgovernments. When difficulties are encountered, ADBmay be able to provide guidance or assistance throughmechanisms such as policy dialogue and technicalassistance.

International conventions anddeclarations

The international community has shownincreasing concern for the protection of the rights ofindigenous peoples. Conventions and declarations ofthe international community provide a broadframework, as well as specific statements regardingthe protection of indigenous peoples and their interests,cultures, ways of life, cultural survival, anddevelopment. It may be noted that some internationalinstruments relating to indigenous peoples have notbeen ratified by large numbers of the internationalcommunity.

The United Nations Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights (1948) and International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights (1966) have specific significance forindigenous peoples. The Universal Declaration providesa common standard for the human rights of all peoplesand all nations, and proclaims the importance oftraditional, political, and civil rights, as well as basiceconomic, social, and cultural rights. The Covenantspells out civil and political rights and guiding principlesbased on the Universal Declaration.

The 1957 International Labour Organisation (ILO)Convention No. 107, Protection and Integration ofIndigenous and Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populationsin Independent Countries, addresses the right ofindigenous peoples to pursue material well-being andspiritual development, and was a first internationalinstrument in specific support of indigenous peoples.Largely because of its view that indigenous peoplesshould be integrated into the larger society, a view thatsubsequently came to be seen by many asinappropriate, Convention No. 107 was followed in1989 by the ILO Convention No. 169, ConventionConcerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in IndependentCountries.

Annex 43

Convention No. 169 presents the fundamentalconcept that the way of life of indigenous and tribalpeoples should and will survive, as well as the view thatindigenous and tribal peoples and their traditionalorganizations should be closely involved in the planningand implementation of development projects that affectthem. As the most comprehensive and most currentinternational legal instrument to address issues vital toindigenous and tribal peoples, Convention No. 169includes articles that deal with consultation andparticipation, social security and health, humandevelopment, and the environment. To date, ConventionNo. 169 has been ratified by only a few countries, andso far by none in the Asian and Pacific region.

Agenda 21 adopted by the United NationsConference on Environment and Development (UNCED)in 1992 recognizes the actual and potential contributionof indigenous and tribal peoples to sustainabledevelopment. The 1992 Convention on Biodiversity callson contracting parties to respect traditional indigenousknowledge with regard to the preservation ofbiodiversity and its sustainable use. The ViennaDeclaration and Programme of Action emerging from the1993 World Conference on Human Rights recognizes thedignity and unique cultural contributions of indigenouspeoples, and strongly reaffirms the commitment of theinternational community to the economic, social, andcultural well-being of indigenous peoples and theirenjoyment of the fruits of sustainable development.

The United Nation’s 1993 Draft Declaration on theRights of Indigenous Peoples, developed with the directparticipation of indigenous peoples’ representatives andcurrently under consideration within the United Nations,addresses issues such as the right to participation, theright of indigenous peoples to direct their owndevelopment, the right of indigenous peoples todetermine and develop priorities and strategies for thedevelopment or use of ancestral territories andresources, and the right to self-determination. Theemerging concern for indigenous peoples prompted theUnited Nations to declare 1993 as the International Yearof the World’s Indigenous Peoples and the decade fromDecember 1994 as the Indigenous Peoples’ Decade.

POLICY OBJECTIVES, PROCESSES,AND APPROACHES WITHIN ADB

Policy objectives

In its operations, ADB observes a policy andassociated strategies and approaches that recognizethe potential vulnerability of indigenous peoples indevelopment processes, and that ensure thatindigenous peoples have opportunities to participatein and benefit equally from development. ADB’sstrategies and approaches are designed to avoidnegatively affecting indigenous peoples in itsoperations, and to provide adequate and appropriatecompensation when a negative impact is unavoidable.ADB’s development efforts work to ensure thatdevelopment initiatives affecting indigenous peoplesare effective and sustainable. Such initiatives shouldbe compatible in substance and structure with theaffected peoples’ culture and social and economicinstitutions, and commensurate with the needs,aspirations, and demands of affected peoples.Initiatives should be conceived, planned, andimplemented, to the maximum extent possible, withthe informed consent of affected communities, andinclude respect for indigenous peoples’ dignity, humanrights, and cultural uniqueness.

Strategies and approaches to development thataffect indigenous peoples must include clearmechanisms for accurate, objective analysis of theircircumstances. Development processes mustincorporate transparency and accountability. The policyon indigenous peoples applies to operations in boththe public and the private sectors.

The strategies and approaches employed by ADBin relation to indigenous peoples build on the existingstrategic framework and operational experience. Thepolicy addressing indigenous peoples complementsand supports, and is complemented and supported byother ADB policies. Compliance with a policy onindigenous peoples does not obviate the requirementof compliance with other ADB policies.


OPERATIONAL PROCESSES

Initial social assessment

The first step in addressing indigenous peoples’concerns is through the initial social assessment (ISA).An ISA is required for every ADB developmentproject. The ISA identifies intended projectbeneficiaries as well as groups that might be affectedadversely. The ISA addresses people’s needs,demands, and capacities, as well as the key socialdimensions that a project must address, such asinvoluntary resettlement, poverty reduction, humandevelopment, gender and development, andvulnerable groups. As such, indigenous peoples wouldbe a specific concern to be considered in the ISAprocess. The ISA should be undertaken as early aspossible in the project development process,preferably by the time of the project preparatorytechnical assistance (PPTA) fact-finding or otherpreparatory studies, to ensure that all relevant socialconcerns will be addressed in project design.

If the ISA determines that indigenous peoplesare likely to be affected significantly by an ADBintervention or that indigenous peoples aredisadvantaged or vulnerable in an interventionbecause of their social or cultural identity, a specificindigenous peoples’ plan addressing indigenouspeoples and their concerns, that is time-bound andthat has appropriate budget provisions, must bedeveloped. This plan would be incorporated as anintegral part of project design.

The ISA would address definition andidentification of indigenous peoples in the specificcontext of the project in question. Such definition andidentification would consider all relevant factors,including country-specific considerations and nationallegislation and policy. The indigenous peoples’ planwould focus specifically on indigenous peoples to beaffected and specific socio-economic issues that wouldbe significant.

Indigenous peoples’ development plan

For an ADB-assisted development project thataffects indigenous peoples adversely and significantly,an indigenous peoples’ plan acceptable to the Bank

must be prepared. Beyond addressing indigenouspeoples’ populations and relevant social issues,the indigenous peoples’ plan must include specificmeasures and approaches to be taken to address issuesaffecting indigenous peoples. A project negativelyaffecting indigenous peoples must be appropriatelyredesigned to mitigate negative effects, or include anacceptable compensation plan. The provision ofcompensation should not be a substitute for efforts to avoid or mitigate negative effects a project may have.

The indigenous peoples’ plan would form a basisfor project implementation and for monitoring andevaluation of how a project deals with indigenouspeoples’ issues. Specific components or provisions ofthe plan must be included in the project design; theplan should address questions of sustainability of theproposed project as well as questions of itsimplementation. The Appendix to this brochureprovides key elements to be considered in the creationof such a plan.

The responsibility for preparation of anindigenous peoples’ plan acceptable to ADB and forits implementation rests with the government or otherproject sponsors. ADB staff involved in the processingof a project affecting indigenous peoples must informthe government or other project sponsors of ADB’spolicy on indigenous peoples. The indigenous peoples’plan should be submitted to ADB by the governmentor private sector project sponsor preferably along withthe feasibility study for the project. As the costs of anindigenous peoples’ plan would affect and be part ofthe overall cost of a project, and as implementation ofthe indigenous peoples’ plan would have effects on theoverall implementation schedule of a project,preparation of the plan must be completed no later thanthe appraisal stage of a project. ADB would support theefforts of the government or other project sponsors, asnecessary and appropriate, through

• assistance in formulating and implementing theindigenous peoples’ plan;

• assistance in formulating policies, strategies,laws, regulations and other specific actionsrelated to indigenous peoples;

• providing technical assistance to strengthen thecapacity of agencies responsible for indigenouspeoples; and

• financing eligible costs of implementing the

Annex 45

indigenous peoples’ plan, if requested. For anyproject, the indigenous peoples’ plan necessarilymust be completed before project appraisal.

The indigenous peoples’ plan would include anexecutive summary, with salient issues of this executivesummary preferably to be included in the draft Reportand Recommendation of the President (RRP) to beconsidered in the Management Review Meeting, and inevery case in the final RRP for submission for Board ofDirectors’ consideration.

Operational approaches

In development efforts that affect indigenouspeoples, it is necessary that ADB integrate concern forindigenous peoples into each step of programming,project processing, and policy development cycles.Beyond program- and project-related considerations, itis likely that structural constraints could affectrealization of policy objectives. Such constraints mayinclude a lack of

• an appropriate legislative framework in DMCs;• necessary capacity or relevant development

institutions and agencies;• detailed and objective knowledge and information

about indigenous peoples and their circumstances;and

• accurate and effective representation ofindigenous peoples.

In addition to directly addressing the needs ofindigenous peoples, strategies to overcome structuralconstraints should be explored. Effective approachesto information dissemination and communication withindigenous peoples communities should be identified,especially where conventional approaches toinformation dissemination and communication may

not be effective. It may also be necessary to providespecific consideration to matters such as indigenouswomen’s concerns.

Achievements that have been realized in theimplementation of policies addressing indigenouspeoples’ concerns may form the basis for consideringappropriate adjustments in borrowing countries’legislation and institutional channels. In this regard, itwould be desirable that indigenous peoples’ issues beaddressed in project monitoring and evaluationactivities, and that indigenous peoples participate inmonitoring and evaluation processes. Modalities forpolicy development could include policy dialogue andother appropriate technical assistance. Ideally,development of necessary strategies would be basedon consultations involving ADB, DMC governments,other project sponsors as appropriate, representativesof indigenous peoples, and other stakeholders.

Key issues that should be considered as ADBaddresses indigenous peoples matters, and thecontinuity and development of indigenous peoples’communities, include

• legal recognition of ancestral domain and thetraditional rights of indigenous peoples over landand resources;

• recognized legitimacy of the indigenous socialand legal institutions of indigenous peoples; and

• recognition of the right of indigenous peoples todirect the course of their own development andchange.

Institutional strengthening and capacity buildingsupport for indigenous peoples’ communities shouldbe provided as necessary and appropriate. Similarly,as necessary and appropriate, institutionalstrengthening and capacity building support should beprovided to relevant government entities when suchsupport would increase the effectiveness and efficiencyof such entities.


ORGANIZATIONAL IMPLICATIONS1

The Office of Environment and Social Development(OESD) holds primary organizational responsibility forimplementation of ADB’s policy on indigenous peoples.OESD provides guidance and assistance to otherdepartments and offices on the application of the policyin ADB operations, and consults with these departmentsand offices on the development of relevant operationalpractices and procedures.

OESD is responsible for developing andcoordinating operational guidelines for implementationand operationalization of the policy on indigenouspeoples. These guidelines are developed with the activeinput and cooperation of other departments and officesof ADB. On an ongoing basis, OESD gathers anddisseminates relevant information to other units of ADB.

OESD has a Social Development Specialist asADB-wide focal point and resource person to providespecific advice and guidance on matters related toindigenous peoples in ADB’s operations. OESD holdsresponsibility for reporting as required on theimplementation and application of an indigenouspeoples’ policy.

The Programs Departments are responsible forapplying the policy on indigenous peoples as it relatesto country programming, and for incorporating suchpolicy aspects in the development of country strategiesand in project and technical assistance identification. Thisprocess would be a part of policy dialogue withgovernments. As country-level programming processes,including those related to the preparation of the CountryOperational Strategy, are the initial steps in country-levelproject identification, concern for indigenous peoples’matters would have significance in these processes. ThePrograms Departments consider social developmentissues as they arise in country programming processes

and in economic and sector work. Resident Missions arecountry-level points of contact on matters relating toindigenous peoples and provide advice to Headquartersstaff. Headquarters provides necessary support in thisregard.

The Projects Departments have responsibility forproject-specific aspects of the indigenous peoples policy,including making governments, project executingagencies, and other project sponsors aware of ADB’spolicy provisions and requirements. This responsibilitywill apply to project identification, processing,implementation, and monitoring. The ProjectsDepartments are normally responsible for the initialsocial assessment process, and for developingappropriate indigenous peoples’ development planswhen required.

The Office of Pacific Operations holds responsibilityfor the indigenous peoples’ policy as it relates tooperations in ADB’s Pacific DMCs.

The Operations Evaluation Office, through itspostevaluation function, is responsible for assessing theeffectiveness of ADB’s operations in implementing andapplying the policy on indigenous peoples, and indeveloping appropriate evaluation criteria.

POLICY ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

Policy on indigenous peoples in ADBoperations

For development interventions it supports orassists, ADB will ensure that affected populations andpersons are at least as well-off as they would have beenin the absence of the intervention, or that adequate andappropriate compensation is provided. The policyensures equality of opportunity for indigenous peoples.

1 In light of ADB’s reorganization on 1 January 2002, the responsibilities of the Office of Environment and Social Development (OESD) for theimplementation of this policy will be undertaken by the Environment and Social Safeguard Division (RSES) in a newly created department, theRegional and Sustainable Development Department (RSDD).The Office of Pacific Operations is now called the Pacific Department. The Programs and Projects Departments were restructured and integratedinto four new regional departments, each being responsible for a group of countries. The groupings are: East and Central Asia (Azerbaijan;People’s Republic of China; Hong Kong, China; Kazakhstan; Republic of Korea; Kyrgyz Republic; Mongolia; Taipei,China; Tajikistan; Turkmenistan;and Uzbekistan); the Mekong (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand, and Viet Nam); South Asia (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India,Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka); and Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Singapore). Each regional departmentwill be responsible for applying the Policy in the concerned developing member countries in the subregion.The Operations Evaluation Office is now called the Operations Evaluation Department (OED).

Annex 47

The policy ensures the ADB interventions affectingindigenous peoples are

• consistent with the needs and aspirations ofaffected indigenous peoples;

• compatible in substance and structure withaffected indigenous peoples’ culture and socialand economic institutions;

• conceived, planned, and implemented with theinformed participation of affected communities;

• equitable in terms of development efforts andimpact; and

• not imposing the negative effects of developmenton indigenous peoples without appropriate andacceptable compensation.

The policy, together with practices addressingindigenous peoples, applies in parallel with and doesnot replace or supersede other ADB policies andpractices. Each of the elements of the policy andpractice addressing indigenous peoples areconsidered within the context of national developmentpolicies and approaches, and the fundamentalrelationship between ADB and governments remainsthe basis for country-specific operations.

The policy on indigenous peoples ensures thatthe process of initial social assessment mandated inADB operations includes specific consideration ofindigenous peoples as a potentially affectedpopulation. If the initial social assessment identifiesindigenous peoples specifically as a significantly andadversely affected population, or vulnerable to beingso affected, it is required that an indigenous peoples’plan acceptable to ADB be prepared by a governmentor other project sponsors.

ADB will work to develop necessary andappropriate internal capacities for addressingindigenous peoples’ matters in its operationalactivities.

ADB will work with borrowing member countriesas appropriate and necessary to support and assist thedevelopment of capacities for addressing indigenouspeoples’ matters. As necessary and appropriate,specific institutional development and capacity-building support would be provided to both indigenouspeoples’ communities and to governments, consistentwith ADB’s policies and approaches addressinginstitutional development and capacity building.

APPENDIX

Key elements in an indigenous peoples’development plan

1. The responsibility for preparation of an indigenouspeoples plan acceptable to ADB rests with therelevant government or project sponsor. ADB willsupport the efforts of the government or projectsponsor as necessary and appropriate. Key elementsin ensuring that an appropriate indigenous peoples’development plan is prepared include

• preparation, during project design, of adevelopment plan that takes into full accountthe desires and preferred options of indigenouspeoples affected by the project;

• studies to identify potential adverse effects onindigenous peoples to be induced by the project,and to identify measures to avoid, mitigate, orcompensate for these adverse effects;

• measures to ensure the capacity or thestrengthening of the social, legal, and technicalskills of government institutions to beresponsible under the project for dealing withindigenous peoples;

• involvement of appropriate existing institutions,local organizations, and nongovernmentorganizations with expertise in matters relatingto indigenous peoples;

• consideration in project design of local patternsof social organization, cultural belief, andancestral territory and resource use;

• support for viable and sustainable productionsystems that are adapted to the needs and localenvironments and circumstances of indigenouspeoples;

• avoidance of creating or aggravating thedependency of indigenous peoples on projectentities, and instead promoting self-relianceamong these peoples;

• capacity building for indigenous peoplescommunities and organizations to facilitate andsupport effective participation in developmentprocesses; and

• adequate lead time and arrangements forextending follow-up, especially in dealing with


indigenous peoples in remote or neglected areaswhere little previous experience is available.

Consultation with indigenous peoples groups iskey to developing an effective, accurate, responsiveindigenous peoples development plan.

2. Indigenous peoples often lack the information,knowledge, analytical and organizationalcapacities, and political channels and power toinfluence and direct development processes thatdirectly or indirectly affect their lives. The followingbasic principles should apply to ADB-supportedprojects that affect indigenous peoples

• All development plans for indigenous peoples,including provisions for mitigation measures,should be based on full consideration of theoptions and approaches, includingrequirements for consultation, that best meetthe interests of individuals and communitiesaffected by projects. Qualified specialists shouldbe involved in the formulation of such plans andmitigation measures, in consultation with thepersons affected, both men and women. Thedevelopment of approaches, plans, andmitigation measures must include consultationwith the peoples affected.

• When it is indicated that a project will haveadverse effects on indigenous peoples, it isnecessary that the scope and impact of suchadverse effects be thoroughly assessed byqualified experts or agencies, and thatappropriate mitigation measures are identifiedin feasibility studies. It is preferable that the netimpact a project will have on indigenouspeoples be not only positive, but also beperceived by indigenous peoples as positive. Ifindividuals or communities must lose theirsocial support systems or ways of life so that aproject can proceed, they should becompensated appropriately.

• Project design should take into consideration

the social and cultural context of affectedpeoples, and their skills and knowledge relatingto local resource management. Project designshould draw upon the strengths of indigenouspeoples organizations and communities, as wellas traditional social organizations andindigenous knowledge, and as far as feasibleshould avoid introducing undesirable orunacceptable changes in the way of life ofindigenous communities.

• During project preparation, those preparing theproject should promote the formation orstrengthening of indigenous peoples’organizations and communications to facilitatetheir participation in project identification,planning, execution, and evaluation. As needed,provision should be made to train indigenouspeoples in project management activities.

• Where previous experience and knowledge ofworking successfully with indigenous peoplesis lacking, pilot-scale operations should becarried out and evaluated prior to the executionof full-scale efforts.

• If government institutions responsible forinteraction with indigenous peoples do notpossess the necessary legal, social, andtechnical capacities, or if their relationship withindigenous peoples is weak, the involvementof experienced local community organizationsand nongovernment organizations that canserve as intermediaries and that are acceptableto all parties involved, including governments,should be sought. Consideration should begiven to traditional representative institutions.Approaches to developing the capacity ofgovernment institutions should be explored.

• ADB approval of a project should not be basedonly on the concept and quality of projectdesign, but also on the orientation, capacity, andoperational record of the government agenciesor other project sponsors concerned inexecuting the project.

Documents

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES/ETHNIC MINORITIES · his publication is one of a series of reports on indigenous peoples/ethnic minorities undertaken by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to strengthen