“Cultural Integrity”: Promoting Cultural Survival and Decentralizing Good

“Cultural Integrity”: Promoting Cultural Survival And Decentralizing Good Forest Governance in Ancestral Domains The Agta-Dumagat People: Province of Aurora, Philippines Lourdes Amos Abstract For Indigenous Peoples, good forest governance is linked not only to livability and sustainability, but to cultural survival. Globalization has continued what colonization began – a disruption of the ties of Indigenous Peoples to their lands and thus concomitantly to their livelihoods, faith tradition, and cultural contexts. In the Philippines there have been reforms in the law recognizing the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their ancestral domains. The efforts of the Agta-Dumagat people, together with other stakeholders in Aurora Province, show that short- term proposals privileging capital gain need not be the dominant paradigm in forestry management, and further that “conservation” need not be preservation of resources without people. The Agta-Dumaga People have used a Cultural Integrity framework to continue to reassert their customary control as managers of the forest while enhancing their cultural cohesion and viability. This paper will discuss the case of the Agta-Dumagat as an example of how the complex interstices of capital interests, local and national governments, and local community interests can be successfully negotiated for an end result of respect for Indigenous Peoples’ customary rights and good forest governance. Introduction The Agta-Dumagat people are guided by pre-conquest rights to domains. As far back in time as their collective memory reaches, Agta-Dumagat “…lands have never been public and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held under a claim of private ownership since before the Spanish conquest” (Native Title, IPRA 1997). In 1997, the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) was enacted by the Ramos Administration to recognize, protect, and promote the rights of Indigenous Peoples (IPs). This Act provides the mechanisms for creating the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, for establishing and implementing guidelines, and the appropriation of funds. The Agta-Dumagat people’s right to regulate the entry of migrants has created a growing debate among settlers – some of whom are themselves indigenous but come from adjacent provinces, and some of whom are non-indigenous people coming from the lowlands. The scarcity of land and natural resources in the Philippines, coupled with a growing population, has resulted in competition for access and utilization of forest resources. The prior rights and regulatory powers granted by law to the Agta-Dumagat people threaten migrant settlers and have created the fear of exclusion from access to resources within the Ancestral Domains. The right to “Free and Prior Informed Consent” (FPIC) (IPRA 1997) vests prior rights with indigenous peoples to accept or reject “external” interventions. This situation increasingly builds a “trust and distrust” dilemma between indigenous peoples and other stakeholders. The confusion revolves around the relationship of the Agta-Dumagat to migrants, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), private companies, and local or national governments. While the indigenous peoples have and continue to invoke their prior rights in decision-making, they are often perceived to be incapable of making proper decisions by these stakeholders. “Benefit sharing” is yet another complex issue in framing common resource use. The definition and terms of equity vary depending upon the objectives of the different stakeholders. The Agta-Dumagat measure benefit from the intrinsic and subsistence value of their traditional resources, while settlers and other private groups often measure benefit from the commercial potential of resource use. These circumstances outline the complexity of crafting a common framework on forest resource management within Ancestral Domains due to the existence of competing concepts and overlapping authorities of control. In this paper I will discuss how “Cultural Integrity” – here understood as a holistic framework – promotes cultural development and environmental justice by promoting equal rights among local people. I will argue that strengthening local control through customary processes can enable the framing of common management strategy among stakeholders. Further, I will discuss how national and local social movements of IPs complement to shape mechanisms to decentralize the access to resources within Ancestral Domains, from the government to local people. Theoretical Framework Arnstein (1969) states that citizen participation is a redistribution of power that enables “have-not citizens”, those presently excluded from political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future. The IPs’ traditional socio-political structures have been isolated by post-colonial governance systems, and have frequently been rendered impotent in participating in the formulation of policies that directly impact upon their rights to cultural survival. Britt (1998) states “…that stakeholders form networks and regional or national federations in order to broaden their representative base and establish a credible collective-voice…in legislation … and structures regulating access to and control over forest resources.” Social movement organizations are necessary in providing a mechanism for collective action to decentralize power and authority from the government through the participation of local people. Given the diversity of interests within and among the rural poor, federated forms of organization that are able to bridge some of these differences have a potentially critical role to play in the shifting relationships between poor people, states, markets, and the more powerful interests in society (Bebbington and Carroll 2000). In forming a common management strategy, the varying interests of local people over resource use needs to be balanced by inter-relating cultural development and environmental justice. As related in the case of the Cheslatta T’en in British Columbia, Canada, inter-ethnic interaction was an imperative component in the emerging territorial vision. In this case, the vision allowed for a synthesis of indigenous and Western constructions of nature to coalesce around a problematic or regional powerlessness (Larsen 2003). In the case of the Philippines, the past refusal to countenance IPs’ common property rights has served as basis of unity among various interests of the local people. This in turn led to a broad social movement that resulted in the enactment of the IPRA. This law recognizes the decentralization of authority and control of IPs over access to traditional resources within Ancestral Lands and Domains. Understanding the histories of social movement objectives is essential to providing effective decentralization and accountability mechanisms. In the context of common property rights of the Agta-Dumagat and migrant settlers over Ancestral Domains in Aurora Province, customary processes are necessary to mechanize the accountability of decentralized power and authority. In Ribot’s study in South Africa (2002), he states “…customary authorities are notorious for entrenched gender inequality and divisiveness by favoring ethnic-membership over the residency-based forms of citizenry.” However, Bebbington and Carroll (2000) find that within the categories of “indigenous,” “peasant,” “Andean,” and “poor,” Andean ethnography has long emphasized the importance of kin-based networks in resolving the problems of resource access and collective action. Through customary practice, the Agta-Dumagat perceive authority as a collective responsibility that revolves around a central leadership. Vesting leadership in clan leaders through lineage manifests respect to customary processes handed to the next generations, and also recognizes the family’s ability and authority in unifying a clan. The competence to enforce these consensus decisions embeds customary authority with control and accountability over the decisions of which the people took part in formulating. Henceforth, the customary authorities of the Agta-Dumagat promote inclusive decision-making through consensus processes in a centralized system of collective leadership. Decentralizing Power in the Playing Field In 1946, the Philippine Republic adopted natural resource laws introduced by the colonial governments. These were based primarily on the Regalian Doctrine that served as the basis for state ownership and control of all natural resources in the Philippine Archipelago. Also adopted was the Western concept of resource management and conservation policy that perceives protected areas, such as national parks and ecological stations, as empty spaces with no human dwellers. Under this Western view of conservation, traditional dwellers of the forest should be expelled in order for conservation to take place or to be successful (June Prill-Brett 2003). The democratic space provided for by the Ramos Administration in 1995-1996 paved the way for the enactment of the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA). This law redressed the lack of political will by the government to decentralize ownership of ancestral domains to indigenous peoples, and granted authority to control access to the resources therein. The Agta-Dumagat People: The Complexity of Control Located in the eastern part of the island of Luzon is Aurora Province, home to the Agta- Dumagat people (once known as Agta Negritos), the aborigines of the province. These people are comprised of eleven language groups and number

Load more