The following is an excerpt from the Dissertation of Bethlehem A.

Ponce entitled
“Assimilation and Ethno-development of the Mamanwa amidst Changing Ecological,
Economic and Political Context”

Indigenous peoples and development

In the context of development, it is important to consider Herskovits’ (cited by Timseena
1990) reminder that “all societies have specific ways of producing food, shelter, clothing and
income. There is no society without methods of production, distribution, consumption and
some form of exchange.” Now, many anthropologists are studying how the global phenomenon
of development processes affects villages from different parts of the globe. Traditionally, most
of these villages survive on a subsistence economy; however integration with the outside world
is quite inevitable leading these villages to participate in the economy of the world market in
varying degrees which generally resulted in what Koukkanen(2011) described as “mixed
economies - characterized by a mix of activities such as subsistence, commodity production,
wage labor, transfers (social assistance, unemployment insurance, welfare, pensions, and other
statutory or fiduciary payments), and enterprise.” The significance of traditional economies in
indigenous communities is beyond the economic realm—they are more than just livelihoods,
providing subsistence and sustenance to individuals or communities.
The case of the indigenous peoples experiencing development is special in a sense that
they do not belong to the major ethnic groups in the society and they have their own concept
of development. As Lasimbang (2008) posits, “indigenous people have long developed a variety
of systems to govern their societies.” However, there are important factors that need special
attention as indigenous peoples are being integrated and recognized in the mainstream society
The case study among the migrant Aetas in Zambales conducted by Nives Ličen and
company (2012) focused more on the importance of community-based non-formal education.
Just like other indigenous peoples living in the mainstream society, the authors postulated the
problem of discrimination experienced by the Aeta as they are being incorporated into the
formal education system. Community-based education helped the people in adjusting to
changes and it fostered empowerment. The downside, however, is that it separates them from
the mainstream society. This, resulted to problems and difficulties in becoming part of the
wider social community.
Other realities confronting indigenous Filipinos are “the global forces which include
state and NGO-sponsored development and conservation interventions through incorporation
into wider market systems, religious proselytizing and others associated with development and
modernity” (Eder 2013). Relative to the study of Eder, the study of Tomaquin (2014) on the
Mamanwa in Claver, Surigao del Norte illustrated a scenario of culture change and
development. The Mamanwa, live in their ancestral domain and experience culture change
because of the migrants from the dominant society working in the mining industry and other
development interventions. His study shows that socio-cultural changes in the Mamanwa
society are due to the following: religion, political and economic integration, formal education,
mining companies in ancestral domains, the Local Government code of 1991, introduction of
modern medical and agricultural interventions, ancestral domain claims, NGO contributions,
enhanced tribal organization, promotion of local tourism and livelihood by the LGU,
developments of forest resources and Surigao City Bunok-bunok Festival.
Corpus (2010) presented the provision in the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of the
Philippines with regard to ‘free, prior and informed consent’ in Chapter 2, Section 3g, of the
Act, to wit:
“…the consensus of all members of the Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous
Peoples to be determined in accordance with their respective customary laws and practices
free from any external manipulation, interference, coercion, and obtained after fully disclosing
the intent and scope of the activity, in a language and process understandable to the
community”.
The provisions of the law apparently stated “the right to accept or reject a certain
development, activity or undertaking in their community”. But the author made it clear that
“appropriate implementation has to be done” and “efforts to weaken its rules and procedures
should be stopped”. However, despite development projects, indigenous peoples are among
the poorest and most marginalized sectors of Philippine society as shown in the study of Cariňo
(2012). He describes their experiences of neglect and discrimination in the provision of basic
social services by the Government.
Coates (cited by Bess 2001) reminds us that culture should be the core in recognizing
indigenous peoples’ rights, and to develop a relationship based on trust and confidence is a
responsibility of the society and the government institutions. The regional report of Plant
(2002) for Asian Development Bank on the poverty situation of indigenous peoples and ethnic
minorities found that in the case of the Philippines, economic conditions of the indigenous
peoples from 1988 to 1997 were staggering. According to Lasimbang (2008), focusing mainly
on economic integration of indigenous peoples, that “the indigenous economic systems are
under increasing pressure to conform to a globally-defined system.” Integration of indigenous
peoples to the mainstream society is not always advantageous, because, as Lasimbang pointed
out: access to markets is still limited, bargaining power of indigenous producers is limited, they
have no control over pricing, and traditional occupations are not recognized by governments
resulting to discrimination and marginalization, which may eventually threaten the preservation
of traditional subsistence activities. This will complement the argument of Bebbington (1993)
that the well-being and survival of the indigenous peoples depend on how they handle and
negotiate this integration.

Ethno-development
It is noteworthy to consider the statement of Radcliffe and Laurie (2006) which explains
the relationship between culture and development. The authors postulated that culture is vital
to the implementation of development projects and programs. If development is intended to
produce sustained change, giving due significance to the culture will explain the success of
development interventions. The challenge is on how to situate culture in the development
paradigms or how development paradigms will adopt the concepts of culture. Indeed, culture is
crucial if it is incorporated into the implementation of development projects. But since
development is inevitable and inescapable, many strategies, guidelines, and frameworks came
into being as a result of studies, planning, and experiments. These became the basis for
formulating and implementing development programs or projects. Although some of these
initiatives are efficient in involving the people and their ideas, the tendency of the dominant
culture to manipulate and intervene is not impossible. Different indigenous people experience
this phenomenon in different ways and levels.
The review of Corpuz (2008) of the national indigenous institutes in many countries
revealed the prevalence of strategies, such as top-down and paternalistic, which assimilate
indigenous cultures into the dominant western culture. In addition, indigenous cultures and
small-scale subsistence economies were regarded as obstacles to modern development. The
author noted that “interventionism was justified by the promise of development”. The concept
of development that is based on economic measures is not anymore the only form of
development that exists. Following the awareness of the plight of indigenous peoples in the
international arena is the conception of different forms of “alternative development”, one of
which is ethno-development.
In a paper presented during the Annual World Bank Conference on Development in
Latin America and the Caribbean, Bogotá, Colombia, June 30 - July 2, 1996, Partridge et al
(1996) defined ethno-development as: “those processes which are defined by and controlled
by the indigenous peoples themselves as they seek better lives for their communities in the
face of increasing poverty and social disintegration.”
The Ethnic Newswatch (cited by Partridge et al 1996), quoted the statement by Carlos
Alfonso Palma, former President of ONIC, the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia
(Organizacion Nacional Indígena de Colombia), when asked what development means for
indigenous peoples in Colombia, responded: “For us development is not just economics, it is
integral; that is to have autonomy, to have organizational and administrative capacity. For us,
however, it would not just mean individually, but at the collective level; it means to propose
solutions for the community. We have to generate many alternatives such as appropriation of
technology, credit possibilities, an adaptation of an economy proper to us, an economy that
allows us to control our means that allows the communities to develop their autonomy.”
In the context of the Peruvian Andes, Yates (2014) focused on understanding the
kamayoq system and the role it plays in promoting development that does not disregard the
importance of culture. Kamayoq, a political-economic organization, contributed to building
‘regionally specific visions of livelihoods, based on the ‘profound values’ of Andean social
organization, technology, and philosophy.” While in the highlands of Ecuador, the objective of
the Development Project for Indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian Peoples (PRODEPINE) is to
oversee the development potential of indigenous culture publicized by the World Bank as one
of its most innovative initiatives for strengthening local organizations (social capital) and
development with identity (ethno-development) (De ZaldÍvar 2008). While in the study of
Chernela (2011) the organization of women in an urban area, after having knowledge and
awareness about their rights, were able to improve their lives and increase their participation in
society.
In the Philippine context, specifically in the northeastern part of Mindanao, the Surigao
del Norte Archived News at Zamboanga.com presented three connected stories of the
Mamanwa from different parts of the CARAGA province. The presence of mining industries in
the province created two different scenarios: the creation of conflict and incorporation into
development projects. The military combat operations in Gigaquit, Surigao del Norte produced
internal refugees. After Inano, a Mamanwa, who was allegedly shot by a soldier from the 30 th
Infantry Battalion, many Mamanwa families from different communities evacuated for fear of
being the next victims. Catoto (April 2, 2012) reported that refugees who built makeshift huts,
with each hut being shared by three families, became ill due to unfavorable conditions. They
also blame the NFA rice, which is the only help they received from the local government, for
causing stomach pains, diarrhea, colds, fever, and stress. The article of Boncocan (April 30,
2012) emphasized that these displaced indigenous peoples are desperately in need of food,
clothing, water and medicines. In addition, the author’s interview with the Secretary General of
KahugpongsaLumadnongOrganisasyon (KASALO) revealed that the military presence in their
land is to ensure security for mining companies. On the other hand, Crismundo (May 4, 2012)
reported how the Mamanwa in Claver, Surigao del Norte were being incorporated into
development projects implemented by Adnama Mining Resources, Inc. (AMRI). The company
released P50 million for various social development projects and livelihood programs that
benefited remote villages and more than 100 Mamanwa families; these include educational
support and apartment-type housing. The Mamanwa are also recipients of the 1% share from
AMRI in exchange to conduct mining operations in the ancestral land.
The study of Tomaquin (2014) shows how social development programs, livelihood
programs, and assistance mentioned in the news have affected the Mamanwa. The author
presented problems in the integration of the Mamanwa (in Claver, Surigao del Norte) in the
Philippine Body Politic as follows: royalty share of 1% from mining companies are perceived to
be improperly implemented, they failed to enjoy full educational grant offered by the
government, Pantawid sa Mahirap and PhilHealth programs failed to a certain extent, livelihood
program lack sustainability, mainstreaming the Mamanwa in the educational system does not
work, and the need to establish schools of living traditions (Tomaquin, 2014). Indigenous
peoples become victims of internal colonialism (by dominant ethnic groups, no longer by a
foreign power), human rights violations, powerlessness, centrally defined and controlled
“economic development programs” and insecurity in their borderland regions, and they are
asking for the right of self-determination (Lasaca 1990)
Apparently, these problems imply that programs, both from the Government and
private industries aiming to help the Mamanwa and some indigenous groups are not effective
and efficient. National government laws and programs tend to have their own interests and
objectives, resulting in overlooking specific situations at the micro level where laws and
programs are to be implemented (Amper 2005). These studies represent the scenario when
indigenous people are not being represented, nor their various cultural landscapes are being
considered, in the planning of government programs, projects, and policies.