|
...assessing effects changing political economies, especially the 1980s switch to a neoliberal path, on Akha land management. Akha practices that maintained biodiversity persisted through collectivization (1958-82) and economic reforms (1982-1997), but have almost disappeared since the 1998 state policies reclaiming villagers' forests and sloping agricultural lands. Aspects of neoliberalism that combined crisis environmentalism with state development plans have removed Akha land uses that protected biodiversity more effectively than socialist collectivism did. Links between indigenous knowledge and biodiversity are called into question as Akha farmers plant monoculture cash crops on remaining lands. KEYWORDS: indigenous knowledge, China, NGOs, Akha, shifting cultivation, forests, tea
**********
In February 2006, the director of the Center for Biodiversity and Indigenous Knowledge (CBIK), a domestic nongovernmental organization (NGO) in Kunming, China, told me that indigenous for CBIK is not just about "ethnic groups" but about a specific relationship between people and place. This relationship includes knowledge of local institutions, which CBIK defines as resource access and land-use practices. CBIK promotes indigenous knowledge to protect biodiversity in Yunnan Province, of which Kunming is the capital.
CBIK was founded in 1995, the year that the central government of the People's Republic sent a formal response to the working group on indigenous rights of the UN Commission on Human Rights rejecting as inappropriate an "indigenous question" in China. Indigenous rights, according to the Beijing statement, were applicable for countries where European colonization had marginalized indigenous peoples. Since China had not participated in colonialism, issues of indigenous rights did not apply to China. The central government also banned the use of the word indigenous for China's minority nationalities, as state-defined ethnic groups are called.
With indigenous prohibited, CBIK's name in Chinese uses traditional in its place, although CBIK staff routinely use the word indigenous in English. In light of Beijing's objection to the use of indigenous and rejection of indigenous rights in China, how have the term indigenous knowledge or the possibility of indigenous resource claims made their way into Yunnan? What has a focus on "indigenous knowledge" enabled a Chinese NGO to do? More importantly, what effects has this focus had on ethnic minority farmers in Yunnan with respect to local institutions and biodiversity conservation?
To broaden the context of inquiry into "indigenous knowledge" in China, the article considers three questions.
1. Who defines indigenous in China and toward what ends?
2. How do indigenous communities assert autonomous power and economic and cultural integrity internally and/or against the nation-state?
3. How important is the socioeconomic structure (neoliberalism, privatization, collectivization) for indigenous communities?
Brief responses to these three questions situate the article in the context of indigenous rights throughout the world.
The Three Questions
1. Who defines "indigenous" in China, and toward what ends? There are multiple sources defining indigenous in China, and here I explore only three. The first is the central government's 1995 response to the UN Working Group on Human Rights, claiming that an "indigenous question" was inappropriate for China. This statement, discussed further below, represents the central government's position that national policies had sufficiently addressed the issue of minority nationality.
The second source for defining indigenous is CBIK, which received provincial government approval to set up shop in 1995, the same year as the central government statement denying an "indigenous question." CBIK was founded with help from the Ford Foundation and other international institutions to advocate attention to indigenous knowledge (traditional knowledge in Chinese) to protect biodiversity and promote development. Combining biodiversity conservation with development has enabled CBIK to endorse the "sustainable development" mission adopted by the provincial government, where ethnic and biological diversity are sources of pride. While never raising "indigenous claims" against the state, CBIK has managed, together with other groups in Kunming, to make "traditional knowledge" a part of the language in both academic and policy discussions in Yunnan.
The third source for defining indigenous in China was a 2005 conference organized by the Ministry of Culture on preserving intangible culture. The UNESCO Convention on the Safeguarding of Intangible Culture (2003) that prompted the conference states that intangible culture includes, among many other things, "indigenous" knowledge about nature and the universe. A CBIK delegate to the 2005 conference noted that minority nationalities were not mentioned--the focus was on "indigenous Chinese" knowledge and practice. (1) CBIK hopes that in future sessions indigenous will expand to include minority nationalities' resource access and land-use institutions. This third source of defining indigenous is intriguing because it represents endorsement from the central government, although from the Ministry of Culture, rather than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which had responded to the UN working group on indigenous rights.
The responses to and uses of indigenous in China from these three viewpoints suggest that, in spite of the official pronouncement to the United Nations, there have been spaces for promoting indigenous knowledge and even indigenous claims in China, if couched in language other than that of "indigenous rights." In these contexts, though, those who "speak for" indigenous peoples are urban NGO and government staff, rather than ethnic minority farmers.
2. How do indigenous communities assert autonomous power and economic and cultural integrity internally and/or against the nation-state? Case material from an Akha (Hani) (2) ethnic minority settlement of Mengsong, southern Yunnan, shows that there is no question of "autonomy" for minority nationality communities in China. There are, however, openings for negotiating land-use practices and even property rights, although these possibilities have been seriously reduced since the policy transformations initiated in 1998, discussed below.
In the arena of "ethnic" rituals and performance, however, Mengsong Akha show a burgeoning interest in cultural traditions. Precisely because these are not political, and indeed contribute to Yunnan as a tourist attraction, such "cultural practices" are encouraged by the provincial government.
3. How important is the socioeconomic structure (neoliberalism, privatization, collectivization) for indigenous communities, taking Mengsong Akha as "indigenous"? This question is the most instructive. From 1958 to 1982, Akha farmers in Mengong were collectivized into production teams within a commune. Collectivization allowed land-use practices that maintained biodiversity, although this outcome was unintended, since biodiversity was not a government concern at that time.
Since 1982, China's growing market economy has entailed increasing privatization and commoditization of natural resources to foster economic growth. For upland farmers in Mengsong, the period from 1982 to 1998 saw a transition to what is called in China a "socialist market economy." David Harvey claims that China has participated in the global trend toward neoliberalism through what he describes as "neoliberal elements interdigitated with authoritarian centralized control." (3) In rural areas, economic reform prompted the distribution of commune lands to households, which had increasing choice in what to plant and sell. Beginning in 1998, however, the central government responded to the disastrous Yangtze River floods by changing the terms of environment and development in western China. Farmers were portrayed as forest destroyers who were among the culprits responsible for the 1998 floods. The forestry department reclaimed the forest in the west, undermining the security of farmers' property rights in forestland, which in Mengsong entailed loss of forests, pastures, and shifting-cultivation lands--a major change in property rights.
In the context of economic growth, but under the rubric of sustainable development, since 1995 CBIK has worked in Mengsong to identify and promote indigenous knowledge. In the mid to late 1990s, though, China's globalizing ambitions opened up Yunnan to neoliberal practices of economic growth and environmental protection. (4) In 1998, these concerns coalesced into a government crisis mentality, ensuring that separating farmers from forests became part of state rhetoric about how sustainable development would unfold, especially in western China. The linking of state development plans with environmental protection has resulted in upland farmers, largely ethnic minorities, being excluded from agricultural and forest lands allocated to them in the early 1980s as part of Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms.
These days, under rapid policy transformations ethnic minority farmers stay focused on government goals and the economic-development mandate, with Akha in Mengsong responding to a state project to plant monoculture cash crops on remaining fields. For Mengsong farmers, CBIK activities on indigenous knowledge and biodiversity, however attractive, are peripheral to the driving political-economic drama of recent land-use changes promoted by the state and may suggest that claims linking "indigenous knowledge" to biodiversity reflect urban dreams, rather than rural realities. The outcomes in Mengsong show how certain aspects of neoliberalism, those that combine environmentalist goals with central state development imperatives, have taken away ethnic minority farmers' land and the local institutions protecting biodiversity much more effectively than socialist collectivism ever...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
