I.2 Dams, Indigenous, Peoples and Ethnic Minorities ¹

1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 Perspectives and Current Status

1. The objective of this thematic study is to assess to what extent indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities (defined in box below) may have gained or lost from dam projects. The terms ' ethnic minorities', ‘indigenous peoples’, indigenous ethnic minorities’, tribal groups’, and ‘scheduled tribes’ have been employed to describe social groups with a social and cultural identity distinct from dominant society that makes them more vulnerable to the impacts of dams. In this note, the term indigenous peoples is meant to include tribal groups. The social, economic and political status of such minorities restricts their capacity to assert their interests and rights in land and natural resources; restricts their role in decision-making that affects them; and prevents or excludes them from being represented. Such groups may be inadvertently harmed by development unless their special needs are addressed in advance.

2. The approach to addressing the issue of IPs & EMs affected by development projects like dams is varied and controversial. The debate is often polarised as a choice between two opposed positions. The first advocates the insulation of IPs & EMs from dominant external groups with special protection, enabling them to preserve their cultural distinctiveness. The other argument is for the acculturation of the indigenous community to the values of the dominant society so that ‘they can participate in national development’ and benefit from increased social and economic opportunities. Acculturation means IPs & EMs lose their cultural identity, knowledge base and societal values. The challenge is how IPs and EMs can benefit from development process with social and cultural change occurring on their own terms.

3. Until recently, the issues of IPs & EMs affected by dams were accepted as inevitable. The most critical direct impact, namely, displacement and dislocation was justified as a ‘minor sacrifice’ for ‘greater good’ of the nation. This may have meant erosion of the legal and political rights of IPs & Ems and loss of cultural attributes. For a long time, compensation mechanisms have not appropriately addressed the loss of customary and non-formal rights over land, water, forests and other common property and free access to resources and resorted to meagre monetary redress and that too in the few cases were legal rights over resources could be proved. [In certain regions of the world, the IPs & EMs are denied clear citizenship rights in their own land. In such situations, the IP & EMs customary right over the resources are neither recognised nor compensated.] It also did not give credence to the huge losses suffered by IPs & EMs from the drastic change in subsistence base, breakdown of community structure, local markets, and increased vulnerability to exploitation by dominant groups in the external society proved (Fernandes 1994, Coates 1996). Even in cases where some assets were distributed as compensation, both the inappropriate natures of them as well as lack of protective mechanisms, served to alienate them from the affected IPs & EMs (Fernandes 1994).

4. By the mid-1970s, largely due to strong movements and protest actions, the issue of the rights of IPs & EMs and their unique niche started playing a role in determining the manner in which development impacts and losses incurred by them could be viewed. The resulting change was evident in the gradual inclusion of a number of processes that sought to assess such impacts, and used as a new basis for compensation and alternatives. These include, assessment of landholding patterns, production systems, pattern of use of local resources, levels of subsistence, incomes, diversity in livelihood options, extent of control and ownership over common property resources, community practices and other cultural attributes, leadership and mutual dependence, integration with market, relationships with dominant groups, political rights, etc. The loss of entitlement due to the project would be determined across all these factors. Best practice project objectives would include not only the reinstating of existing entitlements, but also enhancing the quality of life further through the generation of social and economic opportunities for IPs & EMs, derived out of project benefits. It is also increasingly stressed that the critical decisions of determination of loss and nature of redress should be carried out with the information of, and in consultation with, IPs & EMs from the outset.

5. Contemporary development and environment policies in relation to indigenous peoples stress the rights, policies, mechanisms and practices which can ensure indigenous peoples consent and participation in these processes. The emerging policies, measures, and practices relating to bio-diversity, forest conservation and management, intellectual property rights, cultural heritage and local resource control and management, etc. are worth examining. Likewise, many mining and energy corporations have emerging policies and practices in this field. The recent working document of the European Commission and resolution of Development Ministers on indigenous peoples is also important. The on-going World Bank's technical consultation on its approach paper for revision of OD 4.20 on Indigenous Peoples requires attention. These experiences are useful in understanding the current status, perspectives, and environment relating to indigenous peoples and development with respect to large dams.

1.2 Main issues

6. Large dams have come to be accepted by many as crucial to the development process. However, the perception is that the benefits emerging out of large dams generally favour socio-politically and economically dominant groups. By the virtue of their locations, IPs and EMs may have suffered land loss by submergence during the creation of the reservoir and other constructions, without receiving benefits that restored their rights and livelihoods.

7. Another perception is that even in situations where IPs and EMs possessed land in command areas, the marginality of their holdings, lack of resources to invest and unfamiliarity with the practice of profit oriented agriculture located them in a disadvantaged position. They are particularly vulnerable to dispossession, alienation, loss of traditional skills, and social and cultural impoverishment. This issue refers to nature of policy, legal safeguards and mechanisms governing projects and requires further analysis.

8. The perception is that large dams have actually led to impoverishment through the loss of their customary rights over natural resource base, rather than gains in quality of life emerging out of increasing productivity, higher incomes and enhancement in entitlement for basic services such as power, sanitation, education and health. While they have been at a losing end with reduced access to the shrinking and increasingly degraded resource base and loss of ownership and usage rights over land and other common property resources, the benefits have not been equitably shared. This perception has resulted in the indigenous peoples demanding recognition and respect for the rights of their life, land and culture, and for their right to self-determination. It is also argued that the outcomes indigenous peoples have experienced as project affected were not consistent with the nature of safeguards suggested by indigenous laws and policies pertaining them (e.g. the World Bank Policy on Indigenous Peoples). A careful analysis is required to assess how national laws relating to indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities and safeguards resulting from international laws and those of funding agencies were respected in dam projects.

9. IPs & EMs argue that the development gains out of the creation of dams are often at the cost of indigenous knowledge, appropriate land and water use practices, which have in-built mechanisms of sustainability. Alienation of IPs & EMs who form a significant link in the eco-system and loss of traditional wisdom in resource use can render the benefits unsustainable in the long term. They argue that there is necessity to seriously analyse differing development paradigms, and look at the role of large dams.

10. IPs & EMs also argue that development effectiveness of dams should be assessed taking into consideration all costs, including the loss of life-worlds, the losses sustained by future generations and other such intangible ones incurred. This perception will be clarified through this review.

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK

Based on experiences of Indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities in dam related projects world-over distil evidences on the following:

(I) Tasks to assess performance of past policy frameworks and guidelines

1. To assess IPs & EMs' informed participation and the extent of control they have in assessing development options, making decisions on large dams, and the role played by them in the design and evaluation of the cost and benefit analysis of the project;

2. To assess the role played by project-affected IPs & EMs in designing prevention / mitigation/ compensation packages for the community.

3. To assess the effectiveness of current dam-related practices (compared to existing policies and provisions) regarding the compensation of lost assets of indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities, including intangible resources relating, for example, to indigenous knowledge, as compared with:

   (i) other project affected people, and (ii) best practice.

4. To assess the appropriateness and efficacy of existing preventive, mitigatory, compensatory and rehabilitation measures in the following:

• replacing the lost productive assets, community cohesiveness and support networks, including knowledge and culture, preserving the traditional knowledge base and sustainable practices;

• enhancing the entitlement of IPs & EMs through improved access to natural resources (land, water, forests, grazing land etc);

• increasing access to basic services (safe drinking water, health, education, electricity);

• increasing the skill base; raising income levels by increasing the productivity of existing assets; preserving food security of the community and in general increasing the range of opportunities among which IPs and EMs can choose

1. To examine the nature of distribution and assess the actual share of direct benefits to IPs & EMs among the project-affected persons; and assess the extent to which IPs & EMs are utilising project benefits;

2. To assess how the benefits from the project can actually be brought to the IPs and EMs in the context of the disabilities that act against the realisation of this objective. The critical questions are:

• are these communities in a position to use these benefits to their advantage;

• how can these communities be enabled to take advantage of these benefits;

• are the safeguards in place to protect their rights over the newly created utilities and benefits?

3. Suggest what it would take to rehabilitate IPs and EMs who may not yet have been compensated for dam-induced impacts.

1. To identify best practices in terms of policy and institutional framework, criteria and guidelines in assessing development options and making decisions on large dams that consider indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities as equal negotiating partners in the planning process;

2. To identify scope and ways of improving current approaches to protecting and fostering the interests of indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities, including incentive frameworks and other means to ensure implementation of criteria and guidelines;

3. From the perspectives of the Indigenous Peoples and Ethnic Minorities locate (a) and (b) above in different development paradigms.

This thematic review may complement and enable generalisation of findings from the case studies.

3.2 Linkage to other Thematic Reviews

This thematic review will complement and clarify some of the issues related to the following thematic reviews:

I.1 Social impact of large dams
I.3 Displacement, resettlement
II.1Dams, ecosystem functions and environmental restoration
III.1 Economic, financial and distributional analysis
IV Options assessment
V.1 Planning approaches
V.2 Environmental and social impact assessment for large dams
V.3 Consultation and decision making process.

This thematic review has identified outputs around three broad headings:

(I) Tasks to assess performance of past policy frameworks and guidelines in dealing with indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities
(II) Tasks to assess outcomes of dam related benefits to indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities
(III) Tasks for building future context

Output from (I) and (II) will serve as inputs to WCD outputs (1) and (2). The scope of the work specified under (I) and (II) assess planning process and decision making in relation options, including dams. Further, the analysis focuses on how policy framework, criteria and guidelines were followed and outcome for indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities. Output from (III) of this thematic review will serve as inputs for WCD outputs 2 and 3. The aspects specified under (III) articulate policy and institutional framework, criteria and guidelines - from the perspective of indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities - for options assessment and for creation of dams.