Dalnsod einin ssainale develomen. ndienos eoles and

L. DuhaylungsodRethinking sustainable development. Indigenous peoples and resource use relations in thePhilippines In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, The PhilippinesHistorical and social studies 157(2001), no: 3, Leiden, 609-628

This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl

Downloaded from Brill.com04/16/2022 05:00:55PMvia free access

LEVITA DUHAYLUNGSOD

Rethinking Sustainable DevelopmentIndigenous Peoples and Resource Use Relations

in the Philippines

In recent years, indigenous peoples have been the focus of interest in the sus-tainable development agenda. This interest has been spurred by widespreadadvocacy of alternative models of development that strive for more socialjustice, equity and environmental protection. Made popular by the UnitedNations' World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) inthe late 1980s, the phrase 'sustainable development' was born of two signific-ant concerns: recognition of seriously escalating environmental problemsand an increased emphasis on community as the context of development.The phrase's populist appeal comes from its rhetoric: an unstable amalgamof populist thinking (participatory and community-based approach), struc-tural and political focus (equitable access to resources and decision-making),the visibility of women and indigenous peoples, and environmentalism thatis deeply anchored to ethics and moral principles (Escobar 1995).

Sustainable development, as the new strategy, has a future orientation,since it professes protection of the rights of the unborn and their share in thebenefits of present natural resources. Consequently, agriculture and ruraldevelopment have generally emphazised these issues, hence the phrase 'sus-tainable agriculture'. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), in par-ticular, has recognized that the world agriculture system will increasingly beconfronted with environmental and sustainability questions. Such recogni-tion has resulted in FAO's framework in assessing the prospects for worldagriculture within the context of 'safeguarding the productive potential andbroader environmental functions of agricultural resources for future genera-tions, the very essence of sustainability, while satisfying food and otherneeds' (Alexandratos 1995:1).

The essential conditions of sustainable development set by the WCEDfound a link with indigenous peoples. Sustainable development, with its pre-cepts of ecological capitalization and community-based resource manage-ment strategies, has an interpretation that is appealing to indigenous


610 Levita Duhaylungsod

peoples' communities. It is frequently argued that their production systemsare based on a symbiosis of culture and the sustainable use of naturalresources. This became the basis of the oppositional development discoursein reaction to previous development strategies, which viewed the relation-ship of societies to the environment as extractive and unidirectional. Ac-cordingly, the practices of indigenous peoples are currently thought to springfrom a deep knowledge of natural environment and its processes.

This article examines the sustainable development argument vis-a-vis theassumption that indigenous peoples' communities and their systems of pro-duction provide significant lessons in sustainable resource managementstrategies. The traditional, mainly subsistence agricultural system used byindigenous peoples will be reviewed within the context of agricultural inten-sification, which results in the loss of both their resource base and their pur-portedly environmentally sound resource management practices. It will beshown that while traditional resource use and indigenousness have beenused as emblems of the sustainable development discourse, this argument ismore of an assumption than a reality and requires further investigation.

Sustainable resource use and indigenous peoples

Within the sustainable development discourse, traditional societies andindigenous knowledge have been revalorized into an 'ecosocialist' project(Pepper 1993). Sustainable resource management practices are seen as inher-ent to indigenous peoples' communities. Indigenous peoples are equatedwith images of unity and ecological sustainability. It is argued that their pro-duction systems are based on the sustainable use of natural resources bol-stered by an ethic of community solidarity, and that conservation practicesare embedded in their sociocultural structure. Indigenous communities areconstituted by alternative ways of life characterized by wholeness in the rela-tionship between society and environment. Thus, sustainable resource useand indigenous peoples have been deployed as cultural signifiers in the cur-rent development discourse (Resurreccion 1999:261). This means that indig-enous people are more involved than ever before in the contemporary devel-opment discourse, with the state (and global) agenda of sustainabledevelopment placing them in a central position.

Ethnographic accounts of indigenous peoples' practices are cited todemonstrate the richness of their knowledge (Colchester 1994). Even theWorld Bank has recognized that indigenous knowledge systems provide areservoir of lessons in sustainable development (Davis and Ebbe 1995). Othersustainable development advocates, together with environmentalists, wouldfurther argue that restoring 'traditional' knowledge and practices would


Rethinking Sustainable Development 611

. serve as a means of re-establishing ecological stability and social well-beingunder contemporary conditions of environmental degradation (Sinha, Guru-rani and Greenberg 1997:68).

Within the wide spectrum of sustainable development advocates, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are particularly emphatic in arguing forthe value of indigenous knowledge. The NGO treaty on sustainable agricul-ture (SA) includes indigenous knowledge systems in its Asian SA agenda(ANGOC 1997) and further states that traditional agriculture 'provides astorehouse of knowledge [and] ...accords renewed value to their culturalidentity, and helps arrest the degradation of their societies in the face of mod-ernization' (ANGOC 1993:13). Such knowledge, shared and passed downthrough generations, is regarded as the key to the survival of indigenous'communities.

In the Philippines, many researchers have written about indigenouspeoples as 'sustainable stewards' of their environment (Resurreccion 1999).A number of these studies focus on the adaptive strategies of forest-basedindigenous peoples within the framework of culture-nature interactions (seefor example Cadelina 1974; Eder 1977; Schegel 1979; Kikuchi 1989; Rice 1993).These ethnographies offer very little analysis on the communities' confronta-tion with the forces of change impinging on them, apart from the social con-flicts ensuing from cultural integration processes. Within the cultural renais-sance now underway in many indigenous communities (Lee 1992:42),anthropological texts such as Bennagen and Lucas-Fernan's (1996), althoughmerely accounts of age-old practices, are sources of information on tradi-tional resource management. Current literature providing insight into therealities of indigenous peoples takes the form of documentation on the im-pact of specific projects (for example, Connel and Howitt 1991; Henninghamand May 1992).1

The usual portrayal of indigenous peoples as bearers of culture andknowledge on resource management tends to present them in a static, some-what naive way, devoid of voice and agency. The term 'indigenous peoples'does lend itself to a certain romanticism, if not reifkation. The image of indig-enousness essentializes indigenous peoples as if they were simply followinga predetermined script, rather than as active, creative communities in adynamic, historical engagement. The notion of 'sustainable and community-based resource management' is often based on incorrect assumptions, since

1 Burger's (1987) work is one of the earliest and most comprehensive treatments of develop-ment aggression against indigenous peoples and their resources. NGO advocate organizationslike Survival International and the International Working Group on Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA)have regularly come out with documentation on the impact of development projects on differ-ent groups of indigenous peoples across the globe.



much of the resource base of indigenous peoples has significantly dimin-ished in quality and quantity.

Within the context of the contemporary reality of indigenous peoples, theinterpretation of sustainable development as lying within the indigenous'community is therefore an uncritical, romantic image from an era long gone.Some Indian scholars have referred to such equations as a 'NewTraditionalist' discourse (Sinha, Gururani and Greenberg 1997). While thereis some validity in the argument that indigenous communities are character-ized by a culturally embedded conservation ethic supported by a traditional,community-based political organization, this representation is often tied upwith a claim to a past, if not hoary, golden age. The reference to the sustain-able practices of indigenous peoples within the contemporary developmentdiscourse is thus a leap of extrapolation from the past and must be treatedwith extreme caution.

Mode of subsistence of indigenous peoples

Indigenous communities are generally subsistence production societies.Forest-based communities have evolved strategies that usually combine theefficient, although not necessarily simple, appropriation of different aspects oftheir natural environment. Because forests are a highly diversified environ-ment, they provide opportunities for a variety of productive activities such asforest resource extraction, horticulture, hunting and fishing. Traditionally, theexploitation of the natural environment is usually carried out on a small scalebecause the fundamental goal is simple production to maintain the householdand not production of surplus for the market. By its nature, this mode of pro-duction tends not to over-exploit the available resources. Such a level ofresource exploitation does more to assure long-term sustainability of produc-tion, although it is considered underproductive from the standpoint of formaleconomics (Duhaylungsod 1998; Duhaylungsod and Hyndman 1995).

This subsistence mode of production of indigenous peoples is largelybased on an ideology of reciprocal exchange. As in access to land use, theentire production system of indigenous peoples is structured along kinshiplines. Although primarily subsistence-oriented, this production ethics canalso be applied to the sharing and redistribution of goods and resources, thusenabling the survival not merely of individuals but, more significantly, of theentire community. Termed by Wolf (1982) as the kinship mode of production,the dynamics of this mode are anchored in culture: from the appropriationand use of resources, the social organization of production and the labourprocess, to the distribution and circulation of the products of social labour(Duhaylungsod and Hyndman 1995).



Economy and environment among indigenous peoples are thereforeintegrated into a humanized, cultural landscape (Clarke 1990:45-7), as reflect-ed in their communal views on land, their cooperative work exchanges,communal rituals, songs, dances and folklore. However, such a relationshipof economy and environment among indigenous peoples should not betaken to mean that these people are naturally inclined to nature conservationand sustainable resource use. The fact is that the restrictive values underlyingresource access and use are based on religious beliefs and not on ecologicalprinciples (Van den Top and Persoon 2000).

The world's indigenous peoples are being increasingly confronted withthe dual forces of state-building and the worldwide expansion of capitalism.As many observers point out, 'the world's tribal peoples are sitting directlyin the path of the world's largest multinational corporations' (Lee 1992:37).Forests, which are the remaining frontier areas in Asia and elsewhere and thehome of many indigenous communities, have become sites of social and eco-nomic confrontation (Colchester 1995). Forcing indigenous peoples to adaptto these socioeconomic and political forces has resulted in a conflict that canbe traced to the incompatibility of social systems (indigenous peoples' cul-tures and the state) and differing relations of production (kinship and capi-talist) (Duhaylungsod and Hyndman 1995). Invariably, the state has beeninstrumental in these processes through development programs which haveusually been accompanied by reforms in the indigenous peoples' mode ofproduction, in many cases resulting in deprivation of the means of produc-tion and subsistence and the collapse of traditional social relations (Godelier1987). In fact, state intrusion has been a major cause of deprivation amongindigenous peoples and their consequent subjugation, so that advocacy fortheir rights has centred on the issue of resource sovereignty (Howitt andHirsch 1996:1).

In developing countries like the Philippines that have adopted growth-centred development orientation, many indigenous peoples' communitiesfind themselves trapped in a production situation governed by the increas-ing demands of the market economy. There are significant temporal and spa-tial differences in. the extent of market entrenchment among indigenouspeoples, with the variation resulting from their access to means of produc-tion and the depth of their integration in commodity markets (Duhaylung-sod and Hyndman 1995).. There are communities which have remainedtenacious and sustainable, even as they accommodate changes in their modeof production. Many of these communities are still either in subsistence orsmall-scale agricultural production, and many are already engaged in otherforms of petty commodity production. Invariably, however, many indige-nous' communities find themselves at a crossroads, and must choosebetween tradition and the engaging in agricultural production geared for the



market. The struggle that they are now facing is a tension between accumu-lation and subsistence production - a contradiction resulting from the inte-gration of subsistence communities with the market economy (Duhaylung-sod 1996). Thus, the tension is between growth (requiring resources foraccumulation) and basic needs (requiring the allocation of resources to con-sumption/subsistence and an equitable distribution of consumption) (Crowet al. 1988).

The phenomenon of capitalist expansion and market penetration accom-panied by increasing population has put pressure on forest lands, home tothe majority of indigenous peoples, particularly in developing countries. Yetforests are vital ecosystems in the conservation and regeneration of the envir-onment. The expansion and increasing commercialization of agriculture andforest resources have resulted in massive conversion of forest lands. Datashow that loss of forest land to agriculture has been a major cause of deforest-ation in the tropical zone (Alexandratos 1995:212).

Many indigenous peoples and their traditional system of subsistencehave endured for some time, especially those who opted to remain on theperiphery of development. But with competition growing fiercer for avail-able resources and the reality of diminishing frontier areas that are now tar-gets of expanded production, the indigenous systems that have worked inthe past are increasingly faced with threats to sustainability.

Requisites of sustainable development

The discourse on sustainable use of resources and the knowledge demon-strated by indigenous peoples need to be viewed in terms of three interlinkedelements: knowledge, social organization (and self-determination) and territ-orial assets (or resources).2 These elements govern the relationship betweenpeople and environment. In the earlier work summarized above, I empha-sized the interrelatedness of ecology, control of and access to resources andthe means of production in the shaping of the mode of subsistence of ahuman population, and argued that the process is fundamentally sociocul-turally constituted (Duhaylungsod and Hyndman 1995; Duhaylungsod1998). This dynamic can be better understood if we assume that knowledge,social organization and territorial assets are preconditions to a community's

2 Many of the ideas in this paper were the results of a collegial exchange of ideas with RusselBarsh and Chantelle Marlor of the University of Lethbridge and University of British Columbia(Canada), respectively, with whom I had the opportunity to visit six International ILO-assistedindigenous communities in the Cordillera, Mindoro, Negros, Bukidnon and Cotabato fromNovember 1997 to March 1998. The field visits were made possible through the PolicyDevelopment Unit (POLDEV) of the International Labour Organization (ILO).



sustainability of resource use. Knowledge implies a detailed understanding ofsocial and ecological dynamics, including recognition of changes in the envir-onment. Social organization changes by reorganizing relationships and re-sponsibilities as a community. Territorial assets are necessary physicalresources for survival and change, which implies the maintenance (or sus-tainable use) of some minimum ecological endowments. As I have indicated,these three conditions are necessarily linked. For example, knowledge relatesto a particular territory: separate the people from the land, and the know-ledge system loses its relevance - if it is maintained at all. Social organizationcannot easily be maintained without exchange, cooperation and some form ofritual, which, to be operational, require resources. Resources cannot be con-served or used sustainably without knowledge and collective action.Collective action is required to perpetuate and continue to revise the know-ledge system. In short, social organization is inextricably linked with modesof production. In the Marxist analytical tradition, this implies that commun-ities reorganize themselves as new modes of production develop. The natureof resources and, consequently, the environment as resource base adjusts inresponse to changes in the mode of production. Likewise, new ways of actingand thinking are needed to adapt to the pressures of new ways of producing.

Within this framework, indigenous peoples should be viewed as strat-egizing social actors when broader forces of change intervene in their socio-cultural system (Long and Van der Ploeg 1989). Communities have been his-torically engaged in a continuous process of transactions and interchange,and the sociocultural nature of the communities is discursively and activelycreated, re-shaped and transmitted by different sets of actors both over timeand according to local ecological particularities. In other words, 'people donot just adapt to environments, they make them, shaping from both materi-als and possibilities they see in the habitat and the surrounding life forms'(Croll and Parkin 1992:16). This position contrasts with the classic anthropo-logical studies of the 1960s that analysed these so-called traditional commu-nities as if they were simply 'islands unto themselves', impervious to thechanges and processes that are constantly occurring through time (Ortner1984:386).

More recent scholars of indigenous peoples, particularly those embracinga political economy perspective, have noted that the world's indigenouspeoples have been interacting with various forces of change, resulting indynamic and innovative patterns of relationship with their environment.Many of these processes revolve around the ongoing political incorporationand market integration of indigenous' communities and include changingpatterns of resource access and management. For instance, it has been notedthat 'upland Philippine groups have experienced dynamic changes in theirsocial organization and economy for centuries. Land pressure in many



upland areas has resulted in a history of innovations and alterations in re-source management and productive activities' (Russel and Cunningham1989:8).

Because indigenous peoples today are enmeshed in state-building andincreasingly pressured to adapt to a commoditized form of production, it isnecessary for them to acquire the following capabilities in order to effectivelyconfront the forces impinging on them:Capacity to recognize changes in the flux surrounding them, which implies adetailed knowledge of social and ecological dynamics and critical vigilancetowards their environment (knowledge);

Capacity to respond collectively to change by reorganizing their relation-ships and responsibilities as a community, which implies solidarity, respect-ed decision-making processes, and freedom of choice or self-determination(social organization);

Capacity to mobilize the necessary physical resources for survival andchange such as food, fuel and materials, which implies the maintenance (orsustainable use) of minimum ecological endowments (territorial assets orresources).

Contemporary conditions of indigenous peoples in the Philippines

Throughout the Philippines there are about a hundred indigenous peopleswith distinct cultural characteristics that are classified into six regionalgroupings. The terms 'tribal Filipinos' and 'ethnic or cultural minorities' havebeen used as categorical referents to distinguish various indigenous peopleswho have historically retained more of their 'ethnos' or tribe from those whowere assimilated during Spanish or American colonial rule. Collectively, theyaccount for eight to ten million people, or about ten to fifteen per cent of thecountry's estimated 70 million inhabitants. They are also identified with theupland or mountain environment (or hinterlands) of the Philippines, thelowlands being where the 'majority' ethnic groups dwell. Centuries of coloni-alism are largely responsible for this cultural and geographic dichotomy (Du-haylungsod 1993). Colonial legacy included a dismemberment, if not out-right elimination, of ancestral domains, a term employed by indigenouspeoples' advocates to refer to the traditional territories of indigenouspeoples.

The exploitation, distribution and control of land and resources in thePhilippines is mediated by differing and unequal relationships of powersuch that indigenous peoples continue to suffer discrimination and exclu-sion. This is perpetuated by the hierarchical distinction between 'civilized'and 'primitive' peoples. State institutions have been unable to tolerate mul-


Rethinking Sustainable Development ' 617

tiple ways of life, and until the enactment of the Indigenous Peoples' RightsAct (IPRA), ancestral domain claims of indigenous peoples were systematic-ally ignored. In the past, indigenous peoples resisted the imposition of stateauthority and pressure from the outside by retreating to the remaining fron-tier regions of their homelands (Duhaylungsod and Hyndman 1993). Asresource competition expands in the Philippines in pursuit of growth-orient-ed development, the ancestral domains and resources of indigenous peoplesare increasingly placed under the control of the state.

Following global trends towards negotiating constitutional changes inorder to accommodate new relationships with indigenous peoples whichreflect recognition of their sovereign status (Wilmer 1993), constitutionalreform in the Philippines has also introduced provisions that finally legit-imize the status of indigenous communities. After the overthrow of theMarcos dictatorship, provisions pertaining to the special autonomy statusand rights of indigenous peoples were incorporated in the new constitution.This was also in response to mounting pressure from various alliances ofindigenous peoples and advocacy groups. The Philippine Congress enactedthe Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA) in 1998.3

The reality of indigenous peoples in the Philippines, as elsewhere, is char-acterized by rapid ecological, economic and sociocultural changes. Thesechanges are accompanied by considerable ambivalence and disagreementover values and goals, and by new power alignments. The likelihood is thatonly some of the peoples form a real 'community of values', motivated andcapable of strengthening their traditional solidarity. In other words, theindigenous peoples may form two, or even more, communities, rather thanthe idealized picture of a single community (Duhaylungsod forthcoming a).4

3 The provisions of the IPRA on the delineation process for recognizing ancestral domainsinvolves a complex and lengthy procedure both at the field level and within the bureaucracy.This includes petitioning the local community, proofs of legitimate claims through writtenaccounts that specify customs, traditions and other culture markers, maps and endorsement bythe National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), and the issuance and registration ofcertificates of ancestral domain. All these documents necessarily involve tedious transactionsand negotiations between different government instrumentalities and agencies, a process forwhich many indigenous communities in the Philippines do not have the facility.4 It was interesting to learn during the ILO project visits that in virtually all communities, theold people have become mere repositories of traditional knowledge and skills. This is especial-ly true of the communities of Bugtong Lubi, Mindoro and Higaonon in Sinuda, Davao del Sur.The case of the retention and continuity of the brassware and loomweaving among the Maranaoin Marawi is perhaps more of an exception than the rule. In the case of the Mangyan who man-ifest more cultural distinctiveness and sense of community, they have strong memories of age-old practices but are rendered already impracticable within their immediate surroundingsbecause these practices are bound up with a forest ecosystem which they have already lost. Inpractically all the communities visited, much of the traditional knowledge is seen as alive onlyin the more remote areas of their ancestral homelands.



Many indigenous ' communities today are recovering from extensive eco-logical destruction, displacement and disempowerment, which puts them ina precarious state. Many communities historically suffered common experi-ences of systematic internal colonialism and disenfranchisement rangingfrom state-building activities and settler migrants to logging, evangelizing,gold mining, agribusiness and cattle ranching within the past 25 years ormore (see Duhaylungsod and Hyndman 1992a, 1992b, 1993). As a result,most communities have undergone profound structural economic changesand ideological differentiation. In most instances, their immediate concernsare focused on the regeneration of their ancestral domains, restoration oftheir subsistence base and asserting their right to freedom from further inter-vention. In most cases their hold on the land may be precarious, and estab-lishing security of tenure thus becomes a primary issue. In some cases, com-munities have been relocated or have found themselves in areas contested bythe New People's Army (NPA) or, in Mindanao, at the crossroads of the MoroIslamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the Muslim National Liberation Front(MNLF).

Social stratification and polarization resulting from an intensified rela-tionship with the state and market orientation, though incipient in mostcases, have certainly resulted in ambivalence, if not disagreement, overvalues and goals. The creation of power realignments and the emergence ofnew areas of ideological opposition are processes that have accompanied theincreasing communication and contact among indigenous peoples, distantpolicy-makers and other stakeholders.

Furthermore, many communities have already been transformed fromnetworks of families and patterns of social solidarity into competing groupsbased on relationships with the state and economic interests. Social stratifi-cation and polarization, in varying degrees, characterize the social structureof the majority of indigenous communities.

The culture of dependence on aid agencies is also evident among thosecommunities that have become beneficiaries of development projects, andmuch of their current economic activity and thinking has already beenreshaped by the philosophies of those agencies. Cash crops, individualownership of imported technologies, class distinctions and indebtedness areon the increase, especially among those who have become more market-ori-ented or have been thrown into a mix with other ethnolinguistic groups suchas many of those in Mindanao (Marlor, Barsh and Duhaylungsod 1999).

As the members of indigenous communities negotiate the agenda of sus-tainable development, they need to reassess the possibilities of their radicallytransformed ecosystems. They find themselves increasingly faced with thetask of negotiating and reconstructing the discourse of development(Duhaylungsod forthcoming b). While they have had a remarkable history of



political advocacy, experience indicates that the pressures to conform aresimply overwhelming. Bennagen (1998), summing up his long experiences ofdialogues with indigenous peoples, succinctly observes,

While their own experiences tell them who they are (collective identity by self-ascription), they are hard put to locate themselves in the 'development' discourse.Discussions about what IP indigenous peoples in general want and what specificcommunities want yield conflicting and incoherent answers reflecting no doubtthe differential impact of culture contact. Some individuals and groups want to belike the 'progressive lowland Christian' or the 'rich Americans', suggesting thatthey perceive themselves as a stage in a unilinear ladder-like process of social andcultural change. Thus, they aspire for and occasionally acquire consumer goodsand behaviour considered as indicators of the 'progressive' life. Others just could-n't care less and appear to accept the way they are and continue to be perceivedby outsiders as lazy and 'poorest of the poor'. (Bennagen 1998:28.)

This predicament notwithstanding, what is essential is to recognize that com-munities are undergoing the task of confronting and resolving these contra-dictions within themselves. The process is not easy.

Upo: from subsistence to agricultural intensification

Upo is a T'boli Mohin village in the Sarangani province of Mindanao aboutfive km from the nearest town centre of Maitum. The community representsmany T'boli communities, a distinct indigenous people in Mindanao whoseancestral homelands cover South Cotabato and the newly formed Saranganiprovince. Altogether the ancestral homeland of the T'boli is a 2,000 km2

heartland forming a triangle between the towns of Polomolok, Surallah andKiamba. It is accessible over a dirt road by tricycle and four-wheel-drivevehicles.

The village, covering about 49 ha of land, has been traditionally held bythe Kusin family. The indigenous community of T'boli has largely been ableto maintain its traditional relationship with the forest, despite historicalphases of land dispossession and displacement. The peoples' ancestraldomain forms part of the vast mountain ranges of the Cotabato Cordillera.Just like many forest-based communities described earlier, the traditionalbasis of livelihood of the T'boli revolves around their forest homelands andis primarily oriented towards subsistence and simple production. Such a sys-tem of production is called swidden agriculture (Duhaylungsod andHyndman 1993,1995).

The total land area of the village or barangay Upo is 2,430 ha, 12 per centof which has remained a forest with some hardwood (Dipterocarp). Patches ofsecond-growth forest are still abundant, interspersed with T'boli swidden



f'SWo Arctitpelago

(c) CML 2001

70 140 210 280 Kilometers

farms (t'niba fields). The entire landscape features important cultural land-marks (sacred sites, taboo and ceremonial areas). In 1998, Upo had a popula-tion of 1,195, consisting of 259 households and spread over the remaining for-est expanse of the village. Until about a year ago, the community was largelyaccessible by hiking the seven kilometre distance between the village centreand the municipality of Maitum. Presently, mobility has been enhanced byroad improvement and the consequent expansion of transport facilities.

In the 1940s, portions of their ancestral lands were lost to Strong, anAmerican who established a coconut plantation, and another portion to aMuslim land speculator. Strong, with power and access to legal instruments,was able to get a title to the lands he occupied, but the appropriation of landby the Muslim was consistently contested by the Kusins. In 1993, with inter-ior lands no longer available for retreat and as part of their strategy to reclaimtheir lost lands, the Kusins started re-establishing their settlement in the vil-lage under the leadership of one of the brothers, Kubli, a 36-year-old who has



become the barangay kapitan of Upo. He encouraged his co-villagers, mostlykin, to stay on in the lands they are cultivating.

Introduction of agricultural development schemes5

Realizing that their community was continuously being pushed to the inter-ior as a consequence of outsiders encroaching on their ancestral homelands,Kubli took much of the initiative in reclaiming the ancestral lands that hadbeen lost to several speculators. The initiative was strengthened by his kinconnection with the local Municipal Environment Officer (MENRO), whofacilitated contacts with development programmes through the Departmentof Agriculture (DA) of Sarangani province. Through these agencies, Upobecame the recipient of a number of development assistance grants and localmunicipal political activities in just ten years. During the Ramos administra-tion (1995-1998), it was chosen as a pilot site for the Social Reform Agenda(SRA) programme, which is also to be credited for having facilitated theintroduction of various development interventions. These range from aspring development project and road development to provision of primaryeducational facilities and livelihood schemes in Upo. In addition, the contactwith these state instruments resulted in a land-use zoning plan for the Upoancestral domain.

Sedentary agriculture is a relatively recent practice among the Upo T'boli.With the initial move towards securing their forest homelands throughIntegrated Social Forestry (ISF), the community was encouraged to practisemore sedentary farming. Through the contacts with the municipal govern-ment, the Upo T'boli were introduced to more intensive cash cropping in late1995 when Cargill, a transnational seed company, offered to fund corn pro-duction on their farms. Cargill supplied certified corn seed and providedtechnical training and a loan package to the T'boli. The venture that year wasproductive and the T'boli were able to pay back their loans. However, the ElNino storms in 1997 halted the cash cropping of corn, and the T'boli com-pletely abandoned the scheme, reverting to their traditional, seasonal corncropping.

Through the provincial government, the Mindanao Baptist Rural LifeCenter (MBRLC) conducted a SALT (Sloping Agriculture Land Technology)farming technology seminar in 1998. In addition, the provincial Departmentof Agriculture (DA) provided a carabao and goat dispersal project to enhancethe agricultural system in Upo. The ISF area in Upo, covering 294 ha, was

5 Recent data on Upo has been gathered as part of the UPLBGPRD-UPLBFI-CIFOR projectentitled 'Creating Space for Local Forest Management', 1998-2000.



also distributed to 98 T'boli households, giving each recipient 3 ha for agro-forestry cultivation. A second batch of ISF applications covering 429 ha is stillcurrently pending.

About the same year, discussions with the provincial and the municipalgovernments resulted in a land-use zoning plan designating 108 ha for theestablishment of the Agricultural Research Centre (ARC), which, in effect,will turn the area into a nursery and agricultural research station. The prim-ary objective is to convince the T'boli communities and other neighbouringgroups of the viability of commercial forest. Recently, rubber tree seedlingswere planted in the area.

Kubli's discussion with the Fiber Industry Development Authority(FIDA) resulted in a technical assistance scheme on abaca cultivation in thecontext of the T'boli's traditional abaca fiber craft. As a result, there is anongoing massive abaca planting on three sites in Upo. The local leadershipenvisions revitalizing the traditional t'nalak weaving, which they hope can betransformed into a commercial enterprise.

The Women in Development of Sarangani (WINDS), a task force ofwomen created in 1995 by the provincial government and adopted in all themunicipalities, has also reached Upo. Essentially, the project is aimed atwomen's empowerment through income generation. The Upo T'boli womenhave been organized into such a task force and have been given work an-imals and three sewing machines by the wife of the municipal mayor. Apartfrom these, the Upo WINDS takes part in forest management by doing weed-ing for farm owners in the nearby farming communities. WINDS is also incharge of the day care centre and planted an herbal garden next to the daycare building.

Forest protection management schemes

A tree-planting activity was initiated by MENRO to replace the dipterocarpswashed down during the flash flood of June 1999. The flood took the entirecommunity by surprise, including the whole municipality of Maitum. It wasbelieved the flood occurred because of the effects of El Nino. A reforestationscheme requiring the Upo constituents to plant rubber and coffee treesaround the spring was developed by the Barangay Upo Water SanitationAssociation (BUWSA). This was an organization that grew out of the springdevelopment project, which involved the Davao Medical School Foundation(a medical NGO), as well as the provincial and local governments. Unlike theorganizers of other infrastructure projects, the leadership here simplyrequested the materials required to set up the water system and then mobil-ized work groups of local T'boli men as their contribution to the project.



Alongside this effort is the organization of male T'boli into a forest man-agement group called Bantay gubat/ilog (Forest/river guardians). This localforest guard was formed even prior to Sarangani Provincial Ordinance no.11, which is a provincial law for the protection and conservation of the forest.Of the 2,450-ha Upo ancestral domain , about 1,307 ha (53 per cent) are stillprimary forest, while there is secondary growth on about 1,000 ha. Thescheme is to police forest poachers, and it appears that the efforts have beeneffective. If this is sustained and is combined with a consistent observance ofthe provincial ordinance, the quality of the remaining Upo forest cover,which the bamngay council zoned as a protected area, can be maintained.

Continuities and transformations

Upo's access to state agencies has resulted in the creation of social and polit-ical space, which in turn has produced opportunities for forest-based sus-tainable agriculture that has challenged the community. Further degradationof the forest has been arrested, making it possible to continue some culturaltraditions such as sacred sites and forest-related rituals and beliefs. Visibleefforts to regenerate the quality of the ecosystem have also been undertaken.Yet it remains to be seen whether these efforts can become well entrenched,and whether the options chosen are enough to ensure the community's sur-vival as a people with a distinct culture.

Upo has become a development showcase for both the provincial and themunicipal governments. But though an acknowledged breakthrough hasbeen made in regard to securing the T'boli homeland, the traditional socio-cultural system, with its strong embodiment of social capital, may also berendered vulnerable by the T'boli's massive acceptance of these externalagencies. The livelihood projects, which promote market entry and marketconsciousness among the T'boli, are a force that the T'boli have to contendwith. The logic of a profit economy, with its ethic of individualism, generallyworks against the norm of reciprocity and community solidarity.

The shift from a largely subsistence system to a more market-oriented agro-forestry system entails changes in traditional production relations. The pres-sure to engage in more intensive abaca production will impact on genderrelations in particular, because women will be much more engaged in com-merce than before. In fact, signs of change are already evident. Road im-provement in Upo has pushed the men into farm and forest activities and thewomen into market relations. In the past, the men were more involved inmarket activities, but they also wasted a great deal of income drinking andgallivanting. Now, with women doing much of the marketing, the income is



much more wisely used and women's empowerment has thereby increased.However, such impact needs further analysis in the context of householdarrangement., At this point, it is still too early to draw any conclusions, giventhe lack of an empirical base and the fact that the level of household incomeis still at subsistence level.

The ISF areas remain in a tenuous and contentious state as far as the localcommunity is concerned. It has been observed by Kubli and the MENROoffice leadership that the community is not able to exercise autonomy andcontrol of ISF areas because many of the terms are imposed by the nationalgovernment through the DENR. The local leadership is hoping for a schemethat will free them of such constraints. Furthermore, the prospect of fullyregaining the lands appropriated by the descendants of the Strong family isbleak because these are already titled. This patch of land is strategically locat-ed in the centre of the Upo ancestral domain.

The proposed ARC is another grey area that may cause future destabil-ization in the community's hold on their resource base. This agriculturalresearch centre is envisioned to provide services to the entire province ofSarangani, but the Upo T'boli are likely be marginalized since they do nothave the required educational qualifications that jobs at the centre mayrequire (such as that of agronomists, horticulturists). At best, the T'boli maybe hired as mere labourers. Since it is a provincial government project, thereis a likelihood that the area, a substantial patch of 108 ha, will eventually beappropriated by the government. Eighty ha of the ARC area are still forest,contiguous to the ISF areas. Given that the latter is also weakly controlled bythe local community, the Upo T'boli as legitimate forest stakeholder mayeventually be rendered precarious.

Conclusion

As the case of the T'boli demonstrates, the geographic landscape of indig-enous peoples' homelands has been historically altered through both stateintrusions and the constantly active manipulation of the local people in theirstruggle to sustain their communities' precarious hold on their lands andresources. It is anachronistic to invoke indigenous peoples communities as aprofoundly rich and important symbol of sustainable resource use. The cur-rency of sustainable development has translated traditional resource use andindigenousness into icons of popular discourse, yet this argument is merelyan assumption. Given the contemporary realities and experiences of indig-enous communities, such an assumption should be explored to find outwhether it is 'only a case of imagining a past, but in an unintended way, alsoimagining the present' (Resurreccion 1999:262). To speak of indigenous



peoples employing an essentially sound and sustainable livelihood system is,more often than not, selectively invoking history to suit contemporary pur-poses (Cohen 1985).

Traditional subsistence practices may have been sound and, to a certainextent, sustainable, but advocates of this discourse need to investigatewhether these practices are still viable given the present day realities ofindigenous peoples. Economic and ecological conditions continue to changerapidly in many indigenous peoples' homelands as new resources are identi-fied for expanding the cash and commodity economy (for example, as aresult of new open-pit mining or more aggressive campaigns for cash crop-ping), stimulating further variation and flux within the communities. Indig-enous peoples do not live just as their ancestors did, and though there are dif-ferent levels of response, many indigenous communities are capable ofresponding by referring to past ways of living, where possible. In manyways, these groups are also evolving novel and syncretic methods as theyconfront, negotiate and try to reconstruct the discourse of sustainable devel-opment. This seems to be the formidable task facing indigenous peoplestoday.

REFERENCES

Alexandratos, N. (ed.)1995 World agriculture; Towards 2010; An FAO study. Chichester: FAO/John

Wiley.ANGOC Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development1993 Sowing the seeds for our future; Report of the second Asian Development

Forum. Quezon City: ANGOC.1997 Sustainable agriculture in Asia. Quezon City: ANGOC.Barsh, R., L. Duhaylungsod and C. Marlor1998 Culturally specific concepts and indicators of development for indigenous

peoples in the Philippines; A report. Manila: ILO. 'Bennagen, P.1998 Comments on the terminal report on 'Culturally specific concepts and indi-

cators of development for indigenous peoples in the Philippines'. Manila:ILO.

Bennagen, P.L. and M.L. Lucas-Fernan1996 Consulting the spirits; Working with nature, sharing with others; Indigenous

resource management in the Philippines. Quezon City: Sentro Para saGanap na Pamayanan.

Burger, J.1987 Report from the frontier; The status of the world's indigenous peoples.

London: Zed.



Cadelina, R.1974 'Notes on the beliefs and practices of contemporary negritoes and the

extent of their integration with the lowland Christians in SouthernNegros', Philippine Quarterly of Society and Culture 2-1/2:47-60.

Clarke, W.1990 'Traditional conservation and development in the Pacific', The

Contemporary Pacific 2-2:3-53.Cohen, Anthony1985 The symbolic construction of community. London: Tavistock.Colchester, M.1994 Salvaging nature; Indigenous peoples, protected areas and biodiversi-

ty. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development(UNRISD). [Discussion paper.]

1995 'Indigenous peoples' rights and sustainable resource use in South andSoutheast Asia', in: R.H. Barnes et al. (eds), Indigenous peoples of Asia,pp. 59-76. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Association for Asian Studies.

Connel, J. and R. Howitt (eds)1991 Mining and indigenous peoples in Australiasia. Sydney: Sydney Uni-

versity Press.Croll, E. and D. Parkin1992 'Anthropology, the environment and development', in: E. Croll and D.

Parkin (eds), Bush base; Forest, farm culture, environment and develop-ment, pp. 3-10. London: Routledge.

Davis, S.H. and K. Ebbe (eds)1995 Traditional knowledge and sustainable development; Proceedings of a confer-

ence held at the World Bank. Washington, DC: World Bank. [Envir-onmentally Sustainable Development Proceedings Series 4.]

Duhaylungsod, L.1993 'Ancestral domain and cultural identity; Missing notes in develop-

ment1, PSSC Philippine Social Science Information 21-1:19-41.1996 Rural development, sustainable agriculture; Myth or reality? Paper

presented at the 11th IFOAM International Scientific Conference,Copenhagen, Denmark, 11-15 August.

1998 'Rethinking subsistence through cultural economies of indigenouspeoples', Diliman Review 4-2:14-22.

forthcoming a Discourses on developmentalism; Some notes from an anthropologist-cum-environmentalist. Quezon City: PSSC.

forthcoming b Beyond sustainability; Indigenous peoples' culture and environment at risk.Bonn: International Human Dimensions Program (IHDP).

Duhaylungsod, L. and D. Hyndman1992a 'Creeping resource exploitation in the T'boli Homeland; Political ecol-

ogy of the Tasaday hoax', in: T. Headland (ed.), The Tasaday controver-sy; An assessment of the evidence, pp. 59-75. Washington, DC: AmericanAnthropological Association.

1992b 'Where all that glitters is not gold; Crossroads of mining exploitationin the T'boli homeland', Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 24-3:3-15.



1993 Where T'boli bells toll; Political ecology voices behind the Tasaday hoax.Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.

1995 'Enduring systems of subsistence and simple reproduction in thePhilippines', Pilipinas 25:21-48.

Eder, J.1977 'Agricultural intensification and returns to Labor in the Philippine

swidden systems', Pacific Viewpoint 18:1-21.Escobar, A.1995 Encountering development; The making and unmaking of the Third World.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Godelier, M.1987 'Introduction; The analysis of transition processes', International Social

Science Journal 39:447-58.Henningham, S. and R. May (eds)1992 Resources, development and politics in the Pacific Islands. Bathurst:

Crawford House.Howitt, R., J. Connel and P. Hirsch1996 Resources, nations and indigenous peoples. Melbourne: Oxford University

Press.Kikuchi, Y. (ed.)1989 Philippine kinship and society. Quezon City: New Day.Lee, R.1992 'Art, science, or politics? The crisis in hunter-gatherer studies', Amer-

ican Anthropologist 94:31-54.Long, N. and J. van der Ploeg1989 'Demythologizing planned intervention; An actor perspective',

Sociologia Ruralis 29-3:226-49.Marlor, C, R. Barsh and L. Duhaylungsod1999 'Comment on defining indicators which make sense to local people;

Intra-cultural variations in perception of natural resources', HumanOrganization 58-2:216-19.

Ortner, S.1984 "Theory in anthropology since the sixties', in: N. Dirks et al. (eds),

Culture/power/history; A reader in contemporary social theory. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.

Pepper, D.1993 Eco-socialism; From deep ecology to social justice. London: Routledge.Resurreccion, B.1999 Transforming nature, redefining selves: The Hague: Institute of Social

Studies. [Unpublished PhD thesis.]Rice, D.1993 Tkalahan; Stewards of sustainable systems', Tambara 10:200-17.Russel, S. and E. Cunningham1989 Changing lives, changing rites; Ritual and social dynamics in Philippine and

Indonesian uplands. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Center for South and South-east Asian Studies, University of Michigan.



Schegel, S.1979 Tiruray subsistence; The transformation from shifting agriculture to plow

agriculture. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.Sinha, S., S. Gururani and B. Greenberg1997 "The "New Traditionalist" discourse of Indian environmentalism', The

Journal of Peasant Studies 24-3:65-99.Top, G. van den and G. Persoon2000 'Dissolving state responsibilities for forests in Northeast Luzon', in:

Ch.J-H. MacDonald and G.M. Pesigan (eds), Old ties and new solidar-ities; Studies on Philippine communities, pp. 158-176. Quezon City:Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Wilmer, Franke1993 The indigenous voice of world politics; Since time immemorial. London:

Sage.Wolf, E.1982 Europe and the people without history. Berkeley: University of California

Press.


Documents

Dalnsod einin ssainale develomen. ndienos eoles and