Lesson 4.

1: Development

Discussion 4.1

Development is itself a contested term, different fields define it differently, and it

means differently to different groups of people. The concept of development is
always associated with economic progress, growth, modernity, infrastructures, high
technology, and many more – this is from the first world’s perspective. The most
common approach in the processes of development is top-bottom. Meaning, the
developers or even the government formulate the development interventions and
give it to the people thinking that it is what the recipients need. Many existing
literatures illustrates how this approach negatively affecting many indigenous
communities around the globe.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) provides a human development
approach that is not only limited to the richness of economy (GDP-based economic
growth) but one that also seeks to “expand the richness of human life.” UNDP
highlights three essential components that need to be satisfied to achieve authentic
human development (UNDP, 2019):

1. People. The human development approach focuses on improving the lives of

people. At the core of any development program are the human beings that
will be affected. Socioeconomic programs should, therefore, positively
contribute to the overall well-being of human beings in a society
2. Opportunities. Genuine human development should enable people to live a
life of freedom to develop their full potentials. Education plays an important
role since it opens up windows of opportunity for individuals to become
productive members of society. Employment and a steady source of income
(decent and living wages) are also essential to access life’s essentials. Social
services, like health and housing, are also an integral part of human
development.
3. Choices. This is anchored on the premise that human flourishing is only
possible if people are given more life choices. Fundamental to this aspect is
people’s active participation in decision-making, especially on matters that
directly affect their lives. Ultimately, choices are all about people developing
their full potential and leading productive and creative lives.

Consequently, UNDP acknowledges that for human beings to achieve positive levels
of human development, salient features should be addressed: 1) development
should enhance human abilities such as long and healthy life, knowledge, and a
decent standard of living; and, 2) development must create favorable socio-
economic-cultural and political conditions that allow individuals to participate in
political and community life, enable them to live in a sustainable environment, and for
them to have full access to basic human rights.
The Human Development Approach of UNDP can corroborate with Banerjee and
Sinha’s (2002) contrary perspective of looking at the concept of development – that
is, from the perspective of the developing countries. To quote, “development is the
process of transforming men and societies, leading to a social order in which every
human being can achieve moral and material well-being. It also refers to a whole, an
integral, value-loaded cultural process encompassing the natural environment, social
relations, education, production, consumption, and well-being” (p.201). Government,
private sector, and some NGOs regard development initiatives or interventions as a
means to solve social problems. Hence, it is necessary to consider development as
a social and cultural change, not just economic growth because of its significant
effect on the attitudes, motives, values, and norms of the members of a particular
society (Banerjee and Sinha, 2002). Development interventions then refer to
programs, projects, and policies both by governmental and non-governmental
actors.
Discussion 4.2.1

What have you noticed in the historical processes concerning development? What
happened to the natives as colonizers were trying to expand their economy?
Indigenous peoples, not just from the Philippines, but even from different parts of the
globe, are calling for recognition, promotion, and respect of the indigenous way of life
without necessarily shunning away from development. The plight of the IPs led to the
formulation of laws, guidelines, declarations, and frameworks that seek to ameliorate
their struggles and maintain their indigenous sovereignty, both at the national and
international levels. However, despite the declaration of rights, including the right to
development, IPs remain socially and economically marginalized.
Historically, “development” already had a toll on our ancestors because of the
colonizers’ economic expansionist policies. Nowadays, situating the indigenous
people in the context of development is multifaceted. But they can be described by
John H. Bodley (2008) as the “victims of progress.” Multifaceted because progress
victimized the indigenous peoples in different ways and degrees. Bodley (2008)
argued that the expansion of societies, markets, and economics or so-called
progress is potentially reducing human well-being. Indigenous people were the first
victims of this progress as it negatively transforms their socio-cultural systems and
ecosystems that support these people since time immemorial. The process is
“transformational” simply because IPs’ cultural systems have a significant contrast to
the global-scale society. One of the differences is that, according to Bodley,
commercial societies have a “culture of consumption” and social stratification is
based on access to resources. While the small-scale tribal societies, like the
Indigenous communities in the Philippines, the economies focused on the
satisfaction of basic needs, it is egalitarian in that the distribution of resources is
more important than production. These contrasts cause problems when indigenous
communities come into contact with commercial societies – through development
interventions. Since this book intends to discuss the Philippine IPs experiences, it is
important to lay down various forms of development interventions directly or
indirectly affecting the latter. First, the policies that pave the way to culture change
and for worst case, ethnocide.

Assimilationist Policies
Both Gaspar (2000) and Clarke (2001) considered the Philippines’ development
policies as assimilationist in nature, especially Indigenous peoples. After the colonial
period, the Philippines remained at the mercy of the industrial countries, specifically
the US. For newly independent states to join the wagon of globalization, the World
Bank and IMF provided financial aid for development projects and economic growth,
respectively. Bear in mind that the US has a significant influence on these
international financial institutions. Like the Philippines, Borrowing countries are
required to follow certain conditions for them to receive financial aid. Part of these
underlying conditions is structural adjustment policies – policies that adhere to
neoliberalism. Specifically, this means less intervention of the State in the economic
affairs, the opening of the market to foreign investors, removal of tariffs and quotas,
and free trade.
How these structural adjustment policies affect IPs? Filipino Indigenous peoples are
currently struggling as they are exposed to modernization, which forced them to
change their indigenous existence resulting in the loss of culture (Ty, 2010).
However, Bennagen (1993) positively argued that many were able to retain their
indigenous attitudes and beliefs, including those related to land and natural
resources. However, they are not exempted from the challenges faced by many IPs
nowadays. In this era of globalization, colonizers are behind the masks of
development initiatives encroaching in every corner of the country, including the far-
flung indigenous territories. Ironically, on the other hand, to quote Fenelon and Hall
(2010), indigenous people are seen “as obstacles to development, and if they resist,
they are seen as the enemy” (p. 1876).

The assimilationist nature of these policies will be explicitly illustrated in the second
and third forms of development interventions.

Second, the development responsible for the struggles, displacements, and

even deaths of so many IPs around the globe. This is due to, among others, the
building of infrastructures (dam, bridges, housing, etc.), extracting natural resources
in IP territories, and converting IP territories into tourist spots, plantations,
conservation areas, resorts, economic zones and many more. Behind many of these
cases are the government, capitalists, and the country’s weak political system and
institutions. This will be briefly illustrated using David Harvey’s theory of
accumulation by dispossession.

Accumulation by Dispossession

The Philippines is so rich in natural resources, most of these are located in areas
where indigenous peoples live. Unfortunately, historical accounts regarding
exploitation, extraction, and dispossession of the IP lands still continue due to the
capitalists’ presence; this is the so-called accumulation by dispossession.
Accumulation by dispossession is “a phenomenon when long-standing indigenous
modes of production, largely, based on traditional forms of reciprocity and exchange,
are replaced by new capitalist modes. This occurs when capitalists seek new
sources of raw materials and new markets for manufactured products which resulted
to deprivation of territory, resources, and means of living of the original inhabitants”
(Holden, Nadeau & Jacobson, 2011 p. 142), which in the case of the Philippines, are
mostly the IPs. This phenomenon is illustrated in different circumstances like land
grabbing, granting of logging and mining concessions, permitting constructions of
dams, and waterways to control water resources for commercial purposes and many
more.
One of the sectors most affected by liberalization mentioned above is in agriculture.
The opening of our markets to foreign agricultural products has caused unbearable
suffering on our farmers and indigenous peoples. The conversion of thousands of
hectares of lands into huge agro-plantations has displaced small farmers and IPs all
over the country. For example, the World Bank reported in 2017 that large-scale
farming systems can be used as a tool “to promote sustainable agricultural and rural
development.” However, researches critical to the neoliberal economic paradigm
argue that imperialist globalization led by IMF-WB-WTO has been “instrumental in
opening up economies and access to raw materials for the transnationals, whose
interests now dominate the agenda of World Trade Organization.” (Paul, H &
Steinbrecher, R, 2003).

The effort of the government to liberalize its economy also allows foreign investors to
extract our natural resources. In 1995, President Ramos signed the Mining Act into
law; this was considered a solution to the country’s ailing mining industry. This law
will allow transnational companies to access land about 45% of the country’s total
land area to extract minerals (Corpuz, 1996). About 60% of these mining operations
are in the ancestral territories of the IPs and often without proper consent, which led
to forced displacement of the people (Wetzlmaier, 2012). This has negative impacts
not only on the environment but on the IPs as well. There is an inconsistency
between the law promoting mining (Mining Act of 1995) and the Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act that upholds the rights of the IPs (Holden et al., 2011). The issuance of
the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claims (CADC) and the certificates of ancestral
land claims (CALC) do not guarantee full recognition of indigenous rights in their
ancestral land. Because it does not ensure rights of ownership and use of the
resources as contrary to the beliefs of the IPs; because mineral lands are considered
public lands, meaning it is owned by the State (Corpuz, 1996).

Based on the joint report of a non-government organization Christian Aid and

PIPLinks, the Subanon of Canatuan in Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte are already
aware of the dangers of losing their land to logging and mining companies. Because
they rely on agriculture and hunting for their livelihoods and identified sacred
mountains for centuries, they submitted an application to the government to manage
their forest. In 1991, the application was granted and in 1993, after 14 year-long
struggles, the Subanon ancestral territory was converted into an Ancestral Domain
Claim. But in 1994, TVI, a small mining company, acquired the legal rights to mine,
which became a subject to severe disputes. TVI, just like other mining companies,
promised to bring enormous benefits to the affected community, such as
employment, education, healthcare, and income-generation projects. But the
presence of TVI in Canatuan did not improve the lives of the people. Instead, its
security armed personnel’s employment caused fear for many local people, different
forms of abuses such as illegally refusing access, shootings, a blockade on and
confiscation of essential goods like food, and placement of hidden barbed and nails
in the trails. Also, it causes water pollution, affecting farmers in the downstream
communities. The TVI also did not acquire FPIC from the Subanon, claiming that the
company does not require consent. Legally speaking, since the company did not
recognize and respect the IPs’ rights, its operation is illegal, but the government still
allows the company to operate. However, despite having CADT, the Subanun seems
powerless in their fight for their land rights because the Philippine Government
continued to take sides with TVI and even awarded the latter an Environmental
Compliance Certificate in June 1997.

Third, the development interventions intended for the IPs or IP Communities

that often resulted in compromising indigenous culture. Specifically referring to
programs and projects concerning livelihood, education, health, housing, leadership,
and many more. Aside from their experiences of neglect and discrimination in the
provisions of essential social services (Cariňo, 2012). The economic conditions of
the indigenous peoples from 1988 to 1997 were staggering (Plant 2002). The
government, developers and the rest of the dominant groups who do not know that
IPs that much, consider them as living in poverty and dire necessity, hence, they
become a favorite target for development interventions. Part of the process is
integrating the indigenous economy into the mainstream economy, patterned after a
globally-defined economy.
Contrary to what the government and the developers think will improve the lives of
the IPs, this integration will only pressure IPs to conform to a totally strange
economic system (Lasimbang, 2008). Unfortunately, most of these interventions
failed. Continuing poverty and the need to conform to the mainstream led some IP
groups to allow their culture to be treated as a commodity. This is quite prevalent in
places where tourism is one of the primary sources of income.

Cultural Commoditization
If in the previous topic, IPs are considered as headache, as a hindrance to economic
development. This section will tackle how indigenous practices and material culture
are considered as a source of profit. In cultural commoditization, according to Leong
(1997), “ethnic diversity is seen as a blessing” (p. 72). The author argued that ethnic
diversity becomes valuable for monetary purposes, rather than humanitarian or
cultural reasons. Cultural commoditization then refers to the staging of or making a
portion of a host culture available for guest consumption (Medina, 2003). This is
quite prevalent in the Philippines, where the government targets these various
indigenous cultures to promote tourism, showcasing the so-called “country’s rich
cultural heritage” to attract tourists who will be significant to the country’s economy.
In the northern part of the country, resides the Igorots who are known for building the
Banaue rice terraces, colorful indigenous costumes, and of course, the famous
Wang Od. In the southern part, resides the Lumads are known for tribal music,
unique instruments, and dances. For the past years, tourists, both local and
international, flock to different parts of the country to experience various indigenous
cultures. They pay a certain amount to wear the Ifugao culture, pay for indigenous
people to show their traditional dances accompanied by their unique instruments,
pay just to be tattooed by Wang Od Onggay, and many more. How does tourism
affect indigenous people? Does it improve their economic well-being? Let’s look at
the case of the famous Banaue rice terraces.
The center of the Cordillera tourism industry is the Banaue rice terraces of the
Ifugao, which started around the 1970s. It was in 2004 when it reached the highest
number of tourists, which perhaps the result of the effort of the Department of
Tourism in promoting the country’s best. The industry has both the positive and
negative impacts on the culture of the IPs and the economic sector. In the aspect of
culture, the tourism industry enables the revitalization of diminishing Ifugao culture
and traditions and transmission of cultural knowledge to younger Ifugao generations.
Introduction of Christianity, the Western educational system, and the high cost of
conducting rituals and festivities caused a decline in cultural practices’ performance.
Since tourists came to experience the Ifugao culture, many of the performing arts are
being revived. Specifically, the elderly members of local communities formed cultural
performing groups among the young people to perform for the tourists; hence, the
transmission of culture to the younger generation. However, there are also negative
impacts of tourism on the socio-cultural aspect of the Ifugao. Sacred rituals lose their
authenticity as they are performed to satisfy the tourists. Some performances are
even presented out of context just to suits the tourists’ expectations. Cultural
artifacts, ancestral heirlooms, and other tangible cultural heritage are losing their
cultural value. This is due to the rampant buying and selling of ritual paraphernalia
and icons. As a result, younger generations no longer appreciate the significance of
these cultural artifacts.
And lastly, tourists taking photos of the residents without the latter’s consent are
considered as invasion of privacy. And they suspected tourists of using their photos
for profit. On the other hand, the industry has a positive economic impact on the local
communities as it creates jobs and attracts investment for tourism-oriented
enterprises. However, these kinds of jobs are seasonal, which is not secure and
sustainable. Thus, the dependency of the local economy on tourism is fragile. And
lastly, local farmers who are maintaining the rice terraces do not enjoy the economic
benefit from the tourism industry because they are not directly involved in tourism
activities, like guide services, homestay, and handicraft making. Local residents also
pointed out that there is already a shift from traditional economic activities like
agriculture to tourism-oriented activities. This shift of interest is a threat to the
perpetuation of maintaining the Banaue Rice Terraces (SITMo, n.d.).
Discussion 4.2.2

The Development Process

The case of the indigenous peoples in the context of development needs special
attention because they have developed their cultural systems since time immemorial.
IPRA provided necessary provisions that will guide development interventions (see
IPRA). It also clearly states the right of the IPs to “accept or reject certain
development, activity or undertaking in their community.” Development projects,
programs, and policies will integrate and assimilate indigenous people, who have
different cultures, into the market economy and system of the dominant society
(Corpuz, 2010). Unfortunately, the Philippine government, both at the national and
local levels, has insufficient information and understanding of the indigenous
peoples’ condition (Clarke, 2001). This information includes specific indigenous
knowledge and cultural system, demographic data, socioeconomic status, and
specific locations of migrant indigenous communities. These are crucial in the
implementations and success of development interventions intended for IPs.

Aside from the lack of information, there are current development projects’ failures
due to inappropriate measures in implementing the interventions and lack of IP
participation. Usually, IPs are just treated as passive recipients, meaning they are
not part of the entire process of development. Specifically, IPs are only found in the
implementation stage as recipients or beneficiaries. They are not part of the planning
stage and even in the evaluation stage. The involvement and participation of the IPs
are not considered necessary for any development interventions’ success. This is
one reason why, despite development projects or interventions, IPs are among the
poorest and most marginalized sectors in the Philippines society. And this is the
reason why a lot of development interventions to IP communities failed. Hence,
Corpuz (2010) emphasized the necessity to assess projects and incorporate
indigenous peoples into every stage of the process, from planning to implementation
to evaluation. Specifically, on formulating project proposals in the local and territorial
levels, to ensure the suitability of the project to the needs and conditions of the target
recipients (this will be discussed further in the Ethnodevelopment part).

On the one hand, culture should be the core in recognizing indigenous peoples’
rights, including the right to development and well-being (Coates, cited by Bess,
2001). On the other hand, if the objective of development is to produce sustained
change, it is essential to emphasize the significance of situating culture in the
development framework (Radcliffe and Laurie, 2006; Corpuz, 2010). But the
challenge lies in the question, how to situate culture in the development paradigms
or how development paradigms will adopt the concepts of culture. Now, different
indigenous people experience this phenomenon in different ways and levels. In the
case of the Sama Dilaut in Iligan City, Bracamonte’s (2005, p 197) study concluded:
“in evolving a development framework in the context of respect for cultural diversity,
a long-term goal must be the achievement of self-reliance through strategies that
embody the following: consultation with and participation of the Sama Dilaut, needs
identification, organization, livelihood, health and sanitation, education or training,
gender, and cultural sensitivity, advocacy, and linkages.”

The global forces, including State and NGOs, are usually in the disguise of
development interventions with the primary objective to alleviate poverty, is
incorporating the IPs into the more extensive market system, religious
proselytization, and other factors related to development and modernity (Eder,
2013). These processes often lead to culture change, as it assimilates the
indigenous system into the mainstream system. The study of Tomaquin (2014) on
the Mamanwa in Claver, Surigao del Norte, illustrated a scenario of culture change
caused by development. The research 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, the 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.
Discussion 4.3

In the Surigao del Norte Archived News at Zamboanga.com, 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 for
conducting mining operations in the ancestral land. Tomaquin (2014) 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. 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).

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
interests and objectives, resulting in overlooking specific situations at the micro-level
where laws and programs are 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. Various forms of alternative development frameworks have
emerged due to the common failures of the dominant development framework for the
past few decades. One of these is the infamous Ethno-development.

Ethno-development is defined as: “as a means of countering ethnocide by enabling

ethnic, minority and/or exploited groups to revive the fundamental values of their
specific culture to strengthen their ability to resist exploitation and oppression and in
particular, their independent decision-making power through the more effective
control of the political, economic, social and cultural processes affecting their
development” (UNESCO, 1982). The 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 the autonomy, to have the 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 the 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” (Partridge et al., 1996 p. 5).

Ethno-development has many names: development with identity, self-development,

self-managed development, self-determined development, etc. It aims to eliminate all
forms of discrimination, ethnocide, and the remnants of colonialism (Partridge et al.,
1996); and give the indigenous people the right to define and manage their
“development.”

How to make it possible is to incorporate indigenous culture in the process of

development. But the challenge is on how to situate the indigenous culture in the
prevalent development paradigm? And are developers and even the government
amenable to that? The case of the Banao in Kalinga illustrates a powerful political
will among the indigenous people to make a self-determined development possible.

The Banao in the province of Kalinga, Cordillera of northern Philippines, is one of the
several subtribes of the Kalinga ethnolinguistic group. They depend on the forest for
building materials, food, and other basic needs. They also produced food in swidden
farms and rice paddies. Resource utilization is guided by a belief system and a
worldview that the resources are to be shared with the spiritual world and must be
taken care of. The Banao and other indigenous organizations in the province are an
active proponent of indigenous people’s rights. They challenged several laws that
threatened to deprive them of their lands and resources. As a result, they were able
to assert their rights over their land and resources.

The Banao rejected big logging and mining firms. Instead, they put up a self-
determined development by managing their resources and sharing these resources
with neighboring communities and others they had peace pact with. It was in the
1970s when gold was discovered in the mountain area of Gaang. To prevent a gold
rush and conflict regarding ownership and access to the mines, the Banao elders
initiated the formation of the Banao Bodong Federation, which was later renamed to
Banao Bodong Association. The Federation declared that the Banao tribe of Kalinga
province collectively owned the gold resources within Banao ancestral territory. By
combining experiences, cultural practices, and non-traditional mechanisms, the
organization can run a non-indigenous industry such as mining. The organization
formulated guidelines based on experience regarding the conduct of small-scale
mining, who should have access to the mines, and the cultural practices of resource
allocations. According to its policy guidelines, BBA is “geared towards the
conservation of the natural health of the locality and preservation of peace and order
in the Banao region and maintaining a harmonious relationship with the neighboring
tribes…regulate the indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources in preservation
for the forthcoming generation” (Fiag-oy, 2010, pp. 471-490).