Mainstreaming Ethnodevelopment: Poverty and Ethnicity in World Bank Policy
| | RISQ Reviews | 10 February 2003 |
|
|
|
Author: M.H.J. van den Berg
 In this paper, I take issue with the World Bank's assessment of the relation between poverty and ethnicity in Latin America. I set out from a review of the poverty studies used by the Bank to identify the specific needs of indigenous peoples. I demonstrate that the studies unduly dismissed better access to land as a means to reduce poverty among indigenous communities. In so doing, I argue, the studies not only defied the needs identified by these communities themselves but also the Bank's own indigenous peoples policy. I conclude by suggesting that the studies may be seen to have set a precedent for the focus of the Bank's first designated "ethnodevelopment" projects. Since none of these projects promotes a more equitable distribution of land, I contend that, for all its intents and purposes, the Bank's ethnodevelopment policy does not live up to its core premise.
RISQ Paper, first prepared for the Conference "Towards a New Political Economy of Development", University of Sheffield: 4-6 July 2002.
Introduction
Poverty and Ethnicity
Poverty: a lack of "human capital"?
Land: no longer an issue?
Indigenous Land Use and Tenure: a question of rights.
Mainstreaming Ethnodevelopment
Conclusion
References
Note that the paper below does not contain the footnotes as they appeared in the original document. Please refer to the author at vandenberg@risq.nl to receive an annotated version of the paper.
Introduction
This paper derives from a larger study in which I examine the emergence of "ethnic identity" in development policy, as exemplified by the recent engagement of the World Bank with the predicament of indigenous peoples and other national minorities in Latin America. Set to empower them to partake in development on their own terms, the Bank has come to promote the concept of "ethnodevelopment". As part of this effort, the Bank has introduced ethnicity as a variable in the region’s poverty maps, explored various indicators of ethnic identity as well as methods to assess its costs and benefits. In the process, the Bank has come to appreciate ethnicity as a form of "social capital" and, as such, a "resource of development". Tangible results followed in 1997, when the Bank approved a US 25 million social investment loan to the government of Ecuador for the first designated ethnodevelopment project: the Indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian Peoples Development Project.
The World Bank's involvement in ethnic questions dates back to 1982. Amidst increasing international concerns about the onslaught of frontier development in rain forests and its impact on forest peoples, the Bank adopted a guideline for the treatment of indigenous peoples affected by Bank-financed projects. The guideline stipulated that, if they so desired, such peoples should be granted the opportunity to retain their ethnic identities, including their particular "economic lifestyles" (OMS 2.34, in Davis, 1993: 2). Accordingly, the guideline provided for the recognition, demarcation and protection of ancestral territories in order for them to retain access to the resources on which they traditionally depend for their livelihoods (ibid.: 4). Although the World Bank has received repeated criticism for its failure to enforce its indigenous peoples policy (see Griffith & Colchester, 2000: 8-11), its record improved somewhat when the Bank became trustee of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). In fact, some GEF-funded projects are specifically designed to demarcate ancestral territories as part of a larger effort to engage indigenous peoples in the conservation of biological diversity.
Whereas the Bank's early guideline only applied to relatively small and isolated peoples typically found in rain forests and other remote areas, in 1991, the Bank adopted a new guideline with a significantly broader definition of indigenous peoples. Thus, in Latin America, the Bank's indigenous peoples policy no longer applies merely to peoples living in the lowland forests of the Amazon basin but also to the indigenous population of the Andean highlands and other rural areas. What is more, when the Bank set out to seek ways of including indigenous peoples in its poverty reduction strategy for the region, it decided to extend its policy also to other national minorities, notably the region's Afro-Latin population. Since 1996, then, the Bank's commitment to "indigenous peoples development" has made way for the more broadly conceived policy of "ethnodevelopment".
The core premise of the Bank's ethnodevelopment policy is to provide ethnic groups with the means to partake in development on their own terms (Partridge & Uquillas, 1996: par. 13-14). Broadly conceived, the policy articulates a commitment to affirmative action or "empowerment" with, what the Bank calls, a "demand-driven approach" to development. Indeed, the Bank considers affirmative action not only as a just response to undue social inequalities but also as an opportunity to make its social sector work more responsive to local needs. What is more, since the Bank has come to appreciate the value of locally available sources of "social capital" for the long-term success of development, affirmative action has found an additional rationale as an investment in the social capital of ethnic communities.
Ethnodevelopment, then, entails an effort to tailor project proposals to the demands of ethnic communities and to put their specific social resources to use in the implementation of projects. As applied in the context of the Bank's poverty reduction strategy, the stated objective of ethnodevelopment is to improve the quality of life of poor indigenous and other ethnic communities by:
- improving their access to social services and natural resources, with due regard for their specific forms of land use and tenure;
- strengthening their cultures, communities, and social organisations;
- fostering their capacity to design and manage their own development projects (Nieuwkoop & Uquillas, 2000: 3-4; World Bank, 1997: 1).
In this paper, I take issue with the Bank's assessment of the relation between poverty and ethnicity. I set out from a review of the poverty studies used by the Bank to identify the specific needs of indigenous peoples. I demonstrate that the studies unduly dismissed better access to land as a means to reduce poverty among indigenous communities. In so doing, I argue, the studies not only defied the needs identified by indigenous communities themselves but also the Bank's own indigenous peoples policy. I conclude by suggesting that the studies may be seen to have set a precedent for the focus of the Bank's current effort to put ethnodevelopment into practice. Since none of the projects approved by the Banks to date promote a more equitable distribution of arable land, I contend that, for all its intents and purposes, the Bank's ethnodevelopment policy does not seem to abide by its core premise.
Poverty an Ethnicity
Published in 1994, the World Bank's survey of Indigenous Peoples and Poverty in Latin America was the first regional study on the issue. It was also the Bank's first attempt to explore the relationship between ethnicity and socio-economic inequality. As the authors observed, there was indeed not much in the way of empirical research on the "costs" of belonging to an ethnic or racial minority in developing countries, and even less so in regard to indigenous peoples (Psacharopoulos & Patrinos, 1994: 5). Such research was beset by three challenges: first, comprehensive data are unavailable; secondly, collecting such data requires a large investment of resources; and, third, there is no single, operational definition of "indigenous people" (ibid.: 23). In fact, the authors noticed, there did not even exist consensus on the usage of the term "ethnic group" (ibid.: 21). The authors identified at least four different approaches to the concept of "ethnicity". One set out from certain identifiable characteristics such as distinct physical features or a distinct language. A second set out from a shared sense of solidarity or shared values and beliefs, a third from external perception of distinctiveness, and a fourth from self-identification (ibid. 21-2). On all accounts, the authors observed, the "concept of being indigenous" in Latin America is further blurred by its usage as "a social rather than ethnic term". Indeed, many governments seemed to consider the indigenous population (indígenas) a social class or "sector" (hence, "sector indígena"), conflating it with the peasantry (campesinado or "sector campesino"). As a result, the authors note, it is all too often overlooked that a growing number of indigenous people live or work in urban areas (ibid.: 22).
Of all the possible indicators of ethnicity, the three most often used in census data and surveys are language spoken (or native tongue), self-perception, and geographical concentration. Of these three, the authors suggested that the last one is more suited to countries or regions where the indigenous population is concentrated in specific territories or designated reserves. In Latin America, assuming geographical concentration is likely to underestimate the number of non-indigenous individuals in rural areas whilst omitting indigenous groups in urban areas (ibid.: 25). The advantage of self-identification is that allows respondents to choose. It is also convenient for the researcher as it does not require special tests or genealogical research to determine whether or not an individual is indigenous.
However, the authors cautioned, self-identification is believed to underestimate the indigenous population as discrimination and social prejudice can lead individuals to deny any affiliation with their native origins (ibid.). This left language which, as the authors noted, had been acclaimed by the United Nations as "a key variable in identifying ethnic groups" due to its robustness over time--i.e. the tendency of language differences to persist "unless social integration has occurred" (ibid.: 24). Still, language, too, could yield inaccurate estimates of ethnically distinct populations. In Latin America, asking people whether they speak an indigenous language (as opposed to the national language, usually Spanish) may also lead them to deny any knowledge of it (ibid.: 24-5).
As each of the above indicators of ethnicity had its pros and cons, the authors suggested that Latin American countries should consider incorporating all three in future census surveys. This would not only yield a more comprehensive, reliable and accurate picture of the region's indigenous population but also render international comparison possible (ibid.: 38-9). For now, however, the Bank's survey had to make do with disparate sets of indicators. Even so, the overall picture that emerged from the Bank's compilation of national data suggested "a strong link" between being indigenous, on one hand, and poverty and inequality, on the other (ibid.: 39). This impression was further confirmed by a number of case studies included in the survey.
Accordingly, the principle conclusions of the survey were that "poverty among Latin America's indigenous population is pervasive and severe", and that "living conditions abysmal, especially when compared to those of the non-indigenous population" (ibid.: xviii-xix). Yet, the survey also conveyed hope for the future (ibid.: xxi). Indeed, the authors posited that, if only the level of education among indigenous groups could be raised to that of their non-indigenous counterparts, much of the income differentials between them would disappear (ibid.). Therefore, the authors recommended that efforts aimed at alleviating poverty among Latin America's indigenous population should focus on access to education. Hence, the call of the authors for more detailed empirical studies and qualitative analyses of indigenous groups to further define the target population and to determine where new schools would be needed or, if appropriate, whether it would be expedient to implement bilingual education (ibid.).
Poverty: a lack of "human capital"?
As I indicated above, the Bank's survey of poverty among indigenous peoples in Latin America was the first in its kind. It did not claim to be a definite study on the issue. Still, the methods used and proposed by the survey, its conclusions and recommendations deserve closer scrutiny as they set a precedent for the engagement of the Bank and other development agencies with socio-economic differences between ethnic groups. A critical reading of the document begets a number of question marks, in particular, as regards the causes of poverty in rural areas. The overall picture that the Bank compiled on the basis of the available census data, derives "poverty" from the relative lack of "human capital", measured in terms of the level of (formal) education. Apparently, then, the survey assumed that, because indigenous respondents had on average a lower level of education than non-indigenous ones, they would also be "worse off" on other accounts. This appeared to be confirmed in the case studies. Indeed, in terms of income, all studies found the indigenous population to be disproportionately poor. Moreover, most of the case studies found an ethnically differentiated correlation between income levels and schooling attainment. In addition, some of the case studies found that indigenous groups were also less likely to have access to basic public facilities and social services such as water, sanitation, electricity and health care.
Thus, the authors' assumption that there was an ethnically differentiated correlation between the lack of human capital and poverty, at large, was all together not unreasonable. Also, their recommendation that some sort of "affirmative action" was expedient in order to raise the level of education among indigenous groups seemed justifiable. However, whether this would actually help to overcome poverty among indigenous groups is more questionable. The core hypothesis of the human capital approach, which had come to inform much of the Bank's poverty alleviation work, is that more and better education leads to better paid jobs--hence, to higher income levels. As the approach focuses on the comparative advantage of (a group of) persons in the labour market, it assumes that (1) the target group depends on wage labour; (2) there are sufficient "better-paid jobs" available; and (3) the labour market under consideration is free and transparent. Unfortunately, none of the above conditions obtained for the majority of indigenous groups in Latin America.
Let me first take on the last condition. All case studies found significant wage differentials that could not be explained with reference to levels of education. Thus, for some reason, non-indigenous workers enjoyed higher returns on schooling attainment than indigenous ones. This had not passed unnoticed by the authors. In fact, they suggested that the earnings gap might be due to wage discrimination, discriminatory hiring practices and occupational segregation (Psacharopoulos & Patrinos, 1994: 53). Still, the authors argued that this should not be taken to imply that education would not make a difference. After all, they noted, indigenous workers might not benefit as much as they should from each additional year of schooling, they were still more likely to stand a chance of finding a better paid job.
 Now, with respect to the indigenous workers considered in the case studies, the authors might be right. But then, indigenous persons are not necessarily wage labourers and those who are may not be so by choice, even if they have found a reasonably paid job. However laudable the survey's spearheading effort to address the conditions of indigenous workers in urban areas, the fact remains that the majority of Latin America's indigenous population lives in rural areas (IDB, 1998: 14). Many of those have land--albeit usually not quite enough of it to sustain income levels above the (extreme) poverty line. Others commute to cities and towns where they do, indeed, work as wage labourers. In fact, indigenous families in rural areas typically derive their income from two or more different sources, including (seasonal) wage labour and the proceeds from their land along with cash crops sold in local markets (Korovkin, 1994: 3). For the income of such families, it is questionable whether education would make much of a difference. Certainly, a better primary and secondary education will help children to acquire better jobs than their parents, resulting in higher family incomes in the long run. However, this long-term objective does, in itself, not justify the focus on education as a means to overcome poverty. In rural areas, other, potentially as effective means are conceivable to improve the income levels and living conditions of indigenous families, such as a more equitable distribution of arable land and better prices for agricultural produce along with better (access to) public facilities and social services.
One of the case studies included in the survey specifically addressed the variety of income sources on which indigenous households typically rely (Psacharopoulos & Patrinos, 1994: 97-126). The study, prepared on the basis of a national household survey in Guatemala, established that 80 percent of the country's indigenous population lives in rural areas. While the authors of the study rightly noted that "rural is not synonymous with agricultural", they had to concede that agriculture remained the principle economic activity of indigenous families in rural areas (ibid.: 100). However, indigenous households with incomes below the poverty line reportedly relied for up to 11 percent of their monthly income on a "secondary job" and up to 24 percent on payments in-kind (ibid.: 101). These percentages were significantly higher than those found among non-indigenous households. Indeed, the latter derived a much larger share of their income from their "primary job" (ibid.)
Unfortunately, the authors of the study do not clarify their usage of the term "job". However, the household survey they use suggests that respondents were not asked to specify the contribution of salaried work to family income but, rather, to list the occupations of family-members and rank them accordingly (INE, 1989). Consequently, a great deal of the primary income source of rural households was likely to derive from the proceeds of their farms. In contrast, their secondary source of income was most likely to derive from off-farm salaried work. By implication, then, the primary income differential between indigenous and non-indigenous families found by the study is probably due to differential proceeds from farming, for instance, because of differences in the size and quality of land holdings. If that were indeed the case, the relative poverty of indigenous households in rural areas might very well be more effectively addressed by affirmative action focussing on a more equitable distribution of land (i.e. "natural capital") rather than on access to education (i.e. "human capital").
Land: no longer an issue?
In order to avoid that the above might be taken for an argument against efforts to improve the education of indigenous peoples, let me assure the reader that this is not the case. As far as I am concerned, education is a sine qua non of any social investment. What I do mean to suggest, though, is that the authors of the World Bank study unduly picked education as the key to address poverty among indigenous peoples in Latin America whilst they ignored other, arguably more urgent issues. Most notably, they ignored the highly unequal distribution of arable land in the region. In fact, the study does not even offer as much as a glance at the issue. This is all the more remarkable in light of the importance assigned to the issue of land tenure by the Bank's own indigenous peoples policy (see below). Also, given the Bank's long standing experience with agricultural reforms and rural development, one would expect that a Bank-sponsored poverty survey of a predominantly rural population had, at least, something to say about its most basic material conditions.
Instead, not just the study under consideration but also subsequent studies of poverty and ethnicity pay scant attention to the distribution of land and related issues. In fact, later work published by the World Bank and other major development agencies, notably the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), utterly dismissed land reforms as a means to overcome poverty in Latin America. Take, for instance, the IDB-sponsored paper "Issues in Indigenous Poverty and Development" (Plant, 1998) by Roger Plant. In the Andean countries, the author observed, "issues of ethnic identity have arisen mainly in the context of the demand for land rights" (ibid.: 10). Elsewhere, too, Plant noticed "intensive debates" have arisen concerning the "land tenure regimes or reforms required to enable indigenous producers to take advantage of market opportunities, while at the same time respecting their social structures" (ibid. 19).
Despite these observations, Plant did not see fit to include land reforms among the possible means to overcome poverty among the region's indigenous population. Apparently, he leaned to the view that land reform was no longer an option. After all, as Plant pointed out, "since the redistributive phase of land reforms ended approximately two decades ago, indigenous peoples have inevitably sought alternative survival strategies" (ibid.: 18). Consequently, indigenous families today earn an increasing proportion of their incomes outside their own farms and local communities. All the more reason, then, for the author to unveil the "prevailing myth of the predominantly subsistence-oriented indigenous peasant" (ibid.), and to recommend that the IDB should no longer concentrate its poverty alleviation strategy on rural communities but, instead, consider ways to improve the position of indigenous persons in urban labour markets (ibid.: 37).
Again, then, let me stress that there is, of course, nothing against efforts to address the disadvantaged position of indigenous persons in labour markets. Yet, it is striking how easily Plant side-stepped land reforms as a means to address poverty and inequality. The author himself admits that in most Latin American countries, the so-called land reforms of the 1960s and 70s had generally made a mockery of redistribution. So he was not quite right to state that the redistributive phase of land reforms had ended. On the contrary, such a phase had never really materialised in the first place. Now, as Plant has remarked elsewhere, "much of the policy analysis informing the IDB [calls] for "more open and flexible land markets in the interest of poverty alleviation and agricultural efficiency--despite the fact that this can lead to some land concentration" (Plant, 2000: 14). No wonder, then, that the latest round of market-oriented reforms" has incited such an "intensive debate" in Latin America; although I suggest that "social struggle" is a more apt term to capture the uprisings of indigenous peoples in Ecuador (in 1990, 1992 and 1996), Mexico (Chiapas, 1994), Bolivia (2000) and elsewhere. Evidently, as far as indigenous peoples were concerned, the IDB's policy analysts were wrong to assume that "[land concentration] can be offset through increased job creation and income generation" (ibid.).
There are thus reasons to believe that it were not just "demographic and socio-economic trends" (ibid. 37) which led Plant, in his capacity as consultant for the IDB, to evade the controversial issue of land reforms. The presupposition of the IDB's support of open land markets is that, in the end, the only "path out of poverty" is sustained economic growth (see IDB, 1998). To achieve such growth, the IDB and also the World Bank reason that land should be put to the most profitable purpose. Thus, in the Andean highlands and elsewhere in Latin America, the IDB and the World Bank promote the cultivation of cut flowers and other, so-called "non traditional agricultural exports" (NTAE). Not only is this highly profitable, the Banks figure, but it also brings off-farm employment opportunities to impoverished rural households. Hence, the proposition that open land markets, along with subsidies for the NTAE industry, are "in the interest of poverty alleviation".
 Whereas critics of the NTAE industry do acknowledge that it can bring jobs to rural areas, they also point at the detrimental impact it can have on local access to natural resources such as land and water. Apart from that, jobs in the NTAE industry are typically seasonal or otherwise insecure, require no or only very low skills and are, therefore, usually not well paid (Korovkin, 2002: 10). For that matter, the latest study of rural poverty in Latin America indicates that also with respect off-farm employment, the effects of education on the income levels of rural households are bound to be limited. In a synopsis of this study, the authors, Ramón López and Alberto Valdés, could confirm the earlier found correlation between incidences of poverty and low levels of education. They could also confirm that schooling attainment does, indeed, have some impact on rural off-farm earnings (López & Valdés, 1999: 1). However, the impact was rather small. Evidently, there where work requires limited skills, additional schooling neither contributes much to higher farm output nor to off-farm earnings (ibid.). Therefore, the authors suggested, "perhaps the main impact of education among rural people is to facilitate their migration to urban areas where they [can] obtain higher returns to their human capital investments" (ibid.: 2).
Setting aside family size, this left the effects of land tenure. Generally, the authors could not but concede that land-less farm workers were indeed poorer than peasant-proprietors. Also, farmers with secure land titles were found to be better off than those without, which led the authors to the conclusion that "land titling is a good investment" (ibid.: 4). About land redistribution, however, they were less conclusive. On the positive side, the authors had to admit that any land redistribution from large to small farmers is likely to increase total agricultural output. In other words--and contrary to conventional wisdom--small farmers are relatively more productive than large ones. On, the negative side, they found that farm output gains are only partially translated into income gains, rendering land redistribution relatively less effective as a means to overcome poverty. In particular, a piece-meal approach was unlikely to assort much effect on income levels (ibid. 6).
All considered, the authors concluded that, in order "to have a sizeable impact on rural poverty, a massive land redistribution would be necessary" (ibid.: 11). However, they cautioned, such a large redistribution of land would be costly, not in the least because it "could trigger an increase in land prices that would raise the cost of land redistribution even further" (ibid.). Whether such a major investment would be "socially desirable", the authors doubted. As far as they were concerned, a better approach would be "to remove policy distortions that favour large landholders, such as tax preferences for extensive farming, and to accelerate land titling programs, which will help small farmers gain access to credit" (ibid.). But then, they noted, the whole issue "raises broader social and political questions that are beyond the scope of this study" (ibid.).
Now, of course the authors are quite right: whether land redistribution is a socially desirable means to overcome rural poverty is, in the end, a political question. It is, therefore, all the more important to note that, on two accounts, their objections to land redistribution are flawed or, to say the least, presumptuous. First, the authors' observation that farm output gains are only partially translated into income gains for small holders has remained inexplicable. As the authors themselves have no clue as to the causes of their findings, they suggest that further research is necessary. Meanwhile, there are studies that point at the rather low prices which small holders tend to get for their produce on the market. Contrary to common belief, this is not necessarily a feat of "supply and demand" but, more precisely, a matter of many small suppliers facing a few large buyers. Accordingly many advocates of agricultural reforms have not just demanded a more equitable distribution of land but also "just prices" for agricultural products.
Secondly, the author's suggestion that increases in land prices triggered by a redistribution program could render the latter too costly and, thus, less desirable, only obtains if and when such a program sets out from market prices in the first place. There are other conceivable arrangements that could hedge such a program, so to speak, against price distortions due to speculation on the part of all too greedy landowners. That such arrangements are often not favoured by large landholders make them, therefore, no less justifiable as a means to raise agricultural productivity and definitely much more effective than removing tax preferences for extensive farming as a means to overcome rural poverty.
Again, then, whether any--and, if so, which--of the above options should be pursued are, indeed, social and, ultimately, political questions. In so far as multilateral banks profess to be impartial to such questions, the least they should do is to present the available options. As I have demonstrated, studies published by the World Bank and the IDB have not only ignored the distribution of land as a possible cause for the correlation between ethnicity and poverty in rural areas but also dismissed land reforms as a conceivable means to overcome rural poverty, at large. Either way, they have failed to provide convincing arguments for excluding land reforms from the range of available options to address the relatively high incidence of poverty among the region's indigenous population.
Consequently, I cannot but conclude that, for all their intents and purposes, neither the World Bank's nor the IDB' poverty analysts can be deemed impartial to one of the most controversial social questions in Latin America. Whether and, if so, how and why the World Bank and the IDB actually intervened in social conflicts over the distribution of land in rural areas are questions beyond the scope of this paper. Here, it suffices to note that in all Latin American countries with sizeable indigenous groups among their population, the demand for a more equitable distribution of land has been (and still is) a rallying point of ethnic activism (see Zamosc, 1994: 37-8). Accordingly, the consultants retained by the Banks did not just overlook some issue but, instead, the principle social demand set forth by their employers' prospective target group.
Indigenous land use and tenure: a question of rights.
The disregard for land-related issues on the part of the Bank's poverty analysts is all the more remarkable in light of the Bank's long standing advocacy of indigenous land rights in rain forests. Apparently, the Bank's poverty analysts leaned to the view that the rights of those who so happen to occupy arable land are somehow less legitimate. Now, to apprehend this differential treatment, it should be noted that, until 1991, the Bank's indigenous peoples policy only pertained to relatively small and isolated groups typically found in rain forests. Given the often overlapping concerns about the fate of the world's last remaining rain forests as well as that of their aboriginal inhabitants, it should bear no surprise that the driving force behind the Bank's indigenous peoples policy has been its environmental department. Indeed, it was this department that had rendered the Bank's engagement with the predicament of forest peoples a compelling "economic" rationale by linking it to the imperative of conserving biological diversity on their territories (Hicks et al, 1990: 27).
However, in 1991, the Bank significantly broadened its definition of indigenous peoples. The Bank's revised guideline, known as Operational Directive (OD) 4.20, now applies to almost all indigenous peoples recognised as such by ILO Convention 169. Still, even today those among the Bank's staff who specialise in social sector work tend to be less familiar with the Bank's guideline than those specialising in environmental policy. Consequently, the authors of the poverty studies may not have been aware of the fact the guideline stands even today as the Bank's most explicit endorsement of the collective land (use) rights granted to indigenous peoples under the statute of ILO 169.
Although it is highly unlikely that the authors in question were oblivious to the guideline, even if they were, it is still striking that few of them take heed of the variety of forms in which rural communities use and hold land in tenure. Thus, even if it is suggested that more could be done to help rural households obtain secure titles and purchase or rent more land, it is ignored that such interventions may entail accommodating land tenure regimes and markets to collective forms of land use and ownership. In the case of indigenous communities, then, the latter is not merely a question of preference but also a right, recognised as such by the World Bank, and defined in such a way as to encompass the right of access to public goods such as water. In sum, apart from the question as to whether or not land reforms are socially desirable or economically viable, the studies under consideration defy that, in the case of indigenous peoples, such reforms may be legally binding or, at least, defendable with reference to (inter)national legislation. And since OD 4.20 stresses that special attention should be paid to the question as to whether the latter is, indeed, the case, all of the above studies may be seen to disregard the World Bank's own indigenous peoples policy.
Mainstreaming Ethnodevelopment
In 1995, the World Bank announced it had reached an agreement with the government of Ecuador to initiate preparations for a poverty alleviation project set to "mainstream" ethnodevelopment. More specifically, the project would aim to:
- strengthen the capacity of indigenous organisations to participate in the design of the project and to provide services to their members;
- improve the access of indigenous peoples to land and water resources; and
- finance small community-based investments and increase the capacity of indigenous communities to manage the funds (World Bank, 1995a: 2).
The agreement itself was already a major achievement. Ecuador had just witnessed the largest uprising of indigenous peoples in its history and it had taken a year or so to obtain the support of indigenous organisations. One of the conditions set forth by indigenous organisations was that the World Bank should recall its support of the government's Agrarian Development Law, which proposed to institute a free land market in rural areas and privatise access to water (León, 1994: 31-6). Only after the government guaranteed that the vested land and water rights of rural communities would not be affected by the law and the Bank assured that the project would aim to improve the access of rural communities to land and water, indigenous organisations agreed to co-operate (World Bank, 1995b).
Given the apparent consensus amongst analysts that the World Bank should focus its poverty alleviation strategy for indigenous peoples on efforts aimed at improving their position in labour markets, the Bank's assurances were, to say the least, remarkable. All the more so, given the importance assigned to the promotion of "off-farm employment opportunities" by a national poverty report, which the Bank's office in Ecuador had just completed. In fact, this report included a survey, conducted in seven rural communities, which indicated that "poor families do not call for more land" (World Bank, 1995: 208). On the contrary, the office reported that "[they] overwhelmingly named small infrastructure projects, credit, and training as the most needed interventions" (ibid.: 31).
Conveniently, the report does not mention that virtually all respondents considered the poor quality and relative lack of land as the principle cause of their poverty (ibid.: 218). Also, the report does not mention that the survey contains an important disclaimer, noting that "since [the respondents] have been essentially defined by poverty for generations, it may be impossible for them to visualise the possibility for broad, sweeping change" (ibid.). Accordingly, rather than such "sweeping changes" as better access to land, the report recommends that the Bank's poverty reduction strategy for Ecuador's rural population should focus on "demand-driven investments designed to bring the rural poor closer to the market, thereby reducing their reliance on subsistence agriculture and increasing the demand for off-farm activities" (ibid.: vi).
In 1997, preparations for the project were completed and a proposal sent to Washington D.C. for approval by the Bank's Board of Directors. Subsequently, on 8 December 1997, the Board approved a US 25 million social investment loan for the Indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian Peoples Development Project (PRODEPINE). As the project has just been terminated, it is too early to tell whether PRODEPINE will have lived up to the projected outputs and performance indicators enlisted in the project appraisal document. Even so, just on the basis of this document, I deem it highly unlikely that the project will achieve one of its main objectives--that is, "to improve the access of the target population to land resources" (World Bank 1997: 16). In fact, I contend, the overall outlook of PRODEPINE had changed to such an extent that "improving access to land" had effectively ceased to be an objective at all.
Indeed, the project appraisal document suggests that "a full-fledged land project to address broad-based rural growth" was considered but rejected, supposedly, because of "government's inability to undertake sweeping changes" (ibid.: 5). Also, "an agricultural project covering indigenous communities" had been rejected on the grounds that "it would not develop the indigenous peoples' access to the vibrant off-farm rural sector nor fully utilise and develop the indigenous and afro-ecuadorian organisations" (ibid.). Hence, the project's eventual focus on small-scale investments and credit facilities aimed at off-farm employment opportunities and income generating activities. This is reflected in the project's final budget: most of it (53 percent or US $ 26.7 million) is earmarked for the investment and credit component. In contrast, only 11 percent (US $ 5.5 million) is reserved for "regularisation of land an water rights": barely more than half of the US $ 9.7 million projected to be spent on the government's office of indigenous affairs and the project's implementation unit. What is more, the document notes that "[the project] would finance land purchases only as a means of mitigating potential conflicts that might arise among communities during land titling activities (ibid.: 2). Thus, for all its claims to contrary, the project would not so much provide improved access to land as more secure titles to as of yet unregistered tenants.
In sum, PRODEPINE has come to promote off-farm market opportunities and income generating activities rather than improved access to land. Consequently, the project may be seen to have pre-empted one of its main objectives. And since a more equitable distribution of arable land was one of the principle demands set forth by the project's target groups, I cannot but conclude that the Bank's first ethnodevelopment project does not quite live up to the "demand-driven" approach it purports to exemplify.
Conclusion
Currently, the Bank's poverty reduction program for Latin America comprises of several, stand-alone projects and project components specifically designed for national minorities. Most of these target indigenous peoples but quite a few also extend to other ethnic groups. A brief perusal through the relevant project documents indicates that, as of yet, the term "ethnodevelopment" has not entered the Bank's standard repertoire of policy concepts. Indeed, only a few project documents use the term. Even so, virtually all projects subscribe to the general objectives of ethnodevelopment. Thus, most project descriptions stress that, given the relatively high rates of poverty among national minorities, affirmative action is expedient. Likewise, most of the available project documents highlight their commitment to a demand-driven, participatory approach-- extending full participation of grass roots organisations to all stages of the project cycle.
Whilst all projects purport to empower national minorities in one way or another, they widely differ as to the means they employ in the effort to reduce poverty. Some follow the path taken by PRODEPINE and focus on off-farm employment opportunities and income-generating activities. In contrast, a major project in Peru focuses on means of improving the productivity of small farmers and the marketing of agricultural produce. Meanwhile, in Honduras one project is primarily concerned with natural resource management whilst another promotes community-based education. In some cases, the available means are just not sufficient to facilitate major investments. Likewise, some projects are merely pilots or feasibility studies.
In view of the recommendations that the World Bank received from its poverty analysts in the early 1990s, it is remarkable that only one of the above projects provides for investments in education. In contrast, later recommendations, such as the suggestion of López and Valdés that "land titling is a good investment", have been readily adopted. For that matter, the reservations of these authors with respect to large-scale land redistribution are widely shared. Indeed, none of the projects supports such a program. In fact, PRODEPINE is the only project that finances the purchase of any land at all. But then, as we have seen, PRODEPINE's land purchase fund cannot be said to provide much in the way of redistribution. On the contrary, as it merely aims to mitigate disputes over de facto land tenancy, it could be argued that the fund effectively serves to fix the status quo. In any case, neither PRODEPINE nor any of the other projects are designed with a view to grant small subsistence farmers the opportunity to purchase land in order to raise their primary source of income.
Overall, then, I observe that, of the many conceivable means to address the disproportionately high rates of poverty among national minorities in Latin America, the World Bank promotes all but a more equitable distribution of land. Of course, this observation does not per se disqualify any of the other means that the Bank pursues. Neither does it invalidate the Bank's effort to introduce affirmative action within its social sector work nor, even, its strides toward more demand-driven project designs. However, it does suggest that the range of demands which the Bank is prepared to consider is limited, and that, as far as the Bank is concerned, ethnodevelopment is, at best, a means to achieve equal opportunity--not a means to overcome actual social inequality.
© 2002 Maarten H.J. van den Berg
Published by RISQ
References
Davis, Shelton H. (1993) "The World Bank and Indigenous Peoples", Paper presented at the Denver Initiative Conference on Human Rights, University of Denver Law School, Denver, Colorado, 16-17 April 1993.
Griffiths, Thomas, and Marcus Colchester (2000) Indigenous Peoples, Forests and the World Bank: Policies and Practice, Report on a Workshop hosted by the Forest Peoples Programme and the Bank Information Center (BIC), Washington D.C., 9-10 May 2000, online publication: www.wrm.org.uy/actors/WB/IPreport.html (downloaded on 20 December 2001).
Hale, Charles H. (1997) "Cultural Politics of Identity in Latin America" Annual Review of Anthropology, 1997. 26: 567-90
Hicks, James F., Herman E. Daly, Shelton H. Davis, and
Maria de Lourdes de Freitas (1990) Ecuador's Amazon Region: Development Issues and Options, Washington, D.C: World Bank.
IDB (1998) The Path out of Poverty: The Inter-American Bank's Approach to Reducing Poverty, Washington D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank.
INE (1989) Encuesta Nacional Sociodemográfica, Guatemala: Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas.
Kasteele, Adelien van de, and Ineke Zeldenrust (2000) "Controlling the Coffee Supply Chain?", Outline for the discussion on the development of a sectoral code on behalf of the netherlands Working Group on a Code of Conduct in the Coffee Sector, Amsterdam: SOMO
Korovkin, Tanya (2002) "Cut Flower Exports and Indigenous Communities in Rural Ecuador", paper prepared for the workshop "Creating and Revitalizing Democratic Institutions: Context and Challenge in Latin America and South Asia", Peter Wall Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 18-20 April 2002.
Korovkin, Tanya (1994) Indians, Peasants, and the State: The growth of a community movement in the Ecuadorian Andes, CERLAC Occasional Papers in Latin American and Caribbean Studies, Toronto: Centre for Research on Latin America and the Caribbean, York University.
León, Jorge (1994), El Levantamiento Indígena: de campesinos a ciudadanos differentes, Quito: CEDIME.
López, Ramón, and Alberto Valdes (1999) "Rural Poverty in Latin America: Analytics, New Empirical Evidence and Policy", NUAD Seminar Paper, Núcleo de Estudos Agários e Desenvolvimento Rural, May 1999, online publication: www.nead.gov.br/home/txt02.htm (downloaded on 12 March 2002).
López, Ramón, and Alberto Valdes (1997), Fighting Rural Poverty in Latin America: New Evidence of the Effects of Education, Demographics, and Access to Land, Washington D.C: World Bank.
ILO (1989) Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, ILO Convention 169, Geneva: International Labour Organisation.
NACLA (1996) "Gaining Ground: The Indigenous Movement in Latin America", Report on Indigenous Movements, NACLA Report on the Americas, Vol. XXIX, Number 5, March/April 1996: 14-45.
Nieuwkoop, Martien van, and Jorge E. Uquillas (2000) Defining Ethnodevelopment in Operational Terms: Lessons from the Ecuador Indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian Peoples Project, LCR Sustainable Development Working Paper No. 6, Washington D.C.: World Bank.
Partridge, William L., and Jorge E. Uquillas (1996) "Including the Excluded: Ethnodevelopment in Latin America", paper presented at the Annual World Bank Conference on Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, Bogotá, Colombia, 3 June - 2 July 1996.
Plant, Roger, and Soren Hvalkof (2000) Land Titling and Indigenous Peoples, Technical Study No. IND-109, Indigenous Peoples and Community Development Unit, Sustainable Development Department, Washington D.C:
Inter-American Development Bank.
Plant, Roger (1998) Issues in Indigenous Poverty and Development, Technical Study No. IND-105, Indigenous Peoples and Community Development Unit, Sustainable Development Department, Washington D.C: Inter-American Development Bank.
Psacharopoulos, George and Harry Anthony Patrinos (1994) Indigenous peoples and Poverty in Latin America: an Empirical Analysis, Washington D.C: World Bank.
Stavenhagen, Rodolfo (1990) The Ethnic Question: Conflicts, Development and Human Rights, Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Thiesenhusen, William C. (1996) Trends in Land Tenure Issues in Latin America:
Experiences and Recommendations for Development Co-operation, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), online publication: www.gtz.de/orboden/thiesenh/thi_inh.htm, (downloaded 6 June 2002).
UNESCO (1981) "Declaration of San José", UNESCO Meeting of Experts on Ethno-development and Ethnocide in Latin America, San José, Costa Rica, 7-11 December 1981.
World Bank (1997) "Ecuador: Indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian Peoples Project", Project Appraisal Document, Project ID 40086, 8 December 1997.
World Bank (1995) Ecuador Poverty Report, Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank (1995b) "Proyecto de Desarollo de los Pueblos Indígenas y Negros" , Ayuda Memoria, Mision de Preparacion, Ecuador, 30 October--10 November 1995.
World Bank (1995a) "Ecuador: Indigenous Peoples Development Project", Project Information Document, Project ID 40086, 7 March 1995.
World Bank (1991) Operational Directive 4.20 (OD 4.20): Indigenous Peoples, Washington D.C: World Bank.
Zamosc, Leon (1994) "Agrarian Protest and the Indian Movement in the Ecuadorian Highlands", Latin American Research Review, Vol. 29 (23): 37-62.
Published on 10 February 2003 by RISQ
© M.H.J. van den Berg | www.risq.org
4611 reads |
| |
|
| |
|
|
My Headlines | Newsfeeds in your mailbox!
