UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Indigenous People ... · state’s recognition of adat...

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (httpdareuvanl)

UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

Indigenous People and Contested Access to Land in the Philippines and IndonesiaGuest Editors IntroductionRutten R

Published inKasarinlan

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA)Rutten R (2016) Indigenous People and Contested Access to Land in the Philippines and Indonesia GuestEditors Introduction Kasarinlan 3031(21) 1-29

General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forwarddistribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) andor copyright holder(s)other than for strictly personal individual use unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons)

DisclaimerComplaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests please let the Library know statingyour reasons In case of a legitimate complaint the Library will make the material inaccessible andor remove it from the website Please Askthe Library httpsubauvanlencontact or a letter to Library of the University of Amsterdam Secretariat Singel 425 1012 WP AmsterdamThe Netherlands You will be contacted as soon as possible

Download date 10 Sep 2019

1RUTTEN INTRODUCTION

Indigenous People and Contested Access toLand in the Philippines and Indonesia

ABSTRACT To provide context to the articles and research notes in this issue thisintroduction presents contrasting and converging trends in indigenous communitiesrsquotroubled access to land in the Philippines and Indonesia Moreover it highlights themain themes discussed in this issue in particular histories of dispossession staterecognition of indigenous peoplersquos land rights (and its challenges) dilemmas of inclusionand exclusion communal versus individual land ownership trends and patterns ofresistance negotiation and accommodation

KEYWORDS indigenous people middot land access middot Philippines middot Indonesia

INTRODUCTION

As a starter consider the following contrasting trends First landmarklegislation in the Philippines and Indonesia has paved the way forindigenous communities to (re)claim ancestral domains that wouldtaken together cover a vast part of current state land This concernspotentially some ldquoone-third of the land area of the Philippinesrdquo1

through the Indigenous Peoplersquos Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997 (RepublicAct 8371) and a substantial part of Indonesiarsquos ldquostate forestrdquo followinga Constitutional Court ruling in 2013 (Safitri this issue) In sharpcontrast the current wave of large-scale land acquisitions in thePhilippines and Indonesia (for the production and export of foodanimal feed biofuels timber and mineral products as well as for thecreation of tourist zones and special economic zones) is accelerating theloss of indigenous communitiesrsquo control over land (see Borras andFranco 2011) Many indigenous communities still occupy what isofficially state land and they are vulnerable to state policies thatapportion large chunks of these lands to investors Moreoverdiscrimination and ostracism by ldquomainstreamrdquo society politicalmarginalization poverty low literacy rates and the lack of know-howin navigating state processes and policies have left these communitiesvulnerable to investors and state officials who claim control over the

GUEST EDITORrsquoSINTRODUCTIONRosanne Rutten

2 KASARINLAN VOL 30 NO 2 AND VOL 31 NO 1 2015ndash2016

land in the name of ldquodevelopmentrdquo A third trend is the increasingparticipation in market production by indigenous people themselvesas cultivators of cash crops which exacerbates tensions over land withinindigenous communities As these different trends converge thequestion of how indigenous people can (re)gain and retain control overtheir land and on what terms becomes all the more relevant

This special issue has grown out of an international conferenceheld at the University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman on 16-17February 2015 titled ldquoContested Access to Land in the Philippines andIndonesia How Can the Rural Poor (Re)Gain Controlrdquo The conferencewas jointly organized by the UP Asian Center the UP Third WorldStudies Center and the University of Amsterdam through its researchprogram ldquo(Trans)national Land Investments in Indonesia and thePhilippines Contested Access to Farm Land and Cash Cropsrdquo2

From the double panel on indigenous people and commercialland claims we selected papers with an original take on the issue andinvited one more author (Paredes) to contribute The papers on thePhilippines all center on Mindanao a region that exhibits major issueson indigenous peoplersquos land rights the papers on Indonesia deal withprocesses of state recognition of ldquocustomary landrdquo and actualdevelopments in Kalimantan

The resulting selection highlights several key themes on the topichistories of dispossession state recognition of indigenous peoplersquosland rights (and its challenges) dilemmas of inclusion and exclusioncommunal versus individual land ownership trends and patterns ofresistance negotiation and accommodation Further below I offersome background information on each of these themes as I introducethe respective contributions But first a few notes on the two countriesin focus

The term ldquoindigenous peoplerdquo is contested in Indonesia butofficially accepted in the Philippines (which uses the English term)Since neither country was a settler colony with a clear divide betweena presumed original population and foreign settlers the use (or non-use) of the term depends on the definition and political implicationsFor self-ascribed indigenous people in both countries the termdenotes that they are ldquoindigenousrdquo in relation to (later) settlers and topowerful outsiders who are perceived as a threat to local control overland resources livelihood and culture it also denotes that theyconsider themselves and their practices different from the mainstreamdominant national society and culture epitomized by the nationalstate (Gray 1995) The term is especially salient because of ldquoits reference


to land or territoryrdquo as a crucial aspect of indigenous identity (36emphasis added) Indigenous people ldquoare almost invariably those whoconsider their territorial base under threat from the outside and realizethat there is no room for coexistence without their own destructionrdquo(36) In Asia at large therefore the term is used as part of ldquoa politicalstrategy for attaining collective rights to territories and cultural respectrdquoand for indigenous people ldquoto represent themselves through their owninstitutionsrdquo (45 Colchester 1995 61)

The Philippine state adopted the term ldquoindigenous peoplerdquo withits strong territorial component3 as a key step toward state recognitionof ancestral domain The 1987 Constitution drawn up by the Aquinogovernment after the ldquoPeople Power Revolutionrdquo recognizes the ldquorightsof indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral landsrdquo (ArticleXII Section 5) Previous (post)colonial Philippine regimes used termsthat stressed cultural distinctions (non-Christian populations tribescultural minorities) but not the inseparable connection to territory(Rood 1998) The Indonesian state is still hesitant to use the term Thepast Suharto regime following Dutch colonial distinctions based onrace rather than ethnicity or livelihood claimed ldquothat Indonesia is anation which has no indigenous people or that all Indonesians areequally indigenousrdquo except for people of Chinese and Arab descent (Li2000 149 also Nababan and Sombolinggi 2016) However Indonesianactivists are increasingly using the term in the Indonesian version ofmasyarakat adat (ldquocustom-based communitiesrdquo or ldquopeople governed bycustomrdquo Kleden this issue) and its related discourse of claims toterritorial control Moreover under pressure from global indigenouspeoplersquos organizations international institutions like the World Bankthe Asian Development Bank and the World Wildlife Fund introducedthe international discourse on ldquoindigenous peoplerdquo in Indonesialdquothrough the financial power and operational structures of theseinstitutionsrdquo (Persoon 2009 202) Recent Indonesian legislationrefers to masyarakat hukum adat (customary law communities) as clearlytied to ldquotraditional territoryrdquo and ldquoancestral natural resourcesrdquo withtraditional legal and governance structures4 By rough estimates of non-government organizations (NGOs) the indigenous population in thePhilippines comprises some 10 to 20 percent of the total populationof 101 million in 2015 in Indonesia they comprise an estimated 20to 35 percent of the total population of 250 million (eg Dekdekenand Carintildeo 2016 252 Nababan and Sombolinggi 2016 262)

On the central issue of indigenous peoplersquos contested access toland the Philippines and Indonesia show both similarities and


differences In both countriesrsquo histories colonial states took controlover much of the land under the principle of colonial domain this waslater adopted and extended by the respective independent regimes Theinitial colonial recognition of customary land rights (hardly enforcedin the Spanish Philippines compared to the Dutch East Indies) waseffectively scrapped in the Philippines by the Spanish colonial MauraLaw of 1894 and severely restricted in Indonesia by the independentstatersquos Basic Agrarian Law of 1960 (Lynch 2011 Bedner 2016) Theldquocardinal sin of Philippine land lawrdquo says Lynch (2011 468) was ldquotheoriginal colonial usurpation of customary property rights in the 1894Maura Lawrdquo which dictated that agricultural land without validregistration would ldquorevertrdquo to the state (169) On its part theIndonesian Basic Agrarian Law introduced stringent conditions on thestatersquos recognition of adat communal rights to land (Bedner 2016 65)In both countries the state vastly increased its control over land andeffectively disenfranchised many indigenous communities

Recent state legislation on the recognition of customary landrights in contrast marks a major potential shift from state control overcustomary land back to private indigenous control The possible scopeis immense Consider the area of state land (public land) which isprimarily classified as ldquoforest landrdquo with or without actual remainingforest cover In the Philippines 158 million hectares of the total landarea of 30 million hectares is classified as ldquoforest landrdquo (DENR 2015GIZ 2016 29) in Indonesia it is some 120 million hectares of thetotal land area of 190 million hectares (Safitri this issue) In thePhilippines some 5 million hectares of state land are covered (as of2014) by 162 Certificates of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADT) underthe Indigenous Peoplesrsquo Rights Act of 1997 (Ranada 2014)5 with manyCADT applications still under process6 In Indonesia the governmentpledged in December 2016 to distribute 127 million hectares of ldquostateforestrdquo to indigenous communities as private ldquocustomary forestsrdquo (andto other forest dwellers as ldquocommunity forestsrdquo) following theConstitutional Court ruling in 2013 (Mongabay 2017) ldquoThey oncewere labeled [forest] squatters But now we uphold their constitutionalrights as citizensrdquo the Indonesian Minister of Forestry and Environmentsaid of the beneficiaries (Parina 2016) But NGO AMAN (IndigenousPeoples Alliance of the Archipelago) estimates that up to 42 millionhectares of forest land might qualify for state recognition as privatecustomary forest land (Fay and Denduangrudee 2016 100)

In both countries long-term pressure politics has been essentialIn contrast to the Philippines however the democratic space forindigenous peoplersquos mobilization has opened up more recently in


Indonesia (since Suhartorsquos fall in 1998) A Bill on the Recognition andProtection of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is still pendingdeliberation in the Indonesian parliament and the statersquos implementingstructure for indigenous land recognition is not yet in place

Economic liberalization and booming global demand for foodanimal feed biofuels and mineral resources have significantly raisedthe commercial value of indigenous land in both countries in the lastdecades attracting more foreign and domestic investors who generallyfind very accommodating government officials at all administrativelevels (cf Wolford et al 2013) In contrast to the Philippines whereits 1987 Constitution allows private corporations to lease 1000hectares of state land at most7 investors in Indonesia can gain accessto huge swaths of state land (oil palm plantations of up to 100000hectares each for instance) through land-use permits granted by thestate particularly in Kalimantan Sumatra and Papua This land oftenoverlaps with ancestral land Such major investments on ancestral landare generally legitimated as harbingers of ldquodevelopmentrdquo in areas withldquobackwardrdquo populations

A final but grim point of convergence is that many indigenouscommunities in both countries experience violence and repressionwith contestations over land and territory a major issue This includesintimidation killings forced displacements and other forms ofdiscrimination by police military and private security forces who acton behalf of investors which may be exacerbated by militarization inareas where communist or separatist forces are active This violencefurther marks the political marginalization of these communities (egAMAN and AIPP 2016 Dekdeken and Carintildeo 2016 Dressler andGuieb 2015 Macdonald 1995 Nababan and Sombolinggi 2016Nuraini et al 2016 Tauli-Corpuz 2016 TEBTEBBA 2016)

The following sections discuss some major topics addressed in thiscollection

HISTORIES OF DISPOSSESSION ldquoFRONTIER ENCOUNTERSrdquoKarl Gaspar (this issue) presents a history of relentless dispossession ofindigenous people from their land in Mindanao focusing on theDavao region Many risk losing their remaining land as plantationsmines and migrant settlers continue to encroach on their territoryand as members of their own communities start to accumulate landthrough informal purchase and mortgage (a form of ldquointimate exclusionrdquo


Li [2014]) The current opportunity to obtain a CADT from thePhilippine state may be their last chance to keep control over theirremaining land

Gasparrsquos case is illustrative of dispossession among indigenouspeople worldwide Geiger (2008b) uses the term ldquofrontier encountersrdquoto capture this process He defines a frontier as ldquoan area remote frompolitical centers which holds strategic significance or economicpotentialsrdquo access to this territory is contested by local indigenouscommunities and outsiders (settlers investors and state officials)locked in relations of unequal power (94) Such outsiders have longtended to define indigenous people as ldquoneither deserving of humancompassion nor having a legal personalityrdquo (100) an attitude thatldquoremoves inhibitions against the use of deception intimidation andviolence as the most effective means of appropriating indigenous landand resourcesrdquo (137) In frontiers of settlement the large-scale settlementof land-poor migrant farmers (often facilitated by the state) producesconflicts over land between indigenous communities and settlers whoalso generally ldquotake control of trade lucrative extractive industries andlocal political institutions and monopolize employmentopportunitiesrdquo (96 97 Geiger 2008a 4) In Indonesia and thePhilippines successive governments have sponsored frontier migrationto defuse agrarian conflicts in core regions alleviate poverty andlandlessness consolidate state control at the frontier advance culturalassimilation and supply labor for plantations and mines (Geiger2008a 12ndash14) Both countries have seen massive settler encroachmentsas well as land grabbing and land purchase from indigenous communitiesunder intimidating circumstances with indigenous people movingdeeper to the interior and the uplands or turning into dependentworkers and tenants for settler patrons In frontiers of extraction (whichoften overlap with settlement frontiers) indigenous communities areconfronted with outside investors who lay claim to large tracts of landto extract timber mineral resources and cash crops and who recruitthe workforce from indigenous or migrant populations The formationrise and decline of these frontiers is linked to ldquocyclical booms in high-priced commoditiesrdquo (Geiger 2008b 97 cf Hall 2011)

Philippine social history shows for instance an immense migrationof lowland and coastal populations since the nineteenth century(farmers plantation workers and entrepreneurs) ldquoonto the archipelagorsquosvast interior frontiersrdquo covering millions of hectares partly triggered bythe growing demand for timber tobacco abaca and sugarcane and


leading in turn to a massive displacement of indigenous communities(Larkin 1982) In the process indigenous people were subjected to thedominant property regime requiring official private land titles (Gaspar2011 192) Case studies show periodic waves of successive dispossessioncaused by migrant settlers loggers cattle ranchers plantation investorsand government military in counterinsurgency campaigns for instance(eg Erni 2008) With the closing of the frontier and the current waveof large-scale land investments ldquothere is no other place to gordquo novacant land to withdraw to as Paredes (2013) noted for the HigaunonLumad in the ldquoincreasingly crowded interior of Mindanaordquo (Paredes2013 168) This is leading to a ldquotremendous uncertainty over the useand retention of ancestral landsrdquo (Paredes 1997 271) Losing controlover ancestral land means losing a way of life and a culture that may bea major source of identity and pride Without it indigenous peopleoften find themselves incorporated into the bottom rungs of mainstreamsociety (eg Eder 1987 Macdonald 1995)

STATE RECOGNITION OF ANCESTRALCUSTOMARY LANDAND ITS CHALLENGES

Rights are ldquothe product of interest-driven bargainingrdquo (Tilly 2002137) State recognition of indigenous peoplersquos rights to ancestral landis a product of struggle a product of claim-making vis-agrave-vis the state byself-ascribed indigenous people who (with their allies) strive for staterecognition as a specific category of citizens with specific rights to theland Once these claims are recognized by the state in the form of legalrights however it may be a tough deal for the interested parties to havethese rights enforced Moreover state laws that recognize indigenousland rights may produce some unintended consequences as we will seefurther below

Myrna Safitri (this issue) highlights the obstacles that standbetween legal recognition of indigenous land rights in Indonesia andthe actual implementation of these laws She shows how ldquogovernmentcommitments laws and development plansrdquo may contradict oneanother over the issue of indigenous peoplesrsquo land rights howgovernment departments may exert conflicting authority over theissue and how state officials at various levels may be swayed by theirown specific interests A main focus is Constitutional Court RulingNo 35 (2013) which recognizes that indigenous peoplersquos ldquocustomaryforestrdquo land is private land not state land which in turn opens the way


to effective state recognition of ancestral domains Safitrirsquos contributiondissects the political and bureaucratic dynamics of land-law processesand suggests the importance of political will by the state and politicalclout by indigenous movements to overcome the obstacles involved

In this section I take a closer look at the Philippinesrsquos actualimplementation of the 1997 IPRA law that grants state recognition ofancestral land reviewing positive and negative outcomes for indigenouscommunities involved including challenges and dilemmas This issueis relevant as well for Indonesian indigenous peoplersquos organizations asthey debate the merits of their own draft bill on the recognition ofindigenous peoplersquos rights

On the positive side IPRA has been ldquolauded for its support forindigenous peoplesrsquo cultural integrity their right to lands and to theself-directed development of these landsrdquo (Dekdeken and Carintildeo 2016252) It ldquosucceeded in making IPs politically aware of their rightswithin Philippine societyrdquo (Castro 2000 35) It may already empowerindigenous communities through the process of applying for a CADTwhich requires organizing within and between communities networkingwith NGOs revitalizing cultural knowledge and community historyand developing ldquoa viable collective means of self-representationrdquo (Alejo2000 153) that can foster ldquoself-affirmationrdquo (194 see also Gaspar2011)

IPRA offers indigenous communities the only viable mechanismto protect their remaining ancestral domain (eg Crisologo-Mendozaand Prill-Brett 2009 Gaspar 2011 Ortega 2016 268) The CADTsplus the requirement for investors to gain the ldquofree and prior informedconsentrdquo (FPIC) of indigenous communities now provide thesecommunities with the legal instruments to keep unwelcome investorsout Actual implementation encounters numerous problems however(as will be discussed further below) Though a CADT may not preventunwelcome investments at least it can increase the bargaining powerof indigenous communities in negotiating with investors on the termsof access or in the worst case on the terms of their own resettlementand compensation (eg Wenk and Scherler nd) though majorvulnerabilities remain in the enforcement of the resulting agreementsIn the case of national parks a CADT can provide indigenouscommunities with ldquogreater power to negotiate with park managers andstate bureaucratsrdquo over resource access (Dressler and McDermott 2010356) Vis-agrave-vis settlers indigenous communities with a CADT can nowldquoturn back new migrant settlersrdquo (334) and they have been observed to


develop ldquoincreased confidence in dealing with settlersrdquo on the basisof their ancestral domain right (Wenk and Scherler nd 390)

Political support at local and regional levels however is crucial forindigenous people to get IPRA implemented in their favor Theirpositioning in local power constellations is key The Cordillerahighland region where local government is supportive of indigenouspeoplersquos rights provides a positive case In the Cordillera indigenouspeople are numerically and politically dominant (in local elected officein line agencies and in the advocacy sector) Moreover the regionrsquosindigenous population counts the necessary literate people middleclasses and intelligentsia to navigate the bureaucratic process of IPRAsuccessfully (Crisologo-Mendoza and Prill-Brett 2009 Llaneta 2012)However these conditions hardly prevail in other regions in thePhilippines

On the negative side of IPRA implementation are the followingpoints of concern First weak political support by national and localgovernments (a lack of political will to implement IPRA effectively) haskept the provincial branches of the National Commission on IndigenousPeoples (NCIP) severely underfunded and understaffed Observershave noted that the NCIP lacks capable personnel it sometimes servesas ldquoa dumping ground for politiciansrsquo proteacutegeacutesrdquo (Padilla 2008 468)some of its personnel display an ldquoethnocentric mindset disinterestrdquoand ldquoarrogant attituderdquo toward indigenous people (Erni 2008 307)Because of this it can take years before a CADT application isprocessed Delays are also caused by tedious bureaucratic requirementsincluding the requirement (since 2012) of a ldquocertification of non-overlaprdquo of the ancestral domain with other land claims8 This standsin sharp contrast with the fast-tracking of FPIC compliance certificatesldquofor big corporations exploiting the natural resources found in IPterritoriesrdquo (Castro 2016) While CADT applications ldquolanguish in theNCIPrdquo other state agencies may reallocate the public land to investorsagrarian reform beneficiaries beneficiaries of community-based forestmanagement agreements or private Torrens title applicants (Dekdekenand Carintildeo 2016 254) In Palawan for instance indigenouscommunities are confronted by an aggressive state-promoted expansionof oil palm plantations on public land while barely 25 percent of theland claimed by indigenous communities has been awarded to them sofar (Dalabajan 2014 297 303) Though NGOs and indigenouspeoplersquos organizations support IPRArsquos implementation and strengthenthe political clout of indigenous communities the two largest armedunderground movements in the country tend to oppose it either


favoring revolutionary land reform (by the Communist Party of thePhilippines-New Peoplersquos Army) or Muslim self-determination inMindanao (by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front) (Padilla 2008) Inthe current Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao the NCIP isrefused jurisdiction and not a single claim for ancestral domain hasbeen certified as of 2015 (Paredes 2015 172)

A second point of concern is that the CADT often becomes avehicle for investors to access indigenous land rather than a means toprotect it especially where indigenous organizations are weak TheIPRA actually ldquooutlines the procedure by which outsiders can secureaccess to indigenous territoriesrdquo (Gatmaytan 2005 84ndash85) and aCADT attracts investors interested to strike a deal with communityleaders (Borras and Franco 2011 27) This may in fact be welcomedby community members for the promise of jobs income and servicesBut the issue is who is in control and who can set the terms Someinvestors actively support the CADT application of indigenouscommunities In the case of the vast Tampakan mining project inMindanao on the ancestral land of the Brsquolaan for instance thesuccessive mining companies financed and facilitated the Brsquolaan CADTapplication facilitated the formation of Tribal Councils to negotiatewith the company and then influenced the FPIC process to gainpeoplersquos consent (Wenk and Scherler nd 396) Clientelist politiciansmoreover may also offer indigenous communities their ldquoassistancerdquo informulating and implementing the management plan of the ancestraldomain (van den Top and Persoon 2000 174) There are broadparallels with the outcome of the Special Autonomy Law for Papua(2001) which recognizes after years of ruthless state-sponsored corporateresource extraction in Papua the land use rights of indigenouscommunities and requires investors to negotiate with them for accessto their land (Savitri and Price 2016) In practice this law actuallyfacilitates the legal land-use transfer to investors without safeguards foradequate compensation and subsistence guarantees (ibid)

Third the FPIC process is subject to abuse by investors and stateagents Consent through FPIC ldquocan be easily lsquomanufacturedrsquo at anytimerdquo says Padilla (2008 467) With mining companies in particularthe FPIC process shows ldquoa pattern of abuse and misrepresentation thatcovers virtually all [researched] projectsrdquo including bribery and coercionto ldquoengineer consentrdquo sometimes with the support of NCIP officials(Carintildeo 2005 29) Despite revised FPIC guidelines (2012) to avoidmisuse a more recent study still found ldquoa manipulative scheme on thepart of the proponents to get the lsquoconsentrsquo of indigenous communitiesrdquo


(GIZ 2013 4 see also Novellino 2014) Poverty and low literacy ratesmoreover make indigenous people vulnerable to company promises ofaccess to income water and roads They are hence ldquomore amenable togiving the company their consentrdquo even when there are no grievancemechanisms in place once promises remain unfulfilled (Llaneta 2012)

Fourth there is the thorny issue of ldquocommunity managementrdquo ofthe ancestral domain after the CADT has been awarded The ldquoindigenouscommunityrdquo may not have the cohesion and overarching resource-management structures that IPRA assumes Because ldquoall communitiesare shot through with contests for power including over land andresourcesrdquo Gatmaytan (2005) argues IPRArsquos ldquoattempts at shiftingresource control to an imaginedmdashperhaps imaginarymdashlsquocommunityrsquomay also intensify existing tensions over resource controlrdquo (Gatmaytan2005 81) Moreover indigenous resource governance structures maybe limited to the level of a village or kin group whereas CADTs areusually awarded to a ldquopeoplerdquo over a much larger territory sometimesan entire municipality (as in the Cordillera) In such cases localindigenous groups may become victimized by self-ascribed spokesmenwho are actually ldquoskillful manipulators with access to bureaucraticstructuresrdquo (van den Top and Persoon 2000 173 also Aquino 2004Minter et al 2014) Based on negative experiences some authors arguefor limiting CADT coverage to the village level (Crisologo-Mendozaand Prill-Brett 2009 52 see also Albano and Takeda 2014)

Fifth internal divisions and tensions may be heightened by theCADT application and FPIC processes Communities may divide overthe question whether to accept or reject mining and plantationprojects IPRA also promotes a new type of indigenous leaders with thecapacities to negotiate with state officials and investors and frictionsoften arise with established traditional indigenous leaders (eg Paredes2016) Some observers speak of the latter as ldquogenuine indigenousrepresentativesrdquo in contrast to ldquofake leadersrdquo created or supported bythe NCIP (Novellino 2014 275) or ldquotribal dealersrdquo perceived as ldquoco-opted by big business companies and politiciansrdquo and complicit indisenfranchising indigenous communities of their ancestral land(DINTEG and KALUHHAMIN 2015 5) Furthermore overlappingclaims by different indigenous communities can lead to (boundary)conflicts (Alejo 2000) Gender inequality may also be reinforcedwhere male-centered leadership gains increased authority over resourceaccess on ancestral land (Alano 2009)


INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION WHOSE RIGHTS PREVAILldquoAll land use and access requires exclusion of some kindrdquo ie theexclusion of other people from the land (Hall Hirsch and Li 2011 4)Whose rights prevail Power relations shape the rights of access andcontrol The contributions of Gatmaytan and Paredes (this issue)highlight power inequalities of class and ethnicity

Augusto Gatmaytan explores class tensions among (Muslim)Maguindanao in the vast Ligawasan Marsh region in Mindanao broughtabout by issues of land and resource control The region is ldquoone of thelast strongholds of the Maguindanaordquo after a history of displacementit is also a base area for the militant Moro Islamic Liberation Front aswell as a possible oil palm expansion area Gatmaytan discusses howimpoverished marginalized Maguindanao farmers and fishers withinsecure land rights worry about possible landgrabbing by leaders ofpowerful Maguindanao clans As the farmers talked to field researchersabout potential tenure models for the marsh including ancestraldomain their concerns for elite capture stood out The author arguesthat the Muslim struggle for self-determination tends to highlighttensions between the ldquoBangsamorordquo and outsiders but severe classdifferences within concerning land and livelihood need to beacknowledged and addressed by peace negotiators and academics alike

Local elite capture is apparent in cases of ancestral domainmanagement (eg Aquino 2004) and FPIC negotiations with potentialinvestors Fears of elite capture also inspired in part the rejection oftwo Cordillera autonomy bills as some ldquotribes did not wantpoliticians identified with the autonomy drive to lord it over the regionas corrupt kingsrdquo (Baguilat 2013) Differences in class status and powerare reminders that indigenous and ldquoMorordquo communities are nothomogenous and that internal power dynamics influence land accessand control

Oona Paredes in her contribution discusses the predicament ofnon-Muslim indigenous people in Mindanao (Lumad) who would findthemselves ldquosecond-order minoritiesrdquo in the planned ldquoBangsamorohomelandrdquo which would replace the current Autonomous Region ofMuslim Mindanao Discussing the successive drafts of the BangsamoroBasic Law (shelved since 2015) she argues that both Muslim andLumad populations in the region are considered equally ldquoindigenousrdquoto the place but that the defining feature of belonging and entitlementwould be membership of the Moro nation The draft BangsamoroBasic Law thus relegates the Lumad to an awkward out-of-place


category and apparently denies their own right to ancestral domainunder IPRA with little legal protection against further landencroachments and disenfranchisement

This connects to the wider issue of indigeneity and ethnicity asldquojustifications for exclusionrdquo (Hall Hirsch and Li 2011 6) on thegrounds of ldquohistorical and affective claims to placerdquo (10) Speaking ofldquotroubling dilemmasrdquo Hall Hirsch and Li (2011) discuss how suchexclusion may in extreme cases turn ldquointo violent eviction and ethniccleansingrdquo (11ndash12) In Indonesia for instance indigenous Dayaks inparts of Kalimantan carried out violent attacks against migrant Maduresekilling many and expelling hundreds of thousands in a movement ofadat revival marked by ldquochauvinism and xenophobiardquo (Henley andDavidson 2007 28) More often exclusion of settlers ldquohas beenpeaceful but persistent as lsquo insidersrsquo make it difficult for lsquooutsidersrsquo toacquire or hold on to landrdquo (Hall Hirsch and Li 2011 12) But asParedes (this issue) suggests equally indigenous groups may be definedas ldquooutsidersrdquo by rival indigenous land claimants using competingcriteria of entitlement

Experience shows that the processes of ancestral domain formationpolitical decentralization and ethnic-territorial autonomy may allinvolve intricate dynamics of exclusion (cf de Zwart [2005] on theldquodilemma of recognitionrdquo) In the case of ancestral domains underIPRA migrant settlers may be protected against exclusion when theyhave official prior land rights there (cf IPRA 1997 Section 56) Butwhen they are informal settlers their rights are more tenuous as theprevious section suggests

Political decentralization on its part may favor indigenouspopulations with considerable local influence and political organizationprior to decentralization But they in turn may exclude second-orderindigenous groups from their own enhanced position of power InIndonesia for instance post-Suharto decentralization gave districtsand villages considerable decision-making power regarding landgovernance and large-scale investments which could increase successfulindigenous land claims and compensation demands (von Benda-Beckmann and von Benda-Beckmann 2001 Duncan 2007 721)Thisdecentralization however also triggered an increase in the number of(smaller) districts with dominant indigenous groups fueling ldquolocalismrdquoand a sense of entitlement based on ethnicity (von Benda-Beckmannand von Benda-Beckmann 2001) further marginalizing settlers as wellas smaller indigenous communities In some districts of Kalimantan


for instance the politically powerful Dayak regained control of landlost to outsiders but smaller politically weaker indigenous groupsthat form minorities in their districts (often swidden farmers andforest-dwelling foragers) still see their interests ignored by their districtgovernments and are still losing their land to investors without(adequate) compensation (Duncan 2007 721) Where settlerpopulations control the local levers of power moreover statedecentralization may deepen the exclusion of all local indigenousgroups (Geiger 2008b 171)

An indigenous population that reaches ethnic-territorial autonomywith the advantage of lawmaking powers may ldquolegislate a ban onoutsiders owning landrdquo as a means to redeem past injustice (Geiger2008a 39) But gaining some form of territorial autonomy is a toughgoal to achieve for indigenous populations It usually requires a largeindigenous population over contingent territory willing to engage in aprotracted military struggle against the state In contrast striving forthe effective recognition of ancestral domain is less threatening to thestate and as it may not require the use of force is ldquoan option that standsopen also to the less martial among the indigenous peoplesrdquo(38)

Dilemmas of exclusion are also apparent where indigenous claimsfor ancestral domain overlap with claims for agrarian reform orenvironmental protection Recognition of ancestral land may exclude(poor) settlers but placing the land instead under agrarian reform toinclude all land-poor categories would deny local indigenouscommunities their right to (full) land restitution The goals of indigenous-rights and agrarian-reform movements may thus be at loggerheads (cfthe case of Jambi Sumatra in IPAC [2014]) In Mindanao theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Program has denied land restitutionto the Lumad and Muslim communities whose ancestral land hadearlier been grabbed by plantation investors as it redistributes land tofarm workers (in this case primarily Christian migrant workers) thusformalizing the earlier dispossession (Vellema Borras and Lara 2011309) Environmental movements and state agencies in turn may pushfor national parks that severely limit indigenous peoplersquos access to theirancestral forests swiddens and other livelihood sources (eg Dresslerand Guieb 2015) In the Philippines progressive regulations thatinclude local indigenous communities in park management may not beenough to protect them against exclusionary forces (Minter et al2014)


COMMUNAL OR INDIVIDUALEmil Kledenrsquos paper highlights an ironic historical twist as indigenouspeoplesrsquo organizations in Indonesia gradually achieve success in gainingstate recognition of adat communities with communal rights over theirland Dayak villagers in Kalimantan are moving instead toward theindividual titling of their land under pressure of market and state forcesKledenrsquos findings in Kalimantan illustrate a larger trend The intensiveNGO advocacies for the recognition of indigenous communal landrights may well be overtaken by reality both in Indonesia and thePhilippines Below I discuss several related points

The distinction between ldquocommunalrdquo and ldquoindividualrdquo land tenuremarks a fundamental contrast in the discourse of NGOs and stateofficials who are supportive of indigenous peoplersquos land rights theassumed distinction between indigenous communal non-capitalisticenvironment-friendly ldquoforestrdquo dwellers on the one hand and non-indigenous individualistic market-engaged profit-oriented farmerson the other Communal land tenure is assumed to be inherent toindigenous society ideally it safeguards ecological sustainabilitypreserves local indigenous culture rooted in territory and protectsagainst dispossession by capitalist forces Alternatively individual landownership signals vulnerability to predatory capitalism andenvironmental destruction and loss of indigenous culture (Li 2010)

This discourse has considerable weight in indigenous rights advocacyeven if it doesnrsquot easily match reality The ldquocommunal fixrdquo iediscourse that highlights indigeneity as the ldquopermanent attachment ofa group of people to a fixed area of landrdquo marked by ldquocollectiveinalienable land-tenure regimesrdquo (Li 2010 385) helps to legitimize landrights specific for indigenous communities Communal tenure is alsoperceived as ldquomore egalitarian than individual titlerdquo as well as morepolitically expedient the territory is also easier to demarcate (HallHirsch and Li 2011 45) Connecting communal tenure withindigenous environmentalism moreover facilitates support from(inter)national environmental advocacy networks In the Philippinesfurthermore the assumption of customary communal resourcemanagement by indigenous communities partly justifies the allocationof large ancestral domains The large scope of many of the domainscovered by CADTs also provides the recipient communities with morepolitical clout compared to individual titles


Critics argue that communal resource management over largeindigenous territories is assumed rather than proven and that thecommunal model is often imposed from above The discourse reflectsldquoenvironmental populismrdquo (Aguilar 2005 129) and in the Philippinesa ldquobasic anti-establishment stancerdquo of major indigenous peoplersquosadvocacy organizations that brought their own ldquoassumptions regarding(communal) indigenous tenurerdquo to the drafting of IPRA according toGatmaytan (2005 83) As Gatmaytan noted for the Adgawan Manoboin Mindanao ldquoassumptions of communal tenure and of the indigenouspeoplesrsquo inherent ecological sensitivity and resistance to capitalism aresimply not true even as their culture remains comparatively vibrantrdquo(87) IPRA does recognize customary individual or kin-group propertyrights within ancestral domains (NCIP 1998 2 44) but assumes thatldquothe community as a group owns the resources and unappropriatedland within its territoryrdquo (Gatmaytan 2005 80)

Reality on the ground is then much more complex than thediscourse suggests Case studies in the Philippines show that manyindigenous communities practice various property rights regimesunder customary law individual land rights for fields on which farmersinvested much labor (and capital) for improvements such as the riceterraces of the Cordillera family-clan-based rights for swidden fieldswith individual usufruct rights and community- or family-clan- basedrights to forests (or forests are considered open access without owners)(eg Crisologo-Mendoza and Prill-Brett 2009 Prill-Brett 2003 Zialcita2005 for Indonesia see von Benda-Beckmann and von Benda-Beckmann[2006]) Kin-based land rights are collective rights but not necessarilycommunal rights ie rights vested in the community whether a villageor beyond (Zialcita 2005)

Second the discourse fails to capture the pervasive ongoingindividualization of land rights by members of indigenous communitiesthemselves leading to a further shrinking of the available collectivecommunal land as Kleden (this issue) argues for Kalimantan IndonesiaIn the Philippines too case studies show how members of indigenouscommunities are ldquoprivatizing indigenous corporate propertyrdquo (Crisologo-Mendoza and Prill-Brett 2009 53) eventually accepting ldquoindividualownership of standing forestrdquo in certain cases (Albano and Takeda2014 15) and striving for individual land titles within their ancestraldomain (Schippers 2010 225) As the case studies note this results inthe ldquodemise of open-access forest landrdquo (Sajor 1999 139) a significantdecline in the common practice of ldquofree usufructory access to idleswiddensrdquo and the transformation to individual rights to swiddens


(Sajor 1999 139 Erni 2008 326) an individualization of resourcetenure for commercially valuable resources like timber and rattan nowldquolinked to landownershiprdquo (Gatmaytan 2005 76) and individual landsales to outsiders (ibid Gaspar this issue) In many cases in thePhilippines we see that indigenous people are striving to formalizetheir individual land claims by applying for a land tax certificatethrough the municipal land tax declaration system (eg Albano andTakeda 2014)

In the Philippines as in Indonesia this trend toward indigenousclaims to individual land ownership is fueled by the increasingincorporation of indigenous families into the market economyIndigenous people are increasingly attracted to the cultivation oflucrative cash crops in particular tree crops to improve their livelihood(eg Montefrio 2016) As they plant rubber cacao coffee and fruittrees as well as oil palm (and market vegetables in the Cordillerahighlands) investing growing amounts of capital ldquothe push towardindividual ownership is strongrdquo as the farmers seek ldquoto ensure sole andcontinuous land use to recoup expensesrdquo (Crisologo-Mendoza andPrill-Brett 2009 53) Moreover under customary law trees are ownedby those who plant them and a commercial tree lot precludes use byothers for an indefinite period of time Thus as Li (2014) also foundamong indigenous highlanders in Sulawesi ldquowhen they started to planttree cropsrdquo in common land this turned their land ldquointo individualpropertyrdquo (7) Market production land improvements and increasingland scarcity in turn increase the risk of landgrabbing also by fellowindigenous persons and this gives an added incentive for indigenouspeople to formalize their individual land claim (eg Prill-Brett 2007)As this is done on kin-based communal or open-access forest land thatmay be the common pool for swidden land and forest resources thistrend also ldquoeliminates the channels through which equitable use ofcommon property resources is ensuredrdquo (Crisologo-Mendoza and Prill-Brett 2009 56) If other rights holders do not protest this individualland appropriation ldquothey will eventually find themselves excludedfrom any future use of this common propertyrdquo (53) As land forswiddening becomes scarcer swiddeners are in turn pressured to layindividual claim to the remaining land before it is taken by others


RESISTANCE NEGOTIATION AND ACCOMMODATION

Albert Alejo (this issue) starts out with the question ldquoCan aneconomic zone coexist peacefully and productively with a tribalcommunity [or] do their interests always have to clashrdquo Hecontinues ldquoIs the overlap of their boundaries an inevitable arena ofconflict or could it also be a veritable zone of partnershiprdquo And ldquoIslegal battle the only nonviolent platform for settling land disputesrdquoThese questions came up as Alejo witnessed the protracted unresolvedconflict between the Subanon indigenous people of Zamboanga Cityand the Zamboanga City Special Economic Zone Authority andFreeport whose claimed territories overlap to a large extent Alejo thenpresents a personal account of a joint study tour of representatives ofthe Subanon the Ecozone and other stakeholders to the economicand freeport zones of Subic and Clark where Ayta indigenouscommunities reached joint management agreements that seemed atleast partly successful Discussing reasons methods doubts andchallenges in the efforts to bridge divides and move beyond contentiousstalemates the author contributes to debates on alternative forms ofengagement As an applied anthropologist he also reflects on the roleof NGOs and fellow-academics supportive of indigenous causesldquoWhat is the quality of our intervention Are we sources of conflictor resources for peace Do we bring in new ideas or do we just hardenold positions Can we open up new spaces for reflective dialoguerdquo

Considering the bigger picture the reactions of indigenouscommunities to large-scale investments can take at least four differentforms resistance to the investment (open and organized or covertldquoeverydayrdquo types) withdrawal to non-contested land acquiescence andaccommodation and negotiations and mobilizations for better termsof inclusion in the investment (cf Borras and Franco 2013 Hall et al2015)

Flight withdrawal accommodation and conflict avoidance havelong been survival strategies of indigenous communities vis-agrave-vis externalland encroachers in particular when these communities comprisevulnerable dispersed groups of semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers andswidden farmers without a warrior tradition (eg Eder [1987] for theBatak of Palawan Erni [2008] for the Buhid Mangyan in Mindoro)

In contrast widespread organization mobilization and openresistance by Philippine indigenous people against large-scale investmentsand in defense of ancestral domain became most prominent in


indigenous societies with the following conducive features (exemplifiedby the Philippine Cordillera highland region) a majority populationof indigenous sedentary farmers clear boundaries marking indigenousterritories (in the Cordillera partly a legacy of American colonialofficials who considered Cordillera society worthy of protection) apersistent ldquowarrior traditionrdquo that ldquodefended these territorial boundariesfrom encroachmentrdquo (Rood 1998 140) a relatively high educationallevel of the indigenous population due to Christian mission schoolsand indigenous dominance in all elected government positions Thesuccessful Cordillera protests against the large-scale Chico river damproject in the 1970sndash1980s offered a model for other indigenouscommunities in the country (ibid) People of the Cordillera ldquowere thefirst Asians to take part in the international indigenous movementrdquoand the Cordillera Peoples Alliance became ldquoone of the best-organizedindigenous bodies in the worldrdquo (Gray 1995 44) The current UnitedNations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesVictoria Tauli-Corpuz is an indigenous leader from the Cordillera

The fourth type of reaction negotiations and struggles for betterterms of inclusion has become particularly prominent in recent timesIn Indonesia the statersquos massive allocation of land-use permits for large-scale plantations on de facto indigenouscustomary land (in particularsince Suhartorsquos New Order regime) prompted many investors tosomehow negotiate with local indigenous communities to gain theirconsent and prevent disruptive local protests and sabotage Theinvestors combined policies of attraction and repression offeringpromises of jobs roads electricity and schools while keeping securityforces at hand But unfulfilled promises have often led to opencollective protests to pressure companies to honor the negotiatedterms of inclusionmdashprotests that are widespread in the plantationregions of Kalimantan and Merauke (Papua) (Colchester and Chao2013 Savitri and Price 2016) In the Philippines IPRA requiresinvestors in a titled ancestral domain to gain the consent of localindigenous communities and the mechanism of the FPIC processinvites negotiations with the company over the conditions for consentWenk and Scherler (nd) call this process ldquoactively negotiateddependencerdquo (393 cf the term ldquocompromiserdquoas used by Coteacute andCliche [2011 129]) Holding a CADT can at least enhance thebargaining power of indigenous communities in the negotiationprocess (Alejo this issue Tadem 1996)


Indigenous communities are often divided however on whetherto resist or concede to investments on their land and on what termsin case they concede When Philippine Environment Secretary GinaLopez for instance ordered major mine closures in 2017 indigenousrepresentatives from mining regions either opposed the mine closures(citing loss of royalties jobs scholarships and health services) orsupported them (citing environmental gains) (Adorador 2017 Avendantildeoand Gamil 2017) Investors may actively promote such divisions byattracting and co-opting initial resisters using corporate socialresponsibility programs as a tool of appeasement (cf Rutten et al2017) In the Philippines divisions may deepen when members ofindigenous communities join either police auxiliary forces orunderground communist forces (eg the New Peoplersquos Army) (DINTEGand KALUHHAMIN 2015) In one case the opposing parties (belongingto two different tribes) announced a ldquotribal warrdquo then had the NewPeoplersquos Army and government military stepping in as well (Rodil1994 66ndash68) As Alejo (2000 27) noted such divisions within andacross indigenous communities are themselves produced by theldquopromisemdashand threatmdashof developmentrdquo This has a longer historymany indigenous communities in the Philippines are stratified becauseof long-term interactions with the state and the market and theirmembers experience ldquoambivalence if not disagreement over valuesand goalsrdquo (Duhaylungsod 2001 618) Comparable changes areapparent in Indonesia

Indigenous activists debate whether negotiated settlements betweenindigenous communities and investors should be rejected or supportedSome contend that capitalist engagement should be denouncedbecause of the specter of environmental destruction commodificationand dispossession of indigenous lands and the transformation ofldquocommunalrdquo societies into communities of individual profit seekersOthers argue that outside NGOs especially at national and internationallevels are imposing their own values and interpretations on indigenouspeople speaking on behalf of them instead of empowering them tospeak for themselves (eg Alejo 2000) They argue for NGOs ldquotoenable rather than constrain diverse local indigenous aspirationsrdquo(Astuti and McGregor 2017 462) and to take self-determinationliterally ldquowe must mean letting people make their own choices on howto deal with local specificities of capitalismrdquo (Wenk 2010 407)

Considering the wider political arena political opportunities forrecognizing and enforcing indigenous peoplersquos land rights have improvedin both countries in the last decades with more government openings


toward indigenous movements In the Global South at largedemocratization the expansion of the NGO sector the rise ofindigenous and environmental movements and discourses and domestic-international advocacy alliances that conquered ldquothe moral highgroundrdquo with ldquothe paradigmatic shift to conservation and sustainabledevelopmentrdquo resulted in a ldquotangible empowerment of indigenouscommunities as material resources and credibility became available tothem to an extent never known beforerdquo (even though the overallbalance of power is still heavily skewed against them) (Geiger 2008b167)

In the Philippines indigenous organizations like the CordilleraPeoples Alliance have worked together with the state to formulateIPRA The IPRA law and its implementing structure in turn promotelocal-level cooperation between indigenous communities supportiveNGOs and state officials of the NCIP to process ancestral domainclaims The Philippine partylist system moreover allows for somerepresentation of indigenous peoplersquos interests in Congress throughthe partylist group Katribu Indigenous Peoples Meanwhile themassive National Convergence of Indigenous Peoplesrsquo Protests held inManila in 2015 with some two thousand indigenous people andadvocates from across the country shows the opportunity (andcontinuing need) for nationwide pressure politics to protest ongoingviolations of indigenous peoplersquos rights

In Indonesia current President Joko Widodo (elected into officewith strong NGO support) showed he was committed to supportingindigenous peoplersquos demands agreed to form an Indigenous PeoplesrsquoTask Force communicated with indigenous peoplersquos organizationsbut is slow to address most points on the indigenous peoplersquos agenda(Nababan and Sombolinggi 2016 Safitri this issue) The NGOAMAN founded in 1999 is a major driving force behind state policyinitiatives and implementation For instance AMAN drafted the Billon the Recognition and Protection of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples(still pending) pushed for the Constitutional Ruling in 2013 thatrecognized customary forest land as private land pressured for itsimplementation and for lack of government action intensified itscampaign of mapping adat territory through its Ancestral DomainRegistration Agency it also began to ldquodevelop and test procedures forrecognition [of customary forest] in specific sites with the backing ofsupportive district officialsrdquo (Fay and Denduangrudee 2016 101Astuti and McGregor 2017 Mongabay 2017) In both countries


maintaining political opportunities conducive to the recognition ofindigenous peoplersquos rights requires hard work by civil society

In short the contributions in this collection capture a wide range ofissues regarding indigenous peoplersquos tenuous and contested access toland in the Philippines and Indonesia We hope the collection willcontribute to further debates on trends policies and advocacies Oursincere thanks go out to the authors for their participation andpatience and to the editors of Kasarinlan for their expert support

NOTES

1 As mentioned by Zenaida Brigida Hamada-Pawid former Chair of the NationalCommission on Indigenous Peoples (quoted in Llaneta 2012)

2 The research program ldquo(Trans)national Land Investments in Indonesia and thePhilippines Contested Access to Farm Land and Cash Cropsrdquo based at theUniversity of Amsterdam The Netherlands and coordinated by Rosanne Ruttenand Gerben Nooteboom is financed by the Netherlands Organisation for ScientificResearch (NWO) WOTRO Science for Global Development Programme

3 The Indigenous Peoplesrsquo Rights Act (1997) defines ldquoindigenous peoplesindigenouscultural communitiesrdquo as follows ldquoA group of people or homogeneous societiesidentified by self-ascription and ascription by others who have continually livedas organized communities on community-bounded and defined territory and whohave under claims of ownership since time immemorial occupied possessed andutilized such territories sharing common bonds of language customs traditionsand other distinctive cultural traits or who have through resistance to politicalsocial and cultural inroads of colonization non-indigenous religions and culturesbecome historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinosrdquo They alsoinclude descendants of indigenous peoples who themselves ldquoretain some or all oftheir own social economic cultural and political institutions but who may havebeen displaced from their traditional domains or who may have resettled outsidethe ancestral domainsrdquo (IPRA 1997 Chapter II Section 3h)

4 The Indonesian government uses the following definition ldquoA Customary LawCommunity [masyarakat hukum adat] is a group of people who for generations havelived in a certain geographical area in the Republic of Indonesia because of ties toancestral natural resources and have traditional governance institutions and anindigenous legal structure in their traditional territoryrdquo (Law 392014 on PlantationDevelopment article 1(6) quoted in Fay and Denduangrudee 2016 95)

5 Though many CADTs ldquoface the problem of overlapping land titlesrdquo and less thana third has yet reached the last phase of registration with the Land RegistrationAuthority (TEBTEBBA 2016)

6 The awarding of CADTs under IPRA 1997 was preceded by the issuance ofCertificates of Ancestral Domain Claims by the Department of Environment andNatural Resources following its Department Administrative Order No 02 seriesof 1993

7 According to the 1987 Constitution Article XII Section 3


8 See the Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Administrative Order No 01-12 (JAO 01-12) issued in 2012 httpncipr1comwp-contentuploads201411joint-dar-denr-lra-ncip-administrative-order-no-01-series-of-2012-pdf

REFERENCES

Adorador Danilo III V 2017 ldquoIndigenous Peoples Worried About Loss of RoyaltyrdquoPhilippine Daily Inquirer 16 February A6

Aguilar Filomeno V Jr 2005 ldquoParadise Lost Forest Resource Management betweenthe State and Upland Ethnic Groupsrdquo In Control and Conflict in the Uplands EthnicCommunities Resources and the State in Indonesia the Philippines and Vietnam edsFilomeno V Aguilar Jr and Ma Angelina M Uson 125ndash35 Quezon CityInstitute of Philippine Culture Ateneo de Manila University

Alano Maria Lisa 2009 After the Claim Whorsquos in Control Womenrsquos Changing ResourceAccess and Control in Titled Ancestral Domains Davao City Alternate Forum forResearch in Mindanao Inc

Albano Adrian and Shinya Takeda 2014 ldquoConserving Forests in Privatized CommonsTrends and Management Options in an Ifugao Village Philippinesrdquo Small-ScaleForestry 13 (1) 1ndash17 doi101007s11842-013-9238-2

Alejo Albert E 2000 Generating Energies in Mount Apo Cultural Politics in a ContestedEnvironment Quezon City Ateneo de Manila University Press

AMAN and AIPP (Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara and Asia Indigenous PeoplesPact) 2016 ldquoJoint Stakeholdersrsquo Submission on the Situation of Human Rights ofIndigenous Peoples in Indonesiardquo Prepared for the 27th Session of the HumanRights Council (AprilndashMay 2017) httpwwwamanoridwp-contentuploads201609INDONESIA_AMAN_AIPP_UPR_3rdCyclepdf

Aquino Dante M 2004 Resource Management in Ancestral Lands The Bugkalots inNortheastern Luzon PhD thesis Leiden University

Astuti Rini and Andrew McGregor 2017 ldquoIndigenous Land Claims or Green GrabsInclusions and Exclusions within Forest Carbon Politics in Indonesiardquo The Journalof Peasant Studies 44 (2) 445ndash66 doi1010800306615020161197908

Avendantildeo Christine O and Jaymee T Gamil 2017 ldquo6 Tribal Chiefs OpposeConfirmation of Ginardquo Philippine Daily Inquirer 21 February A8

Baguilat Teodoro Jr 2013 ldquoDo Cordillerans Really Want Autonomyrdquo InquirerNet16 July httpnewsinfoinquirernet446367do-cordillerans-really-want-autonomy

Bedner Adriaan 2016 ldquoIndonesian Land Law Integration at Last And for WhomrdquoIn Land and Development in Indonesia Searching for the Peoplersquos Sovereignty eds John FMcCarthy and Kathryn Robinson 63ndash88 Singapore ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute

Borras Saturnino Jr M and Jennifer C Franco 2011 ldquoPolitical Dynamics of Land-Grabbing in Southeast Asia Understanding Europersquos Rolerdquo Report Just TradeProject Amsterdam Transnational Institute

mdashmdashmdash 2013 ldquoGlobal Land Grabbing and Political Reactions lsquoFrom Belowrsquordquo ThirdWorld Quarterly 34 (9) 1723ndash47 doi101080014365972013843845

Carintildeo Joji 2005 ldquoIndigenous Peoplesrsquo Right to Free Prior Informed ConsentReflections on Concepts and Practicerdquo Arizona Journal of International andComparative Law 22 (1) 19ndash39 httparizonajournalorgwp-contentuploads201511Carino-Formattedpdf


Castro Nestor T 2000 ldquoThree Years of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act Its Impacton Indigenous Communitiesrdquo Kasarinlan Philippine Journal of Third World Studies15 (2) 35ndash54 httpjournalsupdeduphkasarinlanarticleview1109

mdashmdashmdash 2016 ldquoAssessing the Status of Indigenous Peoplersquos Rights During the AquinoAdministrationrdquo UP sa Halalan 2016 2 March httphalalanupeduphviewpointsby-experts248-assessing-the-status-of-indigenous-people-s-rights-during-the-aquino-administration

Colchester Marcus 1995 ldquoIndigenous Peoplesrsquo Rights and Sustainable Resource Usein South and Southeast Asiardquo In Indigenous Peoples of Asia eds Robert HarrisonBarnes Andrew Gray and Benedict Kingsbury 59ndash76 Ann Arbor MI Associationfor Asian Studies

Colchester Marcus and Sophie Chao eds 2013 Conflict or Consent The Oil PalmSector at a Crossroads England and Indonesia Forest Peoples Program PerkumpulanSawit Watch and Transformasi untuk Keadilan Indonesia

Coteacute Denis and Laura Cliche 2011 ldquoIndigenous Peoplesrsquo Resistance to Oil PalmPlantations in Borneordquo Kasarinlan Philippine Journal of Third World Studies 26 (1ndash2)121ndash52 httpjournalsupdeduphkasarinlanarticleview3493

Crisologo-Mendoza Lorelei and June Prill-Brett 2009 ldquoCommunal Land Managementin the Cordillera Region of the Philippinesrdquo In Land and Cultural Survival TheCommunal Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Asia ed Jayantha Perera 35ndash61Mandaluyong City Asian Development Bank

Dalabajan Dante A 2014 ldquoLosing Ancestral Domains to Biofuels Plantationsrdquo InPalawan and Its Global Connections eds James F Eder and Oscar L Evangelista287ndash305 Quezon City Ateneo de Manila University Press

de Zwart Frank 2005 ldquoThe Dilemma of Recognition Administrative Categories andEthnic Diversityrdquo Theory and Society 34 (2) 137ndash69

Dekdeken Sarah Bestang K and Jill K Carintildeo 2016 ldquoPhilippinesrdquo In The IndigenousWorld 2016 eds Diana Vinding and Caeligcilie Mikkelsen 252ndash61 CopenhagenInternational Work Group for Indigenous Affairs

DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources) 2015 ldquoLandClassification 2000ndash2015rdquo Compendium of ENR Statistics httpdenrgovphe-librarycompendium-enr-statistic-2015html

DINTEG and KALUHHAMIN (Cordillera Indigenous Peoples Legal Center andKahugpongan sa mga Lumad sa Halayong Habagatang Mindanao or Alliance ofIndigenous Peoples in Far South Mindanao) 2015 ldquoIn Defence of Our Right toOur Mineral Resources in Our Ancestral Territoriesrdquo Report International WorkGroup for Indigenous Affairs httpwwwiwgiaorgiwgia_files_publications_files0721_Blaan_final_bookpdf

Dressler Wolfram H and Eulalio R Guieb III 2015 ldquoViolent Enclosures ViolatedLivelihoods Environmental and Military Territoriality in a Philippine FrontierrdquoThe Journal of Peasant Studies 42 (2) 323ndash45 doi101080030661502014991718

Dressler Wolfram H and Melanie Hughes McDermott 2010 ldquoIndigenous Peoplesand Migrants Social Categories Rights and Policies for Protected Areas in thePhilippine Uplandsrdquo Journal of Sustainable Forestry 29 (2ndash4) 328ndash61 doi10108010549810903550779

Duhaylungsod Levita 2001 ldquoRethinking Sustainable Development IndigenousPeoples and Resource Use Relations in the Philippinesrdquo Bijdragen tot de Taal- Land-en Volkenkunde 157 (3) 609ndash28 httpwwwjstororgstable27865766


Duncan Christopher R 2007 ldquoMixed Outcomes The Impact of Regional Autonomyand Decentralization on Indigenous Ethnic Minorities in Indonesiardquo Developmentand Change 38 (4) 711ndash33 doi101111j1467-7660200700430x

Eder James F 1987 On the Road to Tribal Extinction Depopulation Deculturation andAdaptive Well-Being among the Batak of the Philippines Berkeley University of CaliforniaPress

Erni Christian 2008 ldquoNon-Violence in a Frontier The Strategy of Avoidance andthe Struggle for Indigenous Control over Land and Resources on Mindoro IslandrdquoIn Frontier Encounters Indigenous Communities and Settlers in Asia and Latin Americaed Danilo Geiger 289ndash345 Copenhagen and Bern International Work Groupfor Indigenous Affairs and Swiss National Centre of Competence in ResearchNorth-South

Fay Chip and Ho-Ming So Denduangrudee 2016 ldquoEmerging Options for theRecognition and Protection of Indigenous Community Rights in Indonesiardquo InLand and Development in Indonesia Searching for the Peoplersquos Sovereignty eds John FMcCarthy and Kathryn Robinson 91ndash112 Singapore ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute

Gaspar Karl M 2011 Manobo Dreams in Arakan A Peoplersquos Struggle to Keep TheirHomeland Quezon City Ateneo de Manila University Press

Gatmaytan Augusto B 2005 ldquoConstructions in Conflict Manobo Tenure as Critiqueof Lawrdquo In Control and Conflict in the Uplands Ethnic Communities Resources and theState in Indonesia the Philippines and Vietnam eds Filomeno V Aguilar Jr and MaAngelina M Uson 63ndash96 Quezon City Institute of Philippine Culture Ateneode Manila University

Geiger Danilo 2008a ldquoIntroduction States Settlers and Indigenous CommunitiesrdquoIn Frontier Encounters Indigenous Communities and Settlers in Asia and Latin Americaed Danilo Geiger 1ndash73 Copenhagen and Bern International Work Group forIndigenous Affairs and Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research North-South

mdashmdashmdash 2008b ldquoTurner in the Tropics The Frontier Concept Revisitedrdquo In FrontierEncounters Indigenous Communities and Settlers in Asia and Latin America ed DaniloGeiger 75ndash215 Copenhagen and Bern International Work Group for IndigenousAffairs and Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research North-South

GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft fuumlr Internationale Zusammenarbeit) 2013 ldquoAssessingFree and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) Implementation in the PhilippinesrdquoPolicy Brief Climate-Relevant Modernization of Forest Policy and Piloting ofREDD in the Philippines httpswwwgizdeendownloadsgiz2013-en-assessing-free-and-prior-informed-consent-fpic-phillipinenpdf

mdashmdashmdash 2016 ldquoImproving Governance of Tenure Enhancing Guidance for the Issuanceof a Unified Tenure Systemrdquo Final Report on the Philippines httpfaspselibdenrgovphsitesdefaultfilesPublication20Files20160104_Land20Tenure20Study_FINALpdf

Gray Andrew 1995 ldquoThe Indigenous Movement in Asiardquo In Indigenous Peoples ofAsia eds Robert Harrison Barnes Andrew Gray and Benedict Kingsbury 35ndash58Ann Arbor MI Association for Asian Studies

Hall Derek 2011 ldquoLand Grabs Land Control and Southeast Asian Crop BoomsrdquoThe Journal of Peasant Studies 38 (4) 837ndash57 doi101080030661502011607706

Hall Derek Philip Hirsch and Tania Murray Li 2011 Powers of Exclusion LandDilemmas in Southeast Asia Singapore and Honolulu National University of SingaporePress and University of Hawaii Press


Hall Ruth Marc Edelman Saturnino M Borras Jr Ian Scoones Ben White andWendy Wolford 2015 ldquoResistance Acquiescence or Incorporation AnIntroduction to Land Grabbing and Political Reactions lsquoFrom Belowrsquordquo The Journalof Peasant Studies 42 (3ndash4) 467ndash88 doi1010800306615020151036746

Henley David and Jamie S Davidson 2007 ldquoIntroduction Radical ConservatismmdashThe Protean Politics of Adatrdquo In The Revival of Tradition in Indonesian Politics TheDeployment of Adat from Colonialism to Indigenism eds Jamie S Davidson and DavidHenley 1ndash49 London Routledge

IPAC (Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict) 2014 ldquoIndigenous Rights vs AgrarianReform in Indonesia A Case Study from Jambirdquo IPAC Report No 9 15 Aprilhttpfileunderstandingconflictorgfile201404IPAC_Report_9_Case_Study_from_Jambi_webpdf

IPRA 1997 ldquoRepublic Act No 8371 The Indigenous Peoplesrsquo Rights Act of 1997rdquoRepublic of the Philippines httpwwwgovph19971029republic-act-no-8371

Larkin John A 1982 ldquoPhilippine History Reconsidered A Socioeconomic PerspectiverdquoAmerican Historical Review 87 (3) 595ndash628 httpwwwjstororgstable1864158

Li Tania Murray 2000 ldquoArticulating Indigenous Identity in Indonesia ResourcePolicies and the Tribal Slotrdquo Comparative Studies in Society and History 42 (1) 149ndash79httpwwwjstororgstable2696637

mdashmdashmdash 2010 ldquoIndigeneity Capitalism and the Management of Dispossessionrdquo CurrentAnthropology 51 (3) 385ndash414 httpwwwjstororgstable101086651942

mdashmdashmdash 2014 Landrsquos End Capitalist Relations on an Indigenous Frontier Dunham DukeUniversity Press

Llaneta Celeste Ann C 2012 ldquoThe Road Ahead for the Indigenous Peoplesrdquo UPForum University of the Philippines 25 September httpwwwupeduphthe-road-ahead-for-the-indigenous-peoples

Lynch Owen James 2011 Colonial Legacies in a Fragile Republic Philippine Land Lawand State Formation Quezon City UP College of Law University of the Philippines

Macdonald Charles 1995 ldquoIndigenous Peoples of the Philippines Between Segregationand Integrationrdquo In Indigenous Peoples of Asia eds Robert Harrison Barnes AndrewGray and Benedict Kingsbury 345ndash56 Ann Arbor MI Association for AsianStudies

Minter Tessa Jan van der Ploeg Maria Pedrablanca Terry Sunderland and Gerard APersoon 2014 ldquoLimits to Indigenous Participation The Agta and the NorthernSierra Madre Natural Park the Philippinesrdquo Human Ecology 42 (5) 769ndash78doi101007s10745-014-9673-5

Mongabay 2017 ldquoJokowi Grants First-Ever Indigenous Land Rights to 9 CommunitiesrdquoMongabaycom 4 January httpsnewsmongabaycom201701jokowi-grants-first-ever-indigenous-land-rights-to-9-communities

Montefrio Marvin Joseph F 2016 ldquoCooperation and Resistance Negotiating Rubberin Upland Philippinesrdquo Journal of Rural Studies 46 111ndash20 doi101016jjrurstud201606013

Nababan Aabdon and Rukka Sombolinggi 2016 ldquoIndonesiardquo In The IndigenousWorld 2016 eds Diana Vinding and Caeligcilie Mikkelsen 262ndash72 CopenhagenInternational Work Group for Indigenous Affairs

NCIP (National Commission on Indigenous Peoples) 1998 ldquoAdministrative OrderNo1 Series of 1998 Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No 8371


Otherwise Known as lsquoThe Indigenous Peoplesrsquo Rights Act of 1997rdquo Quezon CityNCIP Office of the President

Novellino Dario 2014 ldquoMining Expansion and the Responses of Indigenous PeoplesrdquoIn Palawan and Its Global Connections eds James F Eder and Oscar L Evangelista254ndash86 Quezon City Ateneo de Manila University Press

Nuraini Atikah Dian Andi Nur Aziz Eko Cahyono and Sandrayati Moniaga 2016ldquoNational Inquiry on the Right of Indigenous Peoples on Their Territories in theForest Zonesrdquo Summary of findings and recommendations The NationalCommission on Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia httpwwwforestpeoplesorgsitesfppfilespublication201604komnas-ham-nationalinquiry-summary-apr2016pdf

Ortega Arnisson Andre 2016 Neoliberalizing Spaces in the Philippines SuburbanizationTransnational Migration and Dispossession Lanham Lexington Books

Padilla Sabino Jr G 2008 ldquoIndigenous Peoples Settlers and the Philippine AncestralDomain Land Titling Programrdquo In Frontier Encounters Indigenous Communities andSettlers in Asia and Latin America ed Danilo Geiger 449ndash82 Copenhagen andBern International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs and Swiss NationalCentre of Competence in Research North-South

Paredes Oona T 1997 ldquoHigaunon Resistance and Ethnic Politics in NorthernMindanaordquo The Australian Journal of Anthropology 8 (1) 270ndash90 doi101111j1835-93101997tb00168x

mdashmdashmdash 2013 A Mountain of Difference The Lumad in Early Colonial Mindanao Ithaca NYCornell University Press

mdashmdashmdash 2015 ldquoIndigenous vs Native Negotiating the Place of Lumads in a BangsamoroHomelandrdquo Asian Ethnicity 16 (2) 166ndash85 doi1010801463136920151003690

mdashmdashmdash 2016 ldquoCustom and Citizenship in the Philippine Uplands The Challengesof Indigenous Leadership Among the Higaunon Lumadrdquo In Citizenship andDemocratization in Postcolonial Southeast Asia eds Ward Berenschot Henk SchulteNordholt and Laurens Bakker 157ndash79 Leiden Brill httpbooksandjournalsbrillonlinecomcontentbooksb9789004329669s008

Parina Ina 2016 ldquoJokowi Grants Forest Rights to Indigenous Peoplesrdquo The JakartaPost 31 December httpwwwthejakartapostcomnews20161231jokowi-grants-forest-rights-indigenous-peopleshtml

Persoon Gerard A 2009 ldquo lsquoBeing Indigenousrsquo in Indonesia and the Philippinesrdquo InTraditional Knowledge Traditional Cultural Expressions and Intellectual Property Law inthe Asia-Pacific Region ed Christoph Antons 195ndash216 Austin TX Wolters Kluwer

Prill-Brett June 2003 ldquoChanges in Indigenous Common Property Regimes andDevelopment Policies in the Northern Philippinesrdquo Paper presented at the RCSDInternational Conference Politics of the Commons Articulating Developmentand Strengthening Local Practices 11ndash14 July Chiang Mai Thailand

mdashmdashmdash 2007 ldquoContested Domains The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) andLegal Pluralism in the Northern Philippinesrdquo Journal of Legal Pluralism and UnofficialLaw 39 (55) 11ndash36

Ranada Pia 2014 ldquoGovrsquot To Act on Overlapping Land Titlesrdquo Rappler 21 Octoberhttpwwwrapplercomnation72647-dar-denr-ncip-overlapping-land-titles

Rodil Rudy B 1994 The Minorization of the Indigenous Communities of Mindanao andSulu Archipelago Davao City Alternate Forum for Research in Mindanao httpswwwscribdcomdoc121775772Rodil-1994-Minoritization-of-Indigenous-Communities-MindanaoSulu-pdf


Rood Steven 1998 ldquoNGOs and Indigenous Peoplesrdquo In Organizing for DemocracyNGOs Civil Society and the Philippine State eds G Sidney Silliman and Lela GarnerNoble 138ndash56 Quezon City Ateneo de Manila University Press

Rutten Rosanne Laurens Bakker Maria Lisa AlanoTania Salerno Laksmi A Savitriand Mohamad Shohibuddin 2017 ldquoSmallholder Bargaining Power in Large-ScaleLand Deals A Relational Perspectiverdquo The Journal of Peasant Studies doi1010800306615020161277991

Sajor Edsel E 1999 Upland Livelihood Transformations State and Market Processes andSocial Autonomy in the Northern Philippines Maastricht Shaker Publishing BV

Savitri Laksmi Adriani and Susanna Price 2016 ldquoBeyond Special Autonomy andCustomary Land Rights Recognition Examining Land Negotiations and theProduction of Vulnerabilities in Papuardquo In Land and Development in IndonesiaSearching for the Peoplersquos Sovereignty eds John F McCarthy and Kathryn Robinson343ndash62 Singapore ISEASndashYusof Ishak Institute

Schippers Titia 2010 ldquoSecuring Land Rights through Indigenousness A Case fromthe Philippine Cordillera Highlandsrdquo Asian Journal of Social Science 38 (2) 220ndash38doi101163156853110X490917

Tadem Eduardo C 1996 ldquoPhilippine Rural Development and IndigenousCommunities Aytas and the Sacobia Projectrdquo In Constructive Conflict ManagementAsia Pacific Cases eds Fred E Jandt and Paul B Pederson 220ndash38 Thousand OaksCalifornia Sage Publications

Tauli-Corpuz Victoria 2016 ldquoStatement of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rightsof Indigenous Peoples on the Celebration of the International Day of the WorldrsquosIndigenous Peoples in the Philippinesrdquo 9 August httpunsrvtaulicorpuzorgsiteindexphpenstatements146-statement-international-day-2016

TEBTEBBA (Indigenous Peoplesrsquo International Center for Policy Research andEducation) 2016 ldquoSituation of Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines Submissionto the 59th Session of CESCRrdquo Committee on Economic Social and CulturalRights 26 September httpwwwtebtebbaorgindexphpcontent383-situation-of-indigenous-peoples-in-the-philippines-submission-to-the-59th-session-of-cescr

Tilly Charles 2002 ldquoWhere Do Rights Come Fromrdquo In Stories Identities and PoliticalChange ed Charles Tilly 123ndash37 Lanham Maryland Rowman amp Littlefield

van den Top Gerhard and Gerard Persoon 2000 ldquoDissolving State Responsibilitiesfor Forests in Northeast Luzonrdquo In Old Ties and New Solidarities Studies on PhilippineCommunities eds Charles J H Macdonald and Guillermo Mangubat Pesigan 158ndash76 Quezon City Ateneo de Manila University Press

Vellema Sietze Saturnino M Borras Jr and Francisco Lara Jr 2011 ldquoThe AgrarianRoots of Contemporary Violent Conflict in Mindanao Southern PhilippinesrdquoJournal of Agrarian Change 11 (3) 298ndash320 doi101111j1471-0366201100311x

von Benda-Beckmann Franz and Keebet von Benda-Beckmann 2001 ldquoRecreatingthe Nagari Decentralisation in West Sumatrardquo Max Planck Institute for SocialAnthropology Working Paper No 31 httpwwwethmpgdepubswpspdfmpi-eth-working-paper-0031pdf

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoHow Communal Is Communal and Whose Communal Is It Lessonsfrom Minangkabaurdquo In Changing Properties of Property eds Keebet von Benda-Beckmann Franz von Benda-Beckmann and Melanie Wiber 194ndash217 OxfordBerghahn Books


Wenk Irina 2010 ldquoComment on Tania Murray Li lsquoIndigeneity Capitalism and theManagement of Dispossessionrsquordquo Current Anthropology 51 (3) 407 httpwwwjstororgstable101086651942

Wenk Irina and Loretta Scherler L nd ldquoThe Tampakan Copper-Gold Mine Projectin Mindanao Philippinesrdquo httpwwwacademiaedu22416968The_Tampakan_Copper-Gold_Mine_Project_in_Mindanao_Philippines

Wolford Wendy Saturnino M Borras Jr Ruth Hall Ian Scoones and Ben White2013 ldquoGoverning Global Land Deals The Role of the State in the Rush forLandrdquo Development and Change 44 (2) 189ndash210 doi101111dech12017

Zialcita Fernando Nakpil 2005 ldquoWhen Was Paradise Lostrdquo In Authentic Though NotExotic Essays on Filipino Identity 81ndash112 Quezon City Ateneo de Manila UniversityPress

_________________ROSANNE RUTTEN is a researcher and affiliate member of the Amsterdam Institute for Social

Science Research University of Amsterdam and a retired lecturer of the Department ofAnthropology University of Amsterdam the Netherlands Send correspondence to theauthor at RARuttenuvanl


Indigenous People and Contested Access toLand in the Philippines and Indonesia

ABSTRACT To provide context to the articles and research notes in this issue thisintroduction presents contrasting and converging trends in indigenous communitiesrsquotroubled access to land in the Philippines and Indonesia Moreover it highlights themain themes discussed in this issue in particular histories of dispossession staterecognition of indigenous peoplersquos land rights (and its challenges) dilemmas of inclusionand exclusion communal versus individual land ownership trends and patterns ofresistance negotiation and accommodation

KEYWORDS indigenous people middot land access middot Philippines middot Indonesia

INTRODUCTION

As a starter consider the following contrasting trends First landmarklegislation in the Philippines and Indonesia has paved the way forindigenous communities to (re)claim ancestral domains that wouldtaken together cover a vast part of current state land This concernspotentially some ldquoone-third of the land area of the Philippinesrdquo1

through the Indigenous Peoplersquos Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997 (RepublicAct 8371) and a substantial part of Indonesiarsquos ldquostate forestrdquo followinga Constitutional Court ruling in 2013 (Safitri this issue) In sharpcontrast the current wave of large-scale land acquisitions in thePhilippines and Indonesia (for the production and export of foodanimal feed biofuels timber and mineral products as well as for thecreation of tourist zones and special economic zones) is accelerating theloss of indigenous communitiesrsquo control over land (see Borras andFranco 2011) Many indigenous communities still occupy what isofficially state land and they are vulnerable to state policies thatapportion large chunks of these lands to investors Moreoverdiscrimination and ostracism by ldquomainstreamrdquo society politicalmarginalization poverty low literacy rates and the lack of know-howin navigating state processes and policies have left these communitiesvulnerable to investors and state officials who claim control over the

GUEST EDITORrsquoSINTRODUCTIONRosanne Rutten




























































































NOTES










REFERENCES





























































































































































































NOTES










REFERENCES




































































































REFERENCES


































































































UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Indigenous People ... · state’s recognition of adat...

Documents

Transcript of UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Indigenous People ... · state’s recognition of adat...